The Monarchy

[terryberry1]

The Monarchy is apart of our identity. The Queen didn't choose to be Queen, She inherited the role. She cost's £1 per person of the population which represents superb value for money. With William/Kate and Harry The Royal's future is certain. Long live the Queen

 

[pigbite]

Rod Liddle (maybe bizzarely or maybe not depending on how you interpret his views) was defending the monarchy on Radio 4 an hour or so ago. Interesting arguments about history, continuity and lack of accountability but he had to admit that if you used the royals as an embodiment of everything that is wrong with the class system in Britain then you had a point.

 

[beorhthelm]

Either way, the main issue that everyone ducks is who owns the Crown Estate Lands. We all know what the answer should be - the state,

erm, it is. or at least the crown as an office of state and not the person. and you mention the glorious revolution, the event since when the monarch has reign by the will of parliament. the only reason you dont get a vote is because every party supports the current arrangement if you want, start an anti monarchy party then once in power revoke their contract. seems to me that most anti-monarchist dont understand the nature of the monarchy we have, or have missed the modernisation.

 

[Dandyman]

erm, it is. or at least the crown as an office of state and not the person. and you mention the glorious revolution, the event since when the monarch has reign by the will of parliament. the only reason you dont get a vote is because every party supports the current arrangement if you want, start an anti monarchy party then once in power revoke their contract. seems to me that most anti-monarchist dont understand the nature of the monarchy we have, or have missed the modernisation.

A handy guide here: Britain's monarchy | UK news | guardian.co.uk

 

[cunning fergus]

You sound very defensive of the concept of hereditary power. I think all that anyone can ask for in a democracy (and I'm sure even ardent monarchists can't argue against) is the opportunity to vote on the monarchy every time we have a general election. If anyone asked me, then I probably would keep the concept of monarchy but then delve back into our history and take something from The Glorious Revolution and adapt that. Because we have a monarchy, it does not mean that those in the monarchy have to be born into it, just ask William of Orange. Either way, the main issue that everyone ducks is who owns the Crown Estate Lands. We all know what the answer should be - the state, but when that issue gets sorted out is only likely on the death of the current Queen, if at all in my lifetime. Shocking really given that we are, in theory, a proud democratic nation that likes to tell other countries that hereditary power is no way to run a country.

Not really, but I do accept that this country's history has been based on this anachronistic tradition. New countries like Germany and Italy dont have this story, but then that's diversity for you!

In theory a regular referendum is OK, but the key point is making sure the elctorate understand the implications of the choice; and especially what does the other alternative mean?

You say you want a Monarchy but with the choice so presumably another referendum. Surely this system will introduce an element of competition which (if they go along with it) will politicise the monarchy as they jockey for public opinion? You may as well have a republic?

Like you though I am for democracy, but (as I stated in my first post on this thread) I haven't been able to exercise a vote on the EU or those who lead its respective institutional arms (Van Rompouy, Borroso and Buzek).

Of these two "undemocratic" institutions I know which costs this country the most money and which one acts solely in this country's interests. Let's have a referendum on both?

 

[cunning fergus]

What's wrong with an elected non-executive Head of State like the Irish Republic ? Mary Robinson was probably the best bit of PR the Irish have had for years.

I accept it works and works well for Ireland (didnt McCaleese make some savings recently) so good for them.

I will take a guess though that all their Presidents have been ex MPs/Politicians and that nominations for the President come from MPs or other politicians? That would be my beef...........our current Head of State is non political...............that should continue.

Taking a stroll down this hypothetical boulevard of yours if we did this we extend another office for our much loved political classes, who would you have on the shortlist...............one from each party maybe?

 

[34064 Fighter Command]

We've tried a republic when Oliver Cromwell chopped Charles I head off. It didn't go well..................... (ask any Catholic, Scots or Irishman). He ended up with his corpse dug up, and beheaded.

The Monarchy has ben around since Offa in 774 although it's generally acknowledged that Aethelstan was the first 'King of the English' after conquering Northumbria in 927.

 

[Storer 68]

Daft question. We already have one so no point asking whether we should have one. We've got it!.

Right question is "Do we keep the one we have "

To which the answer is to shudder at the very thought of "His excellency President Cameron!"

 

[Doc Lynam]

A handy guide here: Britain's monarchy | UK news | guardian.co.uk

What is the Guardian's position on the Queen?
The Guardian has launched a legal campaign against the 1701 Act of Settlement - which excludes Roman Catholics, Muslims and other non-Protestants from succeeding to the throne. It is also campaigning against the Treason Felony Act of 1848, which inhibits discussion of republican forms of government.


Obscene in a supposed democracy!

 

[beorhthelm]

Obscene in a supposed democracy!

i suppose no democracy has a treason offence covering the attmpet to overthrow the head of state? of course they do, yet freee speech and freedom of the press doesnt stop newspapers or individuals opening questioning and opposing the head of state (as many are doing here). "Inhibit" is a choice word, butcause they know full well they are not banned or prohibited from such discussion. essentially the Guardians postion is to shake their fist at the establishment (of which they are a part) while tactitly accepting the status quo of the constitutional monarchy.

 

[Dandyman]

i suppose no democracy has a treason offence covering the attmpet to overthrow the head of state? of course they do, yet freee speech and freedom of the press doesnt stop newspapers or individuals opening questioning and opposing the head of state (as many are doing here). "Inhibit" is a choice word, butcause they know full well they are not banned or prohibited from such discussion. essentially the Guardians postion is to shake their fist at the establishment (of which they are a part) while tactitly accepting the status quo of the constitutional monarchy.

The only real moral authority in any country is its people. Unless we have the right to determine our own system of government, we can not claim to live in a free society.

 

[The Truth]

Why did our wonderful Royal family like Jimmy Saville so much?

 

[Hillian1]

View attachment 37302

View attachment 37303

View attachment 37304

Is there a point to this?

 

[The Truth]

Is there a point to this?

Ever heard of a peado ring?

 

[Hillian1]

Ever heard of a peado ring?

Yep.

And if you're insinuating that everybody who ever had his or her picture taken with Saville is a part of it you're more insane than I thought.

 

[The Truth]

Yep.

And if you're insinuating that everybody who ever had his or her picture taken with Saville is a part of it you're more insane than I thought.

Sir Jimmy Saville wasn't just in a few picks with the Royal Family. He was a very close friend to them and spent lots of time with them . This shows they must of met on a common ground.
If you don't believe me, check for yourself

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Sir Jimmy Saville wasn't just in a few picks with the Royal Family. He was a very close friend to them and spent lots of time with them . This shows they must of met on a common ground.
If you don't believe me, check for yourself

And where's the evidence that the "common ground" was pedophilia ? Could that "common ground" have been charity work ? That of course wouldn't fit your warped argument !

 

[The Truth]

And where's the evidence that the "common ground" was pedophilia ? Could that "common ground" have been charity work ? That of course wouldn't fit your warped argument !

So you think Jimmy Savilles charity was for a good cause? You don't think there was anything wrong in a full blown peado setting up a charity for kids and then getting the support of the Royal Family?

 

[Hillian1]

Sir Jimmy Saville wasn't just in a few picks with the Royal Family. He was a very close friend to them and spent lots of time with them . This shows they must of met on a common ground.
If you don't believe me, check for yourself

You're barking mate.

Define "lot's of time" and define why it "show's" they MUST of met on common ground.

Actualy don't, you are clearly in need of help.

 

[glasfryn]

And where's the evidence that the "common ground" was pedophilia ? Could that "common ground" have been charity work ? That of course wouldn't fit your warped argument !

far as I can see the "common ground" was they all liked spending someone else's money