The monarchy

[Erawyn]

Sorry if this has been done before, but I couldn't find it anywhere.

What do people think about the monarchy (in Britain mostly)??

Do you think the royal family has anything to contribute? What about in Canada? The queen just came here and I thought it was odd how excited everybody got, and that people still think of her as our queen here.

[Sween]

Shes good for tourism. Yes thats it that all i feel on the subject :D

[BeardofPants]

I'm holding out for a New Zealand republic. And don't even get me started on fox hunting...

[Sween]

tell me about it wish they hadnt banned it

[BeardofPants]

...Barbaric sport.

[Comic Book Guy]

I refuse to say anything as I risk the chance of being locked up in the tower of London for a night.

[osszie]

High Treason is still a hanging offence here:rolleyes:

(FTR fox hunting should be banned, not only is the fox about as dangerous as a jellyfish in the desert but the hunt destroy's more bleedin' countryside and farm property, hedges, gates, arable land etc, than anything else, elitist swines gettin their jollies):mad:

[galadriel88]

I think that although the royal family doesn't hold any real power, they serve a purpose. Besides just sitting there and being royal, they act as somewhat of a backbone - they represent Great Britain's legacy and are generally loved by her citizens (the queen/queen mother especially). But I live in the US and could be very wrong...

[osszie]

Originally posted by galadriel88
I think that although the royal family doesn't hold any real power, they serve a purpose. Besides just sitting there and being royal, they act as somewhat of a backbone - they represent Great Britain's legacy and are generally loved by her citizens (the queen/queen mother especially). But I live in the US and could be very wrong...

No you're not wrong Galadriel88, there is a VERY big Royalist following in the UK.

As well as being monarch The Queen is also head of the armed forces and head of The Church of England, and as such she is also the biggest landowner in the UK.......she has plenty of power.

shutting up now, can feel the gallows rope being waxed;)

[BeardofPants]

I think I was one of the few people who went Whoop-de-doo when the Queen Mum died. You think she was a lovely old lady? Hah! And don't get me started on that adulteress hussy Pwincess Diana. Bah. :rolleyes:

[IronParrot]

The thing that I detested about Diana's death, specifically the media coverage, is that Mother Teresa died the same week and apparently, nobody cared.

Though I must say, the film Amélie played quite well on the Diana thing.

As far as the Queen coming to Canada goes... well hey, it's not like she has any real power other than being a last-ditch check or balance in case the Prime Minister tries to burn the Constitution or something... and if we didn't have her on the coin, who would we have? Wayne Gretzky? (Not that I'd mind)

I listened to the tail end of that honourary concert for the Queen last week. Oscar Peterson is my hero.

Now, as far as the Queen's role as the head of the Church of England goes... well, whether or not the Church of England should continue to exist as a state organization is a different issue entirely, and one that I have opinions on...

[mirrille]

Figurehead though the Queen may be, whether you have a good or bad figurehead makes a BIG difference. If you are going to have someone be a representative of all the pride, strength, and dignity of your country (or in our case, the Commonwealth), you want someone with a bit of pride, strength, and dignity to do it. In that way, I think the Queen is doing a fine job. :)

[Dunadan]

Well said. She does a good job. Whether the position should exist is another thing...

Did anyone else notice that the thing tourists like best about the Royal Family is that they are OURS and not theirs?

[Sween]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
I think I was one of the few people who went Whoop-de-doo when the Queen Mum died. You think she was a lovely old lady? Hah! And don't get me started on that adulteress hussy Pwincess Diana. Bah. :rolleyes:

No one in my family was too bothred she was over 100 she had a very good innings. Not like she had a hard life either is it? The only people really morning her were the makers of scotch:D .

I dont know why people liked diana so much. she was reasonably pretty and wore lots of nice clothes and did work for charity (well what else is she ment to do not like she has to work like the rest of us is it)

ill say one thing for the royal family if we didnt have them tony blair would be our head of state :mad: and that i would never stand for hes a failed lawyer and an overal smarmy git

[Elfmaster XK]

I dislike the monarchy. I think the whole sytem of a monarchy is archaic...which it is. It's not the same as how it used to be because of the power of parliament, but i think the Queen is a stupid wench. The only reason i ahve any kind of 'liking' for her is the same as Sween. I really really hate Tony Blair, and if i could reach him...*sharpens knife and glares*

[sun-star]

I like the monarchy. In my book, archaic does not equal wrong. Much as we (not I!) might like it to be otherwise, tradition is a big part of life in Britain, and the monarchy is a part of that. And they are very popular stiil, especially the Queen - I was at the concert for the Golden Jubilee, outside in the Mall, and those crowds can't be ignored. The Queen is a constitutional check to the power of Parliament and the Prime Minister, she's a great tourist attraction, and she appears to actually be a very nice person. Don't get me started on the monarchy, I see its faults, but then I'm about the only person in the country who actually likes Prince Charles, so...

And I think everyone hates Tony Blair, don't they? Beats me how he got re-elected. Oh, yes... no other options :rolleyes:

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by sun-star
And I think everyone hates Tony Blair, don't they? Beats me how he got re-elected. Oh, yes... no other options :rolleyes:
I don't hate him. He's far from perfect and perhaps something of a control freak, but he's much better than any of the PMs we've had over the last 25 years. At least he looks vaguely human, which is more than Thatcher or Major could boast.

[Sween]

Originally posted by Dunadan
I don't hate him. He's far from perfect and perhaps something of a control freak, but he's much better than any of the PMs we've had over the last 25 years. At least he looks vaguely human, which is more than Thatcher or Major could boast.

i allways liked john major. Maggie thacher was good for a laugh

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Dunadan
I don't hate him. He's far from perfect and perhaps something of a control freak, but he's much better than any of the PMs we've had over the last 25 years. At least he looks vaguely human, which is more than Thatcher or Major could boast.

Yeah, and he looks right cute sitting in Bush's pocket there. :rolleyes:

[Comic Book Guy]

I was at the concert for the Golden Jubilee, outside in the Mall, and those crowds can't be ignored.


I believe the numbers at that propaganda event were one million, the population of the United Kingdom is 80 Million, go figure.

[osszie]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Yeah, and he looks right cute sitting in Bush's pocket there. :rolleyes:

Cute!!?? I've met the bugger three times (I live three miles away from his home in Sedgefield, his constituency)

He is the most arogant, self-centered egotistical...........if I didn't know better I'd almost say he was an American politician:mad:

Only one word describes Blair..........unfortunately these boards are PG-13 so I can't say it here;)

As for Diana........don't get me started this "beloved princess and devoted mother" was swanning around Paris with an international playboy when she was killed............why was the devoted mother not at home with her children who one on hols from boarding school at the time........pfah.....she walked around a bloody minefield and visited the odd hospital and everyone treat her like the next mother terasa:mad:

At least Di did have the descency to wait until her father died before she started all her slutting around tho:rolleyes:

[BeardofPants]

Whisper the naughty word in my ear. ;)

Yeah: and let's not compare the number of charities that Di visited (and she dropped quite a few) versus Princess Margaret before she got so sick. Hah.

[osszie]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Yeah: and let's not compare the number of charities that Di visited (and she dropped quite a few) versus Princess Margaret before she got so sick. Hah.

Ah poor princes Margaret, probably the only sane one amongst them.........so sane in fact that the only way she could handle the rest of her family was to be as thourghly inebriated for as much of her waking hours as possilble:D

She probably did more to advertise Gordons Gin and Benson&Hedges ciggarettes than any amount of advertising:D
With the possible exception of the Queen Mother:rolleyes:

[Shadowfax]

I dislike the monarchy. I see the Queen only as a figurehead, and she really doesn't have anything to do with Canada's government (we are learning this in Socials 11 at school); I mean, all she does is give "royal assent (agreement)" to any bill that must be passed, and like she'll ever say to a PM, 'no I don't think this can be a law...' So yeah. I think that in Canada, al the lieutenant governors and governor general are just a waste of money. In my opinion, all the Queen does is visit her countries, wave, accept billions of flowers (oh my goodness, when she was here in Victoria...everyone had flowers!:rolleyes: ), and stuff like that.

But then again, what do I know??

[Dunadan]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Yeah, and he looks right cute sitting in Bush's pocket there. :rolleyes:
Not too pretty, I admit, but better there than in his crosshairs.

Blair worked very hard behind the scenes to maintain communication between the US and other nations, especially in the Middle East, over the past year. Obviously, we don't know what effect this has had. However, it might just be that being a poodle which may hold back Bush's itchy trigger finger will save more lives than sticking two highly-principled fingers up at him. He has also encouraged Bush in his occasional statements in favour of establishing an independent Palestinian state.

Aesthetically, I too would prefer to see our PM taking a moral stance against militarism and aggression. However, you have to be realistic about what you can expect from these people. If Blair hadn't supported Bush, the latter might not have bothered with the UN at all.

Whoops! Off thread for a moment there. I want to see It's a Proper Royal Knockout, where they get dressed up in silly costumes, play ridiculous games and the prize is a chunk of Civil List loot. The losers get their P45 and a job cleaning toilets till next year.

[sun-star]

I want to see It's a Proper Royal Knockout, where they get dressed up in silly costumes, play ridiculous games and the prize is a chunk of Civil List loot. The losers get their P45 and a job cleaning toilets till next year.

Maybe they should use that method to choose a government.

What should the monarchy be replaced with, if it were to be abolished (although I can't see that happening soon unless something very dramatic and unusual happens)?

[Sween]

I wont hear a bad word against princess anne met her once and said i was cute :D . Shes a grafter she allways seems to be doing something much more than diana plus she acctually achived something with her life silver medle in commonwealths or olimpics i cannot rember.

[IronParrot]

Well, in the event that the Queen's face is removed from coinage, you've always got John, Paul, George and Ringo to replace her...

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by IronParrot
Well, in the event that the Queen's face is removed from coinage, you've always got John, Paul, George and Ringo to replace her...

:D LOL!

[Comic Book Guy]

Well, in the event that the Queen's face is removed from coinage, you've always got John, Paul, George and Ringo to replace her...

Sure, from one overrated group to another.

[osszie]

Originally posted by Comic Book Guy
Sure, from one overrated group to another.

Well at least The Beatles managed to keep their act together for almost a decade;)

[FoolofaTook]

The Queen is just a figure head. She has no real power in her own country let alone in Canada. I don't see how everyone got so excited when she came here. Personally I want Canada to be totally independent of England and their Queen. I don't see why the queen has to approve of laws that aren't even in her own country. It makes me very angry that the Queen is on all our coins, and she has very little to do with our Country. It also makes me angry when some people refer to us as a colony. Besides the Queen isn't even really English...(some people are going to hate me for saying this)....She's GERMAN!!!

[Erawyn]

Yeah why is it that she has to apprive our laws? We are our OWN country now, it took awhile but we really don't have any need to have legal ties to britain at all! Anyone actually know why this archaic rule still exists?

[Shadowfax]

Originally posted by FoolofaTook
Besides the Queen isn't even really English...(some people are going to hate me for saying this)....She's GERMAN!!! German? How?

[Sween]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
German? How?

Queen victorias husband albert was german and theres some other stuff. Prince phills greek

[osszie]

"The British royal family changed their surname (last name) from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor in 1917.

World War One broke out in 1914 and was in full fury in 1917. In protest, King George V renounced all the German titles belonging to him and his family and adopted the name of his castle, Windsor."

I guess was considered bad form for the monarch to have a German name while we were at war with them:D

[Falagar]

The monarchy in Norway is a joke.
The only reasons we have them is that we can't send out our prime minister every time there's something going on.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by FoolofaTook
I don't see why the queen has to approve of laws that aren't even in her own country. ....she has very little to do with our Country.

This is why we fought and won the Revolution. Other reasons -King George was ripping up colony charters when he didn't like them, replaced LOCALLY elected officials if he didn't like them, taxation without representation in Parliament, quartering soldiers in our homes, blockading our harbors, searching without warrants.


Declaration of Independence (http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/charters_of_freedom/declaration/declaration_transcription.html)
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

[jerseydevil]

I couldn't live under a Monarcy or visit the Queen or royal family. I would not back out of room so my back would not be turned away or any of the other "protocol" you must adhere to. As my mother used to say "They put their pants on one leg at a time." I don't think they have someone else clothe them anymore - except for special occasions. :p My mother used to have other sayings too for indicating people weren't better than others - but I won't say them here. :)

Personally I can't picture England without a monarchy and there was a time when I thought that America should not have fought the Revolution (obviously changed my mind on that). I also felt that Parliament had taken too much power from the King/Queen.

[osszie]

Originally posted by Falagar
The monarchy in Norway is a joke.
The only reasons we have them is that we can't send out our prime minister every time there's something going on.

Norway has a monarchy??........We have a spare Prince (Andrew) we could do with marrying off if Norway has a spare Princess:D

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
German? How?

Actually after Queen Anne the next person in the line of succession was a cousin in "Germany" - George; not sure if his original German name was George though. He didn't even speak English. He became King George I in 1714. He was the first member of the House of Hanover to rule - which ended with Queen Victoria's reign. After that all the royal family has German ancestory. But it's pushing it anyway - all the royal houses of Europe were inter-related through marriage. You could just as easily say they are French because of Wlliam the Conqueror.

Don't have my English history books here - they're packed away - but that is from memory.

[osszie]

Anyone seriously interested in the power held by the UK Monarchy, this is a rather nice website:)

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page342.asp .........although personaly I could care less about the Royals, two quotes I've always enjoyed are...

Statesman in Tazmania: I welcome you. Although I can never forgive the British people for the murder, slavery, imprisonment and oppresion of my ancestors.
Queen Mother: As a Scotswomen I can only agree with you!

Interviewer: Prince Charles, do you feel any regret that your affair with Camilla Parker-Bowles has become public knowledge? Do you also feel that you have betrayed the trust in your position as a representative of the UK?
Prince Charles: Not really princes have been honest about their extra marital affairs since 1275............I do not beleive who they slept with then changed the course of history, I see no reason why who I sleep with now will either.:D :D

They are all mad German in-breds, but they do still have some charm;)

[Sween]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I couldn't live under a Monarcy or visit the Queen or royal family. I would not back out of room so my back would not be turned away or any of the other "protocol" you must adhere to. As my mother used to say "They put their pants on one leg at a time." I don't think they have someone else clothe them anymore - except for special occasions. :p My mother used to have other sayings too for indicating people weren't better than others - but I won't say them here. :)

Personally I can't picture England without a monarchy and there was a time when I thought that America should not have fought the Revolution (obviously changed my mind on that). I also felt that Parliament had taken too much power from the King/Queen.

funny that i allways put my pants on two legs at a time. Does that make me better than you all?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sween
funny that i allways put my pants on two legs at a time. Does that make me better than you all?

No - that just means you're strange. :)

[Sween]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
No - that just means you're strange. :)

good enough for me

[emplynx]

Monarchy is a bad idea. Most current monarchies are symbolic, which is a good idea for country morale and respect.

[webwizard333]

I personally think its silly and archaic, but as it doesn't affect me I really don't care.

[Telperion]

Originally posted by webwizard333
I personally think its silly and archaic, but as it doesn't affect me I really don't care.

I agree completely. The monarchy is defintely out-dated. It's amazing how many people still like it. The queen just visited us (Canada) and it was amazing how many people turned out to see the queen. Of course, that could just be people wanting to see a real queen and not people supporting the monarchy system.

[Dwarven Sen]

I personally happen to be supportive towards my countries royal family & find it disgusting that the media is prepared to write such trash in order to sell a few more 20p papers.
Our country has a long & glorious history that i happen to be proud of.
As for german heritage, the eldest son of Victoria was Edward VII of a german household, over a century ago. Since then the family have been prepared to change their family name to windsor for our country to show where their loyalties lay in the previous hundred years.
I mourned the death of the queen mother, and celebrated the jubilee with many many people. the royal family is part of our heritage, and my family has always been faithful to them.

sorry rant over.

[Miranda]

Originally posted by Dwarven Sen
I personally happen to be supportive towards my countries royal family & find it disgusting that the media is prepared to write such trash in order to sell a few more 20p papers.
Our country has a long & glorious history that i happen to be proud of.
As for german heritage, the eldest son of Victoria was Edward VII of a german household, over a century ago. Since then the family have been prepared to change their family name to windsor for our country to show where their loyalties lay in the previous hundred years.
I mourned the death of the queen mother, and celebrated the jubilee with many many people. the royal family is part of our heritage, and my family has always been faithful to them.

sorry rant over.

In total agreement with you. I really like the royal family and I think its so out of order how people hound them over the slightest mistake- they're only human. That seems to be something the press doesn't realise. Whenever they dig up some trash on one of them they don't realise how its hurting people. I especially feel sorry for the princes when they talk about Diana and all the scandal they've created round her or when they slag of Charles- they seem to forget that they're William and Harry's parents and that those poor boys have feelings that can be deeply hurt everytime the see something bad in the papers. When they went mad about Harry experimenting with cannabis I was like- what kid doesn't? There a very few teenagers in Britain that don't come into contact with drugs once in their lives and its all part of growing up, you face things and you act on them but sometimes you make a mistake- c'est la vie. Its ridiculous that the press seem so bothered about the monarchy when there's loads of other more important stuff going on in the world that they should be reporting about. Mx

[Dwarven Sen]

I am in total agreement, we just held the commonwealth games & all of manchester was happy to see the royals. As for cannabis I don't see the press actually saying just how many of us do take drugs, just cos he's famous doesn't make him worse for doing it. How many famous people are known for taking harder drugs?
I'm hoping to get into St.andrews uni next year, i wonder what its like for the princes.

[Ruinel]

A recent PM from another Mooter, has inspired me to do a little research, and to post this.

The Brittish royal family:
Elizabeth II and her husband Phillip (an apparent foreigner) head the famliy. Their offspring...




Charles (his offspring: William and Henry)

Andrew (his offspring: Beatrice and Eugenie)

Edward (his wife: Sophie. His offspring: Louise)



In the UK, the total budget for welfare was £100 billion, of which only a small portion goes to the citizens for support*. 24% of the total budget goes to unemployment, 42% of that budget goes to pensioners who have worked all their lives and are now in their golden years. (* I read on one site that a mere 5% of that £100 billion actually goes directly to the needy, the rest is absorbed in administrative costs.)

The total cost to the tax paying UK citizens for royal family welfare was...£4.7m. This is for only one welfare family in the UK.

None of them seem to have any real job, though some have joined the service for a short stint and do some charity work, occasionally. But as far as actually being self supporting, it seems that none of them care to do so, except Edward and his wife, Sophie.

Edward seems to be the only redeemable working member of this welfare family (but otherwise socially inept, see comment below). He and his wife actually owned their own business (a TV production company), even though it went belly up, and partially supported themselves. Ed's mom stepped in to help bail his company out, but the £250,000 wasn't enough. (Hmmm, I wonder if any other welfare mom's in the UK could have afforded a bill like that? )

For some reason, this family feels they deserve to ride on the backs of hard working UK citizens. Edward and his wife once walked 500 yards from Buckingham Palace to St. James Place for lunch. when he got there, he explained that they had traveled by foot "to give pleasure to the people." I'm sure everyone was utterly thrilled.

But surely the UK tax paying citizens are getting their money's worth. Or are they?
Royal family duties:



attending sporting events (such as a rugby game that included an £11,467 helicopter ride that was charged to the civil list)

traveling in high style to other countries to make a presence (such as traveling to China to encourage trade... wtf?)



One might argue that any family on welfare is sort of "on vacation", since many who are unemployed do not go to work every day. However, the royal family takes vacation every year from mid-December to February 6th. Their "work" week ends religiously before 3pm, when queen Liz takes off for the country estate, and begins after lunch on Monday. Must be nice.

We've heard of "generational welfare" families, where a woman with kids is on welfare like her mother before her and so on. Well, the royal family has been on the dole for generations before. Seems not a one felt compelled to make anything of themselves other than jet-setting mootchers.

Being a US citizen, I'm quite grateful to those American colonialists who stood up to England and kicked them out. I'm also grateful that not one penny goes to this family of freeloaders. The more I know, the worse an impression they leave on me.

However, I'd like to remind the Canadians that they're paying taxes to support this one welfare family across the water. Perhaps you should take up arms like we did.

Before certain royal-philes get their panties in a twist, I really don't care what the royal family of England does. I just don't understand how this sort of mootching is allowed by the honest, tax paying citizens of the UK. :confused:

Just wondering what other people's impressions are of this. I encourage your comments, pro and con.

[Draken]

Notwithstanding that our head of state has no executive powers and cannot influence the direction or policies of government, it is indeed true that a constitutional monarchy can always, by genetic accident, leave you with a figurehead who is cut off from reality, none too bright, or just plain embarassing.

Whereas certain countries seem to rely on a very extensive election process to find such people...AND give them executive power!

[Beruthiel's cat]

Originally posted by Draken

Whereas certain countries seem to rely on a very extensive election process to find such people...AND give them executive power!

*snicker* You wouldn't be referring to anywhere in particular, would you Draken???

(**I'm leaving now...I don't want to be around when jerseydevil sees this....**)

:p

[brownjenkins]

i agree that it is insane... many other countries hold onto their figurehead monarchies, yet don't subsidize them anywhere near as much... i guess it's mostly the 'tourist attraction' factor these days... though it still seems like they could get that without such excessive subsidizing

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by Erawyn
Yeah why is it that she has to apprive our laws? We are our OWN country now, it took awhile but we really don't have any need to have legal ties to britain at all! Anyone actually know why this archaic rule still exists?

I'm an anti-monarchist myself, but....

we don't have any legal ties to Britain; we have a long and glorious tradition as a free and independent nation going back for the last.....um, 22 years.( Repatriation of Constitution, 1982)

The Queen approves the laws of Canada strictly and solely as the sovereign of the people of Canada; as well as being the Queen of Britain, she has a totally separate and independent role as Queen of Canada.

Don't get angry at people who call Canada a colony; use the occasion to enlighten their ignorance.

Believe me, once you launch into a full explanation of the BNA Act, "Two Nations", Repatriation, the role of Federal-Provincial conferences, the Opting Out Clause, etc- they'll never want to talk about Canada's status ever again.;)

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Draken
...Whereas certain countries seem to rely on a very extensive election process to find such people...AND give them executive power! Hey, I didn't vote for him... you can't blame me. :p

ooops.. I'm off topic. :) Back to the real topic at hand.

[BeardofPants]

Well, Bush does look like an inbred shrub.... Isn't he supposed to be blah blah blah's royal cousin xth removed? Or was that someone else?

Oh yes, down up monarchy, up with republic.

edity edit: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2263945.stm

Yup, the shrub is related. I knew he looked like an inbred.

[brownjenkins]

royalty eh?

that explains this quote:

"I am mindful of the difference between the executive branch and the legislative branch. I assured all four of these leaders that I know the difference. And that difference is, they pass the laws and I execute them." ~ Washington, D.C., 12-18-00

[Ruinel]

So far... most of the UK citizens that have replied to my post are against a monarchy that is supported through taxes.

My questions now are:
[list=1]
why not change this? :confused:
if the money is so little compared to other taxes you pay, then why not separate the monarchy from your financial support and put that little bit you're already paying in to some better use? Surely the UK isn't completely without need someplace. :)
If this is a plan you think would work, where do you think that money should be diverted to instead?(i.e., education, highways, etc.)[/list=1]

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Well, Bush does look like an inbred shrub.... Isn't he supposed to be blah blah blah's royal cousin xth removed? Or was that someone else?

Oh yes, down up monarchy, up with republic.

edity edit: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/2263945.stm

Yup, the shrub is related. I knew he looked like an inbred. gag! More embarassment! :(

Off topic question: is prince William gay? No offense meant to the Brits, honest. I was just curious.

[Lalaith_Elf]

I'm not bothered about the Monarchy. At least Tony Blair doesn't rule over this country completely. Twat.:rolleyes:. It is pretty much just for the 'tourist attraction'. People make too much fuss about them. And Prince Harry doesn't get into much trouble for smoking dope. Lucky for some!:rolleyes: :mad:

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
royalty eh?

that explains this quote:

"I am mindful of the difference between the executive branch and the legislative branch. I assured all four of these leaders that I know the difference. And that difference is, they pass the laws and I execute them." ~ Washington, D.C., 12-18-00

:confused:

[Hemel]

is prince William gay? No offense meant to the Brits, honest. I was just curious. No idea :) But it wouldn't bother me one bit if he was.



And it's been known before .... Edward ... um .... that's it, II :D He still managed to have children with his wife, though.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Hemel
No idea :) But it wouldn't bother me one bit if he was.



And it's been known before .... Edward ... um .... that's it, II :D He still managed to have children with his wife, though. As I said, I didn't mean it as to offend. I know some people are offended by the whole homosexuality thing (I'm not).

I met this guy at the university I attended. Big, macho-type guy... joined the military and all that. Married his college sweetheart, had 2 kids... and one day... had a nice talk with his wife about him being gay, but that he still loved her and all, and his kids. They had a friendly divorce and now he lives with his SO and gets the kids on weekends and holidays.

Oops... off topic... again... damn, I'm bad :rolleyes:

[Hemel]

As I said, I didn't mean it as to offend. No, I know you didn't :) Doesn't offend me at all. :)

As for the royals, in partial answer to your original question, I'm glad we've got them. There are one or two, who, to quote Princess Anne, I think could 'naff off'. But I think some of them do a brilliant job and the ones I've met have been ... um ... well, I suppose, the word 'charming' would match what I'm trying to say :)

[Radagast]

Alas, Ruinel, what have I begun?

[Hemel]

Oh clearly the questions have been in my mind overnight, because I've woken up with other thoughts.

No, it doesn't particularly bother me, the issue of taxes. I really don't have the figures for what the royals cost and what they bring back into the encomy, and I suspect that it'd be quite hard to work it out (heh! maybe that's in their interests :D) because it would include such things as tourism, the affect on trade by visits, and so on. Also things like the Duchy of Cornwall - that's supposed to cover, I believe, Prince Charles' personal and public expenses.

For me I am far more interested, and indeed resentful, over things like the amount of money that is wasted on things like compensation cases against the NHS - that's a double, because not only is it taking loads from the service, but can also involve our paying for legal aid too. Or over the amount of money that gets spent on warmongering. Ah, and if we're talking grovelling - which is a word you used, Ruinel, somewhere :D - then what annoys me far more is our apparent slavish attachment right now (thanks to our toady PM) to following the US.

So far... most of the UK citizens that have replied to my post are against a monarchy that is supported through taxes. Just as a matter of interest, how many UK citizens did at that stage reply to your post in this way? ('post', I assume, meaning the one that begins ... 'a recent PM from another Mooter'). I'm asking because I don't know the nationalities of most posters, and you probably will, having been here longer :) and also because I can't actually see that reference (though I have only scanned the seven posts :) ). (The three posts before, though from over a year ago, don't seem to reflect that either, and I think they are from two UK citizens :) )

[Ruinel]

Hemel, I didn't count the US citizens that replied... only those I think are UK citizens. :) Not many have replied, that's true.

I don't know how much the royals bring in as far as tourism, only some of what they cost the taxpayers (not the Duchy of Cornwall stuff... I didn't see that, so it's not added in to the cost). I can't imagine what the royals bring in for the UK in the form of tourism being more than Disney World to Florida in the US, though, and Disney World is not subsidized by the tax payers (as far as I am aware). I only know one person that has been to Europe/UK and seen Buckingham Palace. No one I know is much interested in any of it, here.

What is NHS? Is that the National Historical Society? What is the compensation you are referring to?

As for the UK being slave to following the US... in a way, it's unfortunate for ME that the UK ISN'T slave to the US. :p I'm flying into London in less than a month and the exchange rate sucks for Americans (which is why I'm headed straight out after 2 days and on to Italy, Croatia, France, Spain and The Netherlands). My friend and I have plans to see your Natural Science Museum (or something like that), but Buckingham Palace is NOT on our list (no interest from either of us). We might hit some night life someplace (as we'll be on that schedule when we get there). :cool:

But as far as the UK following the US, no one here sees that. A lot of us feel 'W' is a slave to the oil companies and big business, and ignores the wants of the citizens. :mad: Many of the US citizens did not want the war in Iraq. Did 'W' listen? Of course not! :mad:

And of course, MANY of us think Bush needs to get the boot at the next election. :p And many of us are still in shock that the damn monkey is in the White House right now! :eek:

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Radagast
Alas, Ruinel, what have I begun? Hopefully, an indepth and intelligent discussion on the subject. ;)

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Oh yeah, because thats likely to happen.;)

[Hemel]

:D

Yeah, I would be interested, actually, to know if there are any reliable figures out there about costs and benefits of the Royals. :)

For tourism - ah, well, we get the impression that maybe there are quite a few people interested, and this does include USAmericans. Who knows? :)

Disney World and the taxpayers ... um ... something about Michael Moore and his new film Fahrenheit 911 recently?

NHS - sorry :o - I mean the National Health Service.

Hope you have a good stay here - even if it is only short :)

Hooray for your other comments (Not that I'm partisan or anything :D)
Hopefully, an indepth and intelligent discussion on the subject. Well, don't look at me! :D

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Fenir_LacDanan
Oh yeah, because thats likely to happen.;) As always, you have added much to our intelligent discussion. :rolleyes: [/sarcasm]

Would you care to make an attempt at including an on-topic addition here? Or is it too much for you today. :p ;) :)

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Hemel
:D

Yeah, I would be interested, actually, to know if there are any reliable figures out there about costs and benefits of the Royals. :) Surely your government provides that information to the taxpayers. Perhaps a department of tourism, or some other department that writes the checks for the royals? I'm not sure.

For tourism - ah, well, we get the impression that maybe there are quite a few people interested, and this does include USAmericans. Who knows? :) I'm sure there are some who are interested from here... I just don't know any (but one) that are. :o

Disney World and the taxpayers ... um ... something about Michael Moore and his new film Fahrenheit 911 recently? Yeah, I've heard about that. I hope it gets released. Not sure if all this is a publicity stunt or for real. Michael Moore tends to be just as big a drama-queen as Rush Limbaugh (without the drug addiction :D). But he's far more entertaining, and he's a much better speaker than Rush L. ever was. :)

NHS - sorry :o - I mean the National Health Service. Oh, then what is the compensation you are talking about?

Hope you have a good stay here - even if it is only short :)Oh, thank you very much.

Hooray for your other comments (Not that I'm partisan or anything :D)
Well, don't look at me! :D
Just speaking my mind, that's all.

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally posted by Ruinel
As always, you have added much to our intelligent discussion. :rolleyes: [/sarcasm]

Would you care to make an attempt at including an on-topic addition here? Or is it too much for you today. :p ;) :)


Alright then, if I must actually put forth a point to avoid the considerable wroth of Ruinel, then I must.:D

The British Monarchy does serve legitimate purposes in todays world. After the civil war of the 16 hundreds, the English monarch no longer ruled with absolute authority, as they were subject to a constitution (one of the results of the war). Hence the expression "Constitutional Monarchy". Most of Europe did not follow this trend, and thus as people began to realise they were living in a dictatorship, (King = dictator), and as they had no representation, revolutions began all over the place.

In a constitutional monacrhy, the people have the same democratic rights as everyone else, they elect their own leaders and so forth. The Queen still has one great power though, and that is to remove an ineffective government, but this is almost never done. (If it was done, and a government was removed unjustly, the people would simply revolt, so even the Queen is subject to the will of the people.)


The Monarchy's purpose in todays world is one of symbolism. Large amounts of money is poured into their (the royals) pockets by the people, but the people are happy to do it. In the Queen, England sees its vast history alive, and its traditions maintained. In times of war, and at peace, the moral leadership of the Monarchy give people a feeling of assurance that is quite hard to explain. The brits that I know, drinkers and brawlers among them, still all shed a tear when the Queen Mother died.

Just as most Americans cried when JFK jr died.


How was that, Ruinel, no america bashing either!
:)

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Oh and just for the record, I hate the royals and their Illustrious ancestors. Being Fenian, I would just be as happy to see them all overthrown, but thats just me. :p

I was just answering the question.:D

[Hemel]

Surely your government provides that information to the taxpayers. Perhaps a department of tourism, or some other department that writes the checks for the royals? I'm not sure. Hehey! You've already found out some figures, so I thought it was you maybe really interested in all this kind of stuff and'd be finding out? No? But for the record anyway then and just for starters Crown Estate profit for 2002 given to the Government was £163.3m and costs of the monarchy returned for official stuff (remember she's Head of State) £35.3m. If you search on www.royal.gov.uk and on www.crownestate.co.uk you'll find some breakdowns and this year's accounts from Crown Estate already are documented (in PDF)).

Compensation - NHS - yes, it's fair and right that if people sustain harm and costs because of NHS mistakes then they should get compensation. The NHS is the second biggest area of government spending I believe and has a budget of around £70bn this year to cover everything. Compensation has been called by the national audit office a 'significant and increasing drain on the resources available for patient care'. Which clearly isn't good news. Costs the last couple of years have been some £450m (a quarter going in legal costs and in a significant number of lower award cases the legal costs are more than the awards) and there's some nearly £6bn in claims in the way and anticipated and maybe some £3bn on top of that, for the next few years. The system is under review - the current one is open to gravy-training and also is not conducive towards admitting and correcting errors. Fraud is also a significant factor in NHS costs, though that has been much reduced this last year.

But then .... the costs of keeping Brits in Iraq is currently some five times the amount of NHS compensation. And some 70 times the cost of royals for official duties (which costs are less than a quarter of that gained by estate revenue). Kind of puts things in perspective, I think. :)

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by Ruinel
So far... most of the UK citizens that have replied to my post are against a monarchy that is supported through taxes.

My questions now are:
[list=1]
why not change this? :confused:
if the money is so little compared to other taxes you pay, then why not separate the monarchy from your financial support and put that little bit you're already paying in to some better use? Surely the UK isn't completely without need someplace. :)
If this is a plan you think would work, where do you think that money should be diverted to instead?(i.e., education, highways, etc.)[/list=1]
Good questions. My answers would be:

1 - Because Tony Blair would get to pick the replacement (see what he's done with reform of the House of Lords), probably himself. Otherwise, I'd be up for it. Sadly, most Brits wouldn't, especially the police and armed forces (who act in the name of the Crown), so that's that really.

2 - I suppose that a person who is Head of State ought to have the costs of fulfilling that role paid for by the State. The issue would be separating those costs from all their other jollies.

3 - Retraining scheme for unemployed/-able ex-royals.
;)

I agree with you, Hemel. Compensation culture is a major issue. Not only does it drain money, but also time from the NHS in requiring staff to record and audit everything that they do.

[sun-star]

I've posted here before, so I won't repeat myself. I'll just echo this:

Originally posted by Fenir LacDanan
The Monarchy's purpose in todays world is one of symbolism. Large amounts of money is poured into their (the royals) pockets by the people, but the people are happy to do it. In the Queen, England sees its vast history alive, and its traditions maintained. In times of war, and at peace, the moral leadership of the Monarchy give people a feeling of assurance that is quite hard to explain.

That puts it very well. Basically, if you don't get it, you don't get it. This is one of those cultural differences which you just have to accept that a foreigner isn't going to understand simply by reference to budget statements.

Originally posted by Hemel
Just as a matter of interest, how many UK citizens did at that stage reply to your post in this way? ('post', I assume, meaning the one that begins ... 'a recent PM from another Mooter').

One: Draken.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Fenir_LacDanan
Alright then, if I must actually put forth a point to avoid the considerable wroth of Ruinel, then I must.:D :evil: shouldn't that be "wrath"? :evil:
*pulls out a whip and gives Fenir a little flick* MWAHAHAHA!!!

... The Queen still has one great power though, and that is to remove an ineffective government, but this is almost never done. (If it was done, and a government was removed unjustly, the people would simply revolt, so even the Queen is subject to the will of the people.)Do you know when this might have been done in the past?


The Monarchy's purpose in todays world is one of symbolism. Large amounts of money is poured into their (the royals) pockets by the people, but the people are happy to do it. In the Queen, England sees its vast history alive, and its traditions maintained. In times of war, and at peace, the moral leadership of the Monarchy give people a feeling of assurance that is quite hard to explain. The brits that I know, drinkers and brawlers among them, still all shed a tear when the Queen Mother died.It doesn't seem that all of them happily pour money into the royals' pockets. Not according to a few of the posts here. Do you give money to the royals in taxes? (I ask because I know you do not live in the UK, currently, and I'm not sure about your taxes.)

Just as most Americans cried when JFK jr died. [/quote]Errrr... I didn't know JFK Jr... so I wasn't affected by his death. None of the Kenedy's cried when my mother died... why should I cry over him. :rolleyes:


[b]How was that, Ruinel, no america bashing either!
:) hmmm... not bad. :p So, you can post without bashing my country... nice. :D

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Fenir_LacDanan
Oh and just for the record, I hate the royals and their Illustrious ancestors. Being Fenian, I would just be as happy to see them all overthrown, but thats just me. :p

I was just answering the question.:D You are not alone, it seems. I asked in another post about whether you pay taxes for the royals... I'm very curious to know.

Ah... look... another post without bashing America... congradulations. :D

(Ok... I'll stop now. ;) )

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by sun-star
That puts it very well. Basically, if you don't get it, you don't get it. This is one of those cultural differences which you just have to accept that a foreigner isn't going to understand simply by reference to budget statements.
True, I suppose. I'm just trying to understand your point of view, sun-star. :) That's all.

One: Draken. Seems more than Draken, hun. :)

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Hemel Hehey! You've already found out some figures, so I thought it was you maybe really interested in all this kind of stuff and'd be finding out? No? But for the record anyway then and just for starters Crown Estate profit for 2002 given to the Government was £163.3m and costs of the monarchy returned for official stuff (remember she's Head of State) £35.3m. If you search on www.royal.gov.uk and on www.crownestate.co.uk you'll find some breakdowns and this year's accounts from Crown Estate already are documented (in PDF)). Hey, I spent over 2 hours finding what I did. :p But then I've been busy lately, too. Thank you for the information. I'll look at those sites in detail tomorrow... I have to wash the stink off me from the gym, and get my butt to bed/sleep. I have to work tomorrow. :p

Compensation - NHS - yes, it's fair and right that if people sustain harm and costs because of NHS mistakes then they should get compensation. The NHS is the second biggest area of government spending I believe and has a budget of around £70bn this year to cover everything. Compensation has been called by the national audit office a 'significant and increasing drain on the resources available for patient care'. Which clearly isn't good news. Costs the last couple of years have been some £450m (a quarter going in legal costs and in a significant number of lower award cases the legal costs are more than the awards) and there's some nearly £6bn in claims in the way and anticipated and maybe some £3bn on top of that, for the next few years. The system is under review - the current one is open to gravy-training and also is not conducive towards admitting and correcting errors. Fraud is also a significant factor in NHS costs, though that has been much reduced this last year.:eek: Damn! That's shocking!

But then .... the costs of keeping Brits in Iraq is currently some five times the amount of NHS compensation. And some 70 times the cost of royals for official duties (which costs are less than a quarter of that gained by estate revenue). Kind of puts things in perspective, I think. :) pththt! :p I hear ya! The new budget for Iraq and Afganistan just hit the news... I nearly choked. :rolleyes:

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
1 - Because Tony Blair would get to pick the replacement (see what he's done with reform of the House of Lords), probably himself. Otherwise, I'd be up for it. Sadly, most Brits wouldn't, especially the police and armed forces (who act in the name of the Crown), so that's that really.Bah... I mean totally get them off the dole... they can still be your kings and queens, etc... I'm just saying make them self sustaining in their personal lives and not bill the people for their excesses. :)

2 - I suppose that a person who is Head of State ought to have the costs of fulfilling that role paid for by the State. The issue would be separating those costs from all their other jollies.agreed... that's what I was getting at. :)

3 - Retraining scheme for unemployed/-able ex-royals.
;) BWHAHAAHAHHAAAA!!! ROLFMAO!!! :D
I just can't imagine it without laughing.. I just can't. :D

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by Ruinel
Bah... I mean totally get them off the dole... they can still be your kings and queens, etc... I'm just saying make them self sustaining in their personal lives and not bill the people for their excesses. :)
Well, I agree. Like the Dutch or Norwegian monarchy.

The main issue is that most Brits do NOT want such a "watered down" monarchy. The Crown represents what many people (not me!) regard as the essence of the nation. Even many citizens of Commonwealth countries agree (i.e. countries that used to be part of the Empire), which is why, I guess, the Aussies didn't ditch them the last time round.

But there's also a very practical question of what you replace it with. With something as important as Head of State, you don't want a tosser like Bliar, who has too much power as it is, dictating the way it goes. To my mind that is the one thing that is good about the monarchy: it's apolitical.

You only need to see what happened in the last Australian referendum on becoming a republic to get an example. Basically, their PM manipulated it so that it was a choice between keeping the monarchy and having soem dodgy political puppet. Not surprisingly, they opted to keep the monarchy.

Speaking of which, any Aussies know when the next republican referendum is going to be?

[Hemel]

Bah... I mean totally get them off the dole... they can still be your kings and queens, etc... I'm just saying make them self sustaining in their personal lives and not bill the people for their excesses As far as I'm aware they aren't on it. And they don't. And they pay taxes too.

And God forbid we should ever end up with an elected head of state like that awful Tony (oh, I never knew anything about the abuses in Iraq, honest, guv!) Blair. :mad:

[sun-star]

Originally posted by Ruinel
Seems more than Draken, hun. :)

What, who replied between your first and second posts? I don't think so, hun :) I was answering Hemel's question.

I never called anyone 'hun' before - makes me feel all American... :D

EDIT: Look what I found: stats (http://www.mori.com/polls/trends/monarchy/republic.shtml)

Pity it isn't a bit more recent - but 74% in favour! I thought it was nearer 50% at the most... :confused:

And for some international comparison, I read this story in today's newspaper and I'm in the mood for posting links: another monarchy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1213687,00.html)

[sun-star]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
The main issue is that most Brits do NOT want such a "watered down" monarchy. The Crown represents what many people (not me!) regard as the essence of the nation. Even many citizens of Commonwealth countries agree (i.e. countries that used to be part of the Empire), which is why, I guess, the Aussies didn't ditch them the last time round.

Wasn't the referendum really close to rejecting the monarchy? Like 55% to 45%?

Also, does anyone know if rejecting the monarchy would mean Australia leaving the Commonwealth?

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by sun-star
What, who replied between your first and second posts? I don't think so, hun :) I was answering Hemel's question.Ah... sorry. :) I meant in all the posts... not just the recent one. My apologies. :)

I never called anyone 'hun' before - makes me feel all American... :DI can make you an honorary Texan if you want. :D

EDIT: Look what I found: stats (http://www.mori.com/polls/trends/monarchy/republic.shtml)

Pity it isn't a bit more recent - but 74% in favour! I thought it was nearer 50% at the most... :confused:

And for some international comparison, I read this story in today's newspaper and I'm in the mood for posting links: another monarchy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1213687,00.html) [/B] *Linkety-link*Thanks for the links, sun-star.... errrr... hun. :D I'm shocked at the number that support the monarchy system in that poll. :eek: I wonder if the question was "Would you like to see the financial support of the monarchy reduced to only official expenditures?", if that number would be high or low... I didn't that question on that site. I was never in doubt that many of the Brits support having a monarchy, such as Radagast (who vehemently supports it) and yourself. It's charming, I'm sure, when they are on their best behavior (but rather an embarrassment when they aren't). My confusion is mostly over why the Brits eagerly pay taxes to support the monarchy's personal expenses... etc. (things not directly official).

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally posted by Ruinel
:evil: shouldn't that be "wrath"? :evil:
*pulls out a whip and gives Fenir a little flick* MWAHAHAHA!!!


Actually, my dear uneducated Ruinel, "wroth" applies perfectly well. :p

Do you know when this might have been done in the past?

It happened in Australia in the seventies, but was only done because the then government couldn't balance the budget. It was controversial, but entirely legal and above board.

It doesn't seem that all of them happily pour money into the royals' pockets. Not according to a few of the posts here. Do you give money to the royals in taxes? (I ask because I know you do not live in the UK, currently, and I'm not sure about your taxes.)

Another person who takes everything literally...:) By "all" read the greater majority of British subjects. Oh, and I am an Irish National, and Ireland is assuredly NOT part of the UK.*thumps his chest as a tear runs down his cheek as he looks with mounting pride at the rising Irish Flag, flutter in the morning breeze*

Errrr... I didn't know JFK Jr... so I wasn't affected by his death. None of the Kenedy's cried when my mother died... why should I cry over him. :rolleyes:

Exactly my point. Why cry over JFK jr? Or the Queen Mother? Or Diana? If you prick them, do they not bleed? They are no better than you or me.


hmmm... not bad. :p So, you can post without bashing my country... nice. :D

Well I do try to restrain myself after a spanking and a holiday.:D

[Janny]

Um... I was watching The West Wing the other day... all the people in it, besides President Sheen, all the poeple who wield power are unelected. Toby, for example, many key decisions, yes, knows secrets, yup, well paid, yup, elected, well no...

[The Gaffer]

THere is a valid point in there, Janny, in that our systems of democracy seem to produce governments which place the interests of certain groups above those their own people.

Another reason why it's good to have a politically independent head of state (though there's no reason why s/he couldn't be elected, like in Ireland).

I'm not surprised at those stats. I also reckon that roughly the same number of Brits are quite happy to believe that the Royals are good value for money.

Sun-star, is that a Japanese candle in the wind there? The British royals certainly regarded Diana as little more than breeding stock.

[Janny]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
THere is a valid point in there, Janny, in that our systems of democracy seem to produce governments which place the interests of certain groups above those their own people.

Bah? Who is involved in 'our'? UK ans US? I was kinda getting at the notion that it is odd to accuse the royals of being undemocratic when Toby, charming though he is, exists in government.
I meant that, while British politics has been muddied by Alistair Campbell, ultimately the entirity of people who hold power have been elected.

[The Gaffer]

You've lost me. Not a West Wing fan, so don't know who Toby is. And we don't elect our prosecutors, sheriffs or Upper House like they do in the US.

But the issue in democraticness is not just about electing people, it's about consultation and accountability.

[sun-star]

Originally posted by Ruinel
I can make you an honorary Texan if you want. :D

Ooh, ooh, do I get to say 'howdy'? Or is that another state... :D

[Janny]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
You've lost me. Not a West Wing fan, so don't know who Toby is. And we don't elect our prosecutors, sheriffs or Upper House like they do in the US.

But the issue in democraticness is not just about electing people, it's about consultation and accountability.
Fair enough. The thing that really gets me is the notion of there being no direct opposition to the president, like Mr Howard is to Mr. Blair (supposedly :p). That is a pretty big arguement pro monarchy: Queen or President Blair?

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally posted by Janny
Um... I was watching The West Wing the other day... all the people in it, besides President Sheen, all the poeple who wield power are unelected. Toby, for example, many key decisions, yes, knows secrets, yup, well paid, yup, elected, well no...


Thats because America, like most of the world, is actually a republic, not a democracy. A republic is the system of government in which we elect leaders to speak for us, and they appoint their own aids and so forth. A democracy, or at least the theory of one, is direct representation of the people in government, and the people have a direct role in every decision, which would be impossible in most countries given their size.

The people cant elect EVERYBODY, government would grind to a halt. You elect the main ones, and let them sort the rest out. The point is, and this is a big point, only the elected officials have the actual power.

Toby on the west wing has influence, but cannot make final decisions without the elected president. :)

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by Janny
President Blair?
brrrrr. Don't say things like that, this is a family board.

That did occur to me the other day, while watching some Parliamentary debate, just having got back from the States: I'd LOVE to see Bush dealing with PM's Questions in the House of Commons. He wouldn't last 5 minutes.

[Janny]

Is that praise of Mr. Blair? :eek:

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by sun-star
Ooh, ooh, do I get to say 'howdy'? Or is that another state... :D Absolutely, you get to say 'howdy'. :)

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Janny
Um... I was watching The West Wing the other day... all the people in it, besides President Sheen, all the poeple who wield power are unelected. Toby, for example, many key decisions, yes, knows secrets, yup, well paid, yup, elected, well no... Sorry, I don't watch the show. I don't know who these people are. :o

]Originally posted by The Gaffer
[b]...But the issue in democraticness is not just about electing people, it's about consultation and accountability.Hear, hear! :)

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Fenir_LacDanan
Thats because America, like most of the world, is actually a republic, not a democracy. A republic is the system of government in which we elect leaders to speak for us, and they appoint their own aids and so forth. A democracy, or at least the theory of one, is direct representation of the people in government, and the people have a direct role in every decision, which would be impossible in most countries given their size. Well, I see your point... :rolleyes: I certainly don't feel like I was properly represented in this damn war with Iraq. :mad:

oops... :o ... that's another thread... my bad.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Janny
Is that praise of Mr. Blair? :eek:

Mr. Blair may be a lot of things, but you can't say that he's a dumb shite.

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by Janny
Is that praise of Mr. Blair? :eek:
Sorry, I know it's upsetting, but he's no idiot. (Looking back at some of my previous posts in this thread - in my old incarnation as Dunadan - a couple of years ago I was still giving him the benefit of the doubt; how things have changed)

He's not the most convincing performer at the despatch box, but no politician can get anywhere in the UK without being able to hold their own in that sort of arena.

[The Gaffer]

But here's a choice, on-topic self-quote for ya:
Originally posted by Dunadan
I want to see It's a Proper Royal Knockout, where they get dressed up in silly costumes, play ridiculous games and the prize is a chunk of Civil List loot. The losers get their P45 and a job cleaning toilets till next year.