NationStates Jolt Archive

Im scottish and i hate the queen but it stands for our culture, and we aint afraid to fight for freedom and peace even when ours is at risk, ask france we were helping them and poland, and holland etc...

One example of the Anti-Monarchy sentiments felt by so many on this site. My question, if so many people are against them then should we keep them in place?

Do they have a purpose, do they benefit the UK, how do you feel about the Queen?

...I've a feeling this may be the start of a long and heated debate, maybe that's what British Politics needs to liven it up, another civil war.

British Monarchy: Good thing or bad? What should we do?

*dons tin helmet and cowers behind entrenchments*

I don't see the point of them really, however, they are well liked (look how many turned up to see the last one off) and the Queen does have the power to dissolve parliament (good for if the BNP ever get too much power)

If you want my opinion, when the monarchy was abolished after the civil war they should have kept it that way. What the hell happened? The monarchy represents an ancient, obolete form of repressive government and it should be thrown out entirely. What's so wrong with having a president? Are we so xenophobic?

Dolvich, or anyone who agrees with him..

..surely they have some use?

(Basically, i know they do, but i'm wondering how full of "anti" folk nationstates is..)

..If you can prove it i'll believe your argument.

Dolvich, or anyone who agrees with him..

..surely they have some use?

(Basically, i know they do, but i'm wondering how full of "anti" folk nationstates is..)

..If you can prove it i'll believe your argument.

What exactly do they do that a presidency couldn't do better?

Presidents cost the state a lot of money, monarchy doesn't.

I hate all hierarchy, but monarchs particularly annoy me. I hate how useless they are. :evil:

My computer is broken and will not be fixed for a week. I will continue to post only sporadically. I'm still borrowing computers.

--------------------------------
Free your mind!

Why no option called "Keep them, but keep striving to make the monarchy more modern, relevant and and cost-efficient"? I couldn't vote on any of the options shown.

Presidents cost the state a lot of money, monarchy doesn't.

in fact, the monarchy makes money for its country

If you want my opinion, when the monarchy was abolished after the civil war they should have kept it that way.

Yes, because the Protectorate was so liberal, modern and democratic! And definitely not an opressive dictatorship! Long live Oliver Cromwell!

I like the monacy, it gives national pride, gives money to charitys, and opens things. I think it's pritty popular, and who wants a presdent not me, a presdent is one more step towards Americanism

Cool, rather puts paid to the folk who vited saying they were spongers.

Presidents cost the state a lot of money, monarchy doesn't.
Oh, so several royal palaces, grants for maintaining them and £7.9 million per annum wages for the Queen come cheap?

Vive la Revolution! Admitted, we may have extra tourism due to the monarchy, but I don't think having such an oddity is something to be proud of.

If you want my opinion, when the monarchy was abolished after the civil war they should have kept it that way.

Yes, because the Protectorate was so liberal, modern and democratic! And definitely not an opressive dictatorship! Long live Oliver Cromwell!


Oliver Cromwell was evil, he cancelled christmas!

lol, well said oetopia.

The monarchy is a good thing ultimately. It has it's limited political power, but it would never use it. At this point, it is solely for the enjoyment of other nations' tourists. Besides, it's a piece of the rich tapestry of British history, it reminds us all who we are and where we have come from.

Once the Queen kicks the bucket it'll all be over anyway. The rest of them are worthless clowns and no-one will tolerate that gimboid Charles as king.

I support the monarchy, although we followed the wrong line - Henrietta Maria's children should be the monarch's of Britain, not Sophia Hanover's.

The monarchy is a good thing ultimately. It has it's limited political power, but it would never use it. At this point, it is solely for the enjoyment of other nations' tourists. Besides, it's a piece of the rich tapestry of British history, it reminds us all who we are and where we have come from.

Social classes are evil. They should be stripped of all wealth and live like the people they exploit.

--------------------------
Free your mind!

The monarchy is a good thing ultimately. It has it's limited political power, but it would never use it. At this point, it is solely for the enjoyment of other nations' tourists. Besides, it's a piece of the rich tapestry of British history, it reminds us all who we are and where we have come from.

Social classes are evil. They should be stripped of all wealth and live like the people they exploit.

--------------------------
Free your mind!

Doesn't stop them from being Kings or Queens - just that they have no money to go with it.

Ha! Get rid of the monarchy? Have an elected president? Great idea! We'll get more morons like Bush running the place! And why not intrduce another form of elected government, as if we don't already have enough!

Idiots.

The amount of money the monarchy brings in is great. Not to mention the fact that the royal family do a lot of chairty work. Keep the monarchy. They do the country a lot of good.

Anyone who disagrees is a moron and needs to wake up.

The Queen and the Monarchy do wonders for this country. They promote our businesses and bring in tourism. I agree that they should not be complete rulers, but the Constitutional Monarchy we have now is perfet I think, as we have a grand figure-head and also the right of democracy still stands.
Back in the days before the Civil War, i agree that some of our monarchs where quite unfair, but now, Her majesty can still be out great nation's fugure-head and kepp the tradition of our nation without ruling over us totally.
I say keep the Royal Family. God bless them all.
God bless our entire nation.
Keep the Queen. Keep the Government.
Rule Britannia.

Once the Queen kicks the bucket it'll all be over anyway. The rest of them are worthless clowns and no-one will tolerate that gimboid Charles as king.

charles wont be king for long anyway, he'll abstain

Doesn't stop them from being Kings or Queens - just that they have no money to go with it.

Why are we mindlessly advocating social classes? What did the queen do to deserve her status? Nothing.

----------------------------
Free your mind!
I hate kings!

Presidents cost the state a lot of money, monarchy doesn't.
Oh, so several royal palaces, grants for maintaining them and £7.9 million per annum wages for the Queen come cheap?

Vive la Revolution! Admitted, we may have extra tourism due to the monarchy, but I don't think having such an oddity is something to be proud of.

http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/102_fin_info_04_02_12/103_archive_fin_info_04_02_11.htm


She doesn't come cheap but she pays five-times that back so pay some respect, lol, she does more good than any of you. Or myself for that matter! :shock:

Why are we mindlessly advocating social classes? What did the queen do to deserve her status? Nothing.

----------------------------
Free your mind!
I hate kings!

I'm not advocating social classes.

Also, I suppose it depends on whether you believe in divine right of Kings or not.

I'm not advocating social classes.

Governments form a social class, particularly hereditary ones.

Also, I suppose it depends on whether you believe in divine right of Kings or not.

Don't get me started on the divine right garbage. Self-serving non-sense.

----------------------------
Free your mind!

Governments form a social class, particularly hereditary ones.

Well, that's up to what you consider to be a social class.

Don't get me started on the divine right garbage. Self-serving non-sense.

Again, I suppose that depends on whether you believe in that sort of stuff (i.e: God etc).

The problem with having a president as head of state is that they actually exercise their power to sack their democratically elected subordinates. You hear about this sort of thing all the time in continental europe - presidents sacking their prime ministers over political disagreements. Much safer to have a monarch who will probably never try to dissolve Parliament, and who makes the country a few quid from tourism on the side.

Well, that's up to what you consider to be a social class.

A difference in wealth or power.

Again, I suppose that depends on whether you believe in that sort of stuff (i.e: God etc).

Of course whether the kings had a rôle in making it up doesn't matter.

-------------------------
Free your mind!

Well, that's up to what you consider to be a social class.

A difference in wealth or power.

Again, I suppose that depends on whether you believe in that sort of stuff (i.e: God etc).

Of course whether the kings had a rôle in making it up doesn't matter.

-------------------------
Free your mind!

Well, you Brits always butt in into American politics, so here's a Yank's two cents:

I visited Britain with my fam, and we spend some thousands of pounds.
I doubt we would have done that if there hadn't been such a lively and vibrant culture, as well as CENTURIES OF HISTORY surrounding the British Monarchy and the stuff they accomplished (along with the terrible things they did - the Tower of London was fun, but gruesome).

You guys need the monarchy, if just for the tourism!

http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/102_fin_info_04_02_12/103_archive_fin_info_04_02_11.htm


She doesn't come cheap but she pays five-times that back so pay some respect, lol, she does more good than any of you. Or myself for that matter! :shock:

Those lands are Crown lands, they belong to the Crown, not Elizabeth. In practical, everyday terms the distinction is practically irrelevent, but it does mean if the Monarchy was abolished then the 'Crown' lands would be owned by the State, not by Lizzie Windsor.

You guys need the monarchy, if just for the tourism!.

In a word. No. A recent poll carried out showed that the British Tourist industry is not reliant on the Monarchy.
But to play with your view. If the Monarchy brings in so many tourists, why does that Republic just across the Channel (France) Have more tourists visiting the Ancien Regime Palaces such as Versaille? Which have been completely opened to the public. Surely we could do the same thing with Winsor, Buckingham Palace......etc. Also did you see the Queen? Did you expect to.

The problem with having a president as head of state is that they actually exercise their power to sack their democratically elected subordinates

There's a simple solution to that, don't give them the power in the first place. If the can't do it, they won't.

Much safer to have a monarch who will probably never try to dissolve Parliament, and who makes the country a few quid from tourism on the side.

And why would a Republic of Britain not generate a few quid from tourism? Also many Republicans, aren't Republicans from an economic standpoint, but from a democratic standpoint.

The Queen and the Monarchy do wonders for this country. They promote our businesses and bring in tourism. I agree that they should not be complete rulers, but the Constitutional Monarchy we have now is perfet I think, as we have a grand figure-head and also the right of democracy still stands.
How exactly does the Monarchy promote business? And why can a President not act as a figurehead?

Ha! Get rid of the monarchy? Have an elected president? Great idea! We'll get more morons like Bush running the place! And why not intrduce another form of elected government, as if we don't already have enough! Riiight, because the choice is to obviously either have a monarchy on the British model or Presidency on the American model :roll:
Also, you sound like you don't even like idea of the houses of Parliament, so do you think that Britain should go back to the "Divine Right of Kings?"

The amount of money the monarchy brings in is great. Not to mention the fact that the royal family do a lot of chairty work. Keep the monarchy

There is no proof that a Republic will bring in less money, and again many Republicans think of Democracy before Economy. Also, my Mum does a lot of charity work, why can't she be Queen?

Because she doesn't do as much the queen?

Well, the Mormons do a lot of Charity work, why don't we invite the head of their Church to be King?

Because he's not British?

Well, neighters the Queen.

Anyway, the ex-Queen will be able to do even more charity work in a Republic.


The monarchy is a good thing ultimately. It has it's limited political power, but it would never use it. At this point, it is solely for the enjoyment of other nations' tourists. Besides, it's a piece of the rich tapestry of British history, it reminds us all who we are and where we have come from.

Why should we be the world's dancing bear? We don't exist simply to provide enjoyment for other nations. And to suggest that British Culture would be ruined without a monarchy is insulting.

How does it remind us "who we are, and where we come from?"

dp

The royal family have been a dynasty of usurpers since the Wars of the Roses, anyway, since the rightful king was slain at the battle of Bosworth Field.

They are archaic and serve no useful or necessary function in a modern society. They are just a hangover from our feudalistic past and should be scrapped. I for one do not consider myself a "subject" to anyone I am a free individual despite the fact that in all areas of the British political system, it is required to swear fealty to the Queen.

If you don't then you cannot politically represent a constituency. So much for democracy allowing free speech in Parliament.

The problem with having a president as head of state is that they actually exercise their power to sack their democratically elected subordinates. You hear about this sort of thing all the time in continental europe - presidents sacking their prime ministers over political disagreements. Much safer to have a monarch who will probably never try to dissolve Parliament, and who makes the country a few quid from tourism on the side.
I read once that on one occasion she scrapped the labour Government in Australia and allowed the conservatives to form a government. I know it's a fact though it would take me some time to research more details of this.

Give me the biggest gain of a president of Britain please. The one thing that would tower above all others, the over-riding "get-rid-of-the-monarchy" argument, and don't surround it in rhetoric. I'd like to make up my own mind.

In 1970 Canada was faced with a domestic terrorism problem that was getting people kidnapped and murdered. In response, our government brought in marshall law for a week or two and arrested/held hundreds of suspects without charge.

We effectively had no civil rights for that brief period - damned scary. The Queen of Canada (who is also Elizabeth II Queen of England coincidently) holds the legal power - if necessary - to pull the plug on our government and order an election *IF* that government should one day decide democracy and civil rights are just too inconvenient to bother with any more.

This is pretty much the sole remaining power The Crown has over Canada, but I feel more secure knowing our government is answerable to a non-political higher power should they ever be tempted to become a dictatorship.

I feel sorry for republics like the U.S. and France which have no similar safety protection.

I read once that on one occasion she scrapped the labour Government in Australia and allowed the conservatives to form a government. I know it's a fact though it would take me some time to research more details of this.

This was the Australia's Prime Minister Gough Whitlam's government. The way I understand it, The Conservative Party there mischeviously used some defects in Australian law and governmental procedure to force the British Crown to take that action - it wasn't something The Queen personally wanted to do.

The Australian people could have simply re-elected Whitlam's government immediately afterwards if they had wanted to. They elected the Conservatives instead though.

I wondered if the same kind of thing could ever happen here in Canada, but I'm satisfied that Canadian laws and our own governmental systems (quite different from Australia's) would make it an impossibility.

Well, that's up to what you consider to be a social class.

A difference in wealth or power.

Well, what about an inner-city person on the dole who has just won £10 million pounds on the lottery. This person then moves into the most expensive neighbourhood - however, the neighbours shun him because he is not of the social class, depsite the fact that he now has lots of money and controls a building business (which is doing very well).

If you want my opinion, when the monarchy was abolished after the civil war they should have kept it that way. What the hell happened? The monarchy represents an ancient, obolete form of repressive government and it should be thrown out entirely. What's so wrong with having a president? Are we so xenophobic?

Oliver Cromwell was actually worse than Charles I when Oliver died, no one wanted to take his place and Charles II was actually quite a good monarch, Charles the first was insane however....


I think the queen should definately stay, the royal family prevents Governments having their own rule, how many people think what would happen if the royal family was abolished? "Premier for life" Blair! then imagine how our country has been run under the tories which are pro monarchy and then the disastours that NewLabour (Republicans) has encountered

Well, you Brits always butt in into American politics, so here's a Yank's two cents:

I visited Britain with my fam, and we spend some thousands of pounds.
I doubt we would have done that if there hadn't been such a lively and vibrant culture, as well as CENTURIES OF HISTORY surrounding the British Monarchy and the stuff they accomplished (along with the terrible things they did - the Tower of London was fun, but gruesome).

You guys need the monarchy, if just for the tourism!

how true, imagine if we didn't have a monarchy... say when the spanish armarda sailed for britain, without the speech that boosted the outnumbered Royal Navy's morale we may have lost also about 90% of our history involves the monarchy in some form, so we'd be a very boring country, look at some elements of the French history, all the exciting stuff happaened during the reign of Monarchs, after that French culture & history begins to get boring untill the late 19th & 20th century

Everyone is just jealous as they got rid of their own monarchy and now they wish they had not.

Well guess what tough luck the monarchy is here to stay and stay it will.

For my part, I think they represent the worst part of the old feudalist system, and they are the remaining chunk of a hereditary system that has no place in 21st century Britain. Imagine still having an unelected Head of State in this day and age! If it's really what the people want, then let the people decide. I don't believe the tourism argument for a second - are people saying that countries like France or Italy or the United States have fewer visitors because they're Republics!?

how true, imagine if we didn't have a monarchy... say when the spanish armarda sailed for britain, without the speech that boosted the outnumbered Royal Navy's morale we may have lost also about 90% of our history involves the monarchy in some form, so we'd be a very boring country, look at some elements of the French history, all the exciting stuff happaened during the reign of Monarchs, after that French culture & history begins to get boring untill the late 19th & 20th century

I don't think tht you understand the Republican position. It is not to erase all records of a monarchy but to take it out of the current British Constitution. And Royal History doesn't make up 90% of our countries history. The Spanish Armada lost for many reasons, if you look at all the evidence the Royal Speech probably did nothing.

The French don't have any intering non-monarchial history? What about Napoleon, or the Second half of the Revolution. The Paris Commune?

think the queen should definately stay, the royal family prevents Governments having their own rule, how many people think what would happen if the royal family was abolished? "Premier for life" Blair! then imagine how our country has been run under the tories which are pro monarchy and then the disastours that NewLabour (Republicans) has encountered

Again there are many options for what would replace it, I think the most popular one is a cerimonial President (like they have in Ireland and Germany).

How does the Royal Family stop the Government have its own rule exactly? The Government, provided it has a large majority and the suipport of its backbenchers, can do anything.

All sorts of myths surround the Monarchy, many have existed for several centuries. The biggest lie of all is that the Monarch is capable of apolitical and aloof from political scene. This myth was in existence, at least, since 1381, and it springs from an inperfect knowledge of the nature of Monarchy.

I have noticed that many Monarchist use scare-mongering tactics to make their case. That having a Monarchy somehow stops tyrants and dictators from taking power, but that arguement hardly stands up to historical scrutiny. Many Dictators took power with a monarchy present, some monarchs even became Tyrants.

So to all Monarchists,
How can you justify the existence of a Monarchy in todays Britain
Please try and do this without mentioning
a)Tourism
b)"Well its Traditional"
or
c) The Monarch stops Britian becoming a Dictatorship.

Just to let you know. The monarchy controls the armed forces. They are loyal to the queen,

Just to let you know. The monarchy controls the armed forces. They are loyal to the queen,

Just like the Russian soldiers were under the command of the Tzar in 1917, and that they were loyal to him right?

So to all Monarchists,
How can you justify the existence of a Monarchy in todays Britain
Please try and do this without mentioning
a)Tourism
b)"Well its Traditional"
or
c) The Monarch stops Britian becoming a Dictatorship.

They have a divine right to be there. :wink:

How exactly does the Monarchy promote business? And why can a President not act as a figurehead?

well actualy, i am not sure if you have seen much british produce, but if you actualy take a look, at least a good 50% has on it "by apointment of her majesty the queen, elizabeth II her most brittanic majesty

not only does this give the product a touch of class, but it makes peopel think, well if the product is used by royalty, then it must be worth it.

not only that, we are an island nation, we are a monarchy, do we want to become another boring republic? there are so many boring republics. We shouldb e proud of what we have, god knows the french etc are proud of theirs, i dont think we should abolish the monarchy. becuase we would get a moronic president whom IS only looking to improve his own powers, a monarch has been born to be the head of state. they wont go around on some. look at me, i am the greatest trip. they are refined, they are rich i agree with a known 3 billion in their personal bank accounts

As a foreinger living in the UK- why get all bothered about it? you don't see the dutch getting reall heated up over this do you? And they have a Queen.

Frankly, keep the Monarchy- without it you'll just start turning into America Lite. At least now Britian has something that makes it distinct.

And if you think abolishing the Monarchy will get rid of social classes, think again.

So to all Monarchists,
How can you justify the existence of a Monarchy in todays Britain
Please try and do this without mentioning
a)Tourism
b)"Well its Traditional"
or
c) The Monarch stops Britian becoming a Dictatorship.

They have a divine right to be there. :wink:


Not since the Civil War and the end of Absolutism :wink:

How exactly does the Monarchy promote business? And why can a President not act as a figurehead?

well actualy, i am not sure if you have seen much british produce, but if you actualy take a look, at least a good 50% has on it "by apointment of her majesty the queen, elizabeth II her most brittanic majesty

not only does this give the product a touch of class, but it makes peopel think, well if the product is used by royalty, then it must be worth it.

not only that, we are an island nation, we are a monarchy, do we want to become another boring republic? there are so many boring republics. We shouldb e proud of what we have, god knows the french etc are proud of theirs, i dont think we should abolish the monarchy. becuase we would get a moronic president whom IS only looking to improve his own powers, a monarch has been born to be the head of state. they wont go around on some. look at me, i am the greatest trip. they are refined, they are rich i agree with a known 3 billion in their personal bank accounts

Again make it cerimonial, don't give the president powers. Devolve the Royal perogative powers to Parliament. The fact that they are born to be Head of State means that British society is still inherently elitist. How exactly is the Queen a better head of state than Joe Bloggs, who has been elected by the people to be their representative.

"not only does this give the product a touch of class, but it makes peopel think, well if the product is used by royalty, then it must be worth it."

I don't think that explains why people buy Weetabix or shop a Harrods. Or do people only buy these things/go to these places because the have 'By Royal appointment on them'?

Just to let you know. The monarchy controls the armed forces. They are loyal to the queen,

Just like the Russian soldiers were under the command of the Tzar in 1917, and that they were loyal to him right?

The British Armed Forces or the most part revere and respect the Royal family, the regimental system draws strength from history and tradition and those who serve it understand the role that the Royals have to play.

If they ever tried to remove the monarchy I would resign my comission and refuse to fight under the invalid leadership to follow.

Arguments for removing them are all invalid, i've yet to see a single one which has any sort of solid foundation.
They do a sterling job, swear themselves to the service of the nation, do tireless work for charities and international diplomay, they lend the nation a uniqueness which sets us above the boring republics, their well managed properties earn hundreds of millions of pounds of which the Royals choose to keep none and give all to the taxman.

They have to endure media criticism, dissection of everything they do, barely any privacy and still they maintain their role as bastions of Britain and the Queen herself continues to support the British military.

How exactly is the Queen a better head of state than Joe Bloggs, who has been elected by the people to be their representative.

She has been doing it all her life, trained in it all her life as have her sucessors. Joe Bloggs' days would be numbered so he would be corrupt in seeking personal gain (as do most presidents). The Queen understands her role and understand that there is no sense and no moral desency in corruption as it denefits no-one. It takes great social conditioning to be able to resist temptation to greed. The Queen has this, not many presidents do.
Bliar has been elected, Labour was voted in...and look what happenned there!
The Royals set us on the path to empire (whether that be good or bad) but whatever, if it were not for them we would be no more prominent in the world than Eire.

Has society reached such a point where we cannot give respect even where it is due?

TNE

The British Armed Forces or the most part revere and respect the Royal family, the regimental system draws strength from history and tradition and those who serve it understand the role that the Royals have to play.
What role is that? Commander in Chief? When was the last time a royal led the forces?
How does the system draw its strength from history and tradition?

If they ever tried to remove the monarchy I would resign my comission and refuse to fight under the invalid leadership to follow. Why would it be invalid leadership?
Although it is regretable that you (and becuase I don't trhink that you are unique) and other like you will resign, it is unlikely ever CO will resign their commision, and I think it is unlikely that the numbers will never pick up again.

Arguments for removing them are all invalid, i've yet to see a single one which has any sort of solid foundation.
What is a 'Solid foundation?' Do you not value free speech, civil rights and democracy?
They do a sterling job, swear themselves to the service of the nation, do tireless work for charities and international diplomay, they lend the nation a uniqueness which sets us above the boring republics, their well managed properties earn hundreds of millions of pounds of which the Royals choose to keep none and give all to the taxman.
So do diplomats and abassadors. Charity work isn't a good enough arguement to keep the monarchy. Others do more charity work, and anyway they can still do charity work without the HRH. There property is 'Crown' land, which means if Britain did become a Republic, the land would become state owned, and it is only recently that the Queen began paying income tax.

They have to endure media criticism, dissection of everything they do, barely any privacy and still they maintain their role as bastions of Britain and the Queen herself continues to support the British military. Same with celebs. Anyway I kinda think that never having to worry about a job, never going short on anything amoung other things makes up for it. I never understand how anyone buys the "They sacrifice so much to be royal" arguement. If it was really so bad then there would be a high rate of abbdication and giving up claims to the throne.

How exactly is the Queen a better head of state than Joe Bloggs, who has been elected by the people to be their representative.

She has been doing it all her life, trained in it all her life as have her sucessors. Joe Bloggs' days would be numbered so he would be corrupt in seeking personal gain (as do most presidents). The Queen understands her role and understand that there is no sense and no moral desency in corruption as it denefits no-one. It takes great social conditioning to be able to resist temptation to greed. The Queen has this, not many presidents do.[/quote]
This make a number of assumptions.
a)the Monarchy are somehow naturally better than us mere mortals. They evidently have no original sin, and would never do anything wrong.
b) Presidents,due to there ordinairyness, are corrupt (or tend to be corrupt)
c) That all presidents have enough power to abuse their position

How do you know the Queen has all this attributes anyway.

Bliar has been elected, Labour was voted in...and look what happenned there!
What happened. I can think of a number things, good and bad, that Queen never stopped.

The Royals set us on the path to empire (whether that be good or bad) but whatever, if it were not for them we would be no more prominent in the world than Eire.

Has society reached such a point where we cannot give respect even where it is due?


No, society can still offer respect where its due. But the current royal family is not responsible for any of these things, so why should respect them because of it?

Britian has changed the world in many ways, and many of Britains great individuals had nothing to do with royalty. I think these people deserve respect for what they have done, but as you say society doesn't do that.

Well I think the Monarchy is a good thing. Why? Because it attracts tourism and tourism is a surprisingly substancial part of our economy.
I dont think that we would have as many tourists coming to the UK if the monarchy was abolished. It also gives us a sense of identity. Something which the country and the west in general is loosing rapidly.

Spoffin, if the BNP ever came to power(and God willing they will) it would be the peoples choice, therefore if the state would even consider doing that(and I am sure the EU would encourage it)then the country would be plunged into a civil war. Maybe a civil war is the only way the BNP and truly democratic left wing elements can establish real democracy in the country and put an end to a corrupt anti-democratic state and to people like you making such remarks.

Well I think the Monarchy is a good thing. Why? Because it attracts tourism and tourism is a surprisingly substancial part of our economy.
I dont think that we would have as many tourists coming to the UK if the monarchy was abolished. It also gives us a sense of identity. Something which the country and the west in general is loosing rapidly.

Spoffin, if the BNP ever came to power(and God willing they will) it would be the peoples choice, therefore if the state would even consider doing that(and I am sure the EU would encourage it)then the country would be plunged into a civil war. Maybe a civil war is the only way the BNP and truly democratic left wing elements can establish real democracy in the country and put an end to a corrupt anti-democratic state and to people like you making such remarks.

The Monarchy does have its advantages and disadvantages:

1. National identity and pride
2. Tourism, as Bayorta said

BUT

1. Drain of the treasury
2. Collection of sex and other scandals, therefore damaging theirs and Britain's reputation

The Monarchy does have its advantages and disadvantages:

1. National identity and pride
2. Tourism, as Bayorta said

BUT

1. Drain of the treasury
2. Collection of sex and other scandals, therefore damaging theirs and Britain's reputation

1.Britain has far more to be proud of than a few nobs.
2. The royals don't attract that many tourists (however, royal edifices do, but noone is suggesting taking those done)

BUT

1. They aren't that much of a drain.

Collection of sex and other scandals, therefore damaging theirs and Britain's reputation

I must say that I agree with you on that point. It is partly the fault of the British Media though for exposing such things. Nonetheless many royals need to get their act together and start doing things for the country. Join the army if they must, but at least do something. Plus I think their 'salary' should be lowered significantly and all their lands should be owned by the state rather than the actual people. I personally think that if you wanted to change anything that would be a fairer way of doing it, rather than simply aboloishing it and creating a hole in the tourist section of the economy.

IMO Prince Andrew should be our King once our beloved Elizabeth II passes away.

The Monarchy does have its advantages and disadvantages:

1. National identity and pride
2. Tourism, as Bayorta said

BUT

1. Drain of the treasury
2. Collection of sex and other scandals, therefore damaging theirs and Britain's reputation

1.Britain has far more to be proud of than a few nobs.
2. The royals don't attract that many tourists (however, royal edifices do, but noone is suggesting taking those done)

BUT

1. They aren't that much of a drain.

1. Are you kidding? I'd love to have a Chinese monarch, even if he was a puppet/icon.

2. Oh they do. What about the royal parades? Where else in the world can you see such an elegant royal parade?

BUT

1. They're still a drain.

I do believe the monarchy brings in quite a lot of tourists and money, however they are a bunch of spongers and should do more work for a lot less, in fact they shouldn't be given any more money from the British taxes, duchys or anything else ever.
Saying that I also would not ever like to see the grinning idiot Blair with any more power than he has, we should drop him and the other fool Bush in the Iraqi desert and leave them there to fry.

Listen the Monarchy is good for lots of things, yes there's charity, figureheads and all that, and yes I know there are scandals too but hey, does anyone really believe that a President wouldn't have scandals too, what about Bush's daughter and her drunken state she was found in, or Blair's son who was found passed out in the middle of London, not very different to Harry smoking pot is it?

The reason the monarchy should stay is that they provide stability, we have had a national leader for over 50 years, who through that time has had, relative to her length of time on the throne, very few scandals, especially related to her personally. She provides something which over half the population have had as leader and been familiar with all their lives, and we know for all of our lives who theruler will be when we are a child, when we are an adult and when we are at the end of our lives through the heirs to the thone.

Not only this, but the heirs know this too. From birth they understand that they will someday be the Monarch and can prepare for this, they have been brought up in this environment all of their lives and will be able to do a good job of it, it's like a lifetime of work-shadowing!!! An elected president will not have this and therefore will be at a disadvantage. Also, being a leader from birth means that you can't be unelected and lose power, therefore you are less susceptible to corruption in the fight for and to retain power than an elected official is, and so will be a more truthful and respected leader, with much more time to devote to the real issues at hand, than an elected president who will do things because they are "popular" and not because they are right, just in order to retain power.

Not only this but they are constant reminder of our heritage and how our nation came to be what it is today.

The monarchy is good for tourism and that is ALL.

She has been on the throne for over 50 years and had very few scandals because quite simply "The establishment" buries them.

If they ever outlived their usefullness to tourism then they should all be done away with, they are spongers and hangers on.

The fact that they are a leader from birth and can be Unelected is a total farce, who wants Tampax Charlie on the throne? not many I expect. Yet because the throne is his from birth means we can get that blithering buffoon and we can't do a thing about it.

What contribution does horse face Anne and her ugly kids add to our country? Or playboy Andrew, his ex, his kids? What about universally disliked Edward? and all thier offspring?
Then there is the idiot Philip!! and the point of him is??????
Right back to "Queen Victoria" who never even deigned to speak to her "Subjects" for 40 odd years because she was in mourning? yes right and having affairs.

Then there are all the taxes that they don't have to pay, and if you die without leaving a will and no one comes forward to claim guess who gets the money????

GET RID OF THEM.

Won't the inter-marriage associated with "Royalty" eventually result in Zombified inbred mutants? :twisted:

Won't the inter-marriage associated with "Royalty" eventually result in Zombified inbred mutants? :twisted:

You mean it is not like already[/obvious joke]

Not since the Civil War and the end of Absolutism :wink:

Well, that is a matter of opinion.

Spoffin, if the BNP ever came to power(and God willing they will) it would be the peoples choice, therefore if the state would even consider doing that(and I am sure the EU would encourage it)then the country would be plunged into a civil war. Maybe a civil war is the only way the BNP and truly democratic left wing elements can establish real democracy in the country and put an end to a corrupt anti-democratic state and to people like you making such remarks.

I can't believe you said that! If the BNP were to come into power we would see genocide!

Spoffin, if the BNP ever came to power(and God willing they will) it would be the peoples choice, therefore if the state would even consider doing that(and I am sure the EU would encourage it)then the country would be plunged into a civil war. Maybe a civil war is the only way the BNP and truly democratic left wing elements can establish real democracy in the country and put an end to a corrupt anti-democratic state and to people like you making such remarks.

I can't believe you said that! If the BNP were to come into power we would see genocide!

What world are you living in? Why on earth would we see genocide if the BNP came into power? Please Catholic Europe dont believe the British state or the British media or any other party. The BNP is not associated with the NF or National Socialism. Will it take for one of their members to kill Nick Griffin before the rest of the country sees that?

Watch Al-Arabiya or Al-Jazeera one day and see whats REALLY happening in the country. They are currently the only two television companies that I trust for real unbiased news.

Here is a party with a true chance for democracy in the country, a party that will be able to put an end to a corrupt state and start doing things for the people. By this I mean truly FOR the British people and not the European people, which is what will happen if this EU nonsense goes too far.

Give democracy a chance CE!

Sigh

Why is there a British National Party when there is no British nation? The UK has three major nationalities inhabiting it- the English, Scots and Irish along with minor nationalities such as the Welsh, Indians, Pakistanis etc.

I'm an Indian studying in the UK and hoping to settle down here- if the BNP came to power I'm sure they'd do their best to "encourage" me and others like me including people who have been born and brought up in the UK to leave.

Kristaalnatch anyone?

Give democracy a chance CE!

Oh, I will give democracy a chance. I will do everything in my power to stop the racist, white bigots from getting into power under false pretences, who would take the UK into a Nazi state and exterminate all those who do not fit their ideals.

I will give democracy a chance, I will do my utmost in order to ensure taht no one ever votes for the BNP.

Sigh

Why is there a British National Party when there is no British nation? The UK has three major nationalities inhabiting it- the English, Scots and Irish along with minor nationalities such as the Welsh, Indians, Pakistanis etc.

The "B" in BNP is a bit of a stumbling block outside of England -- but the English tend to think that "England" and "Britain" are synonymous. And the BNP are, indeed, a front for the far right with a whole bunch of weird connections with fundamentalist Christian groups; Loyalist and Unionist terrorist gangs in Ulster and their associated drug-dealers, thieves and other criminals; and of course your run-of-the-mill skinhead bootboys with learning difficulties and poor impulse control. They prey on the frustrations of the abandoned working class, left by both the Tories and "New Labour" to rot on the schemes with nothing to hope for. Not an excuse for voting for thugs and tinpot nazi wannabes, IMO, but I can see how it happens.

I'm an Indian studying in the UK and hoping to settle down here- if the BNP came to power I'm sure they'd do their best to "encourage" me and others like me including people who have been born and brought up in the UK to leave.

Kristaalnatch anyone?

Come to sunny Scotland, then -- we like to pretend we don't have any racists up here but in truth it's just that we have a smaller immigrant population and we're already busy hating each other for being either Celtic or Rangers supporters. But at least the BNP aren't likely to gain any seats. Fortunately the Labour Party's abandonment of the working class has galvanised support for the Scottish Socialists up here.

And the BNP are, indeed, a front for the far right with a whole bunch of weird connections with fundamentalist Christian groups; Loyalist and Unionist terrorist gangs in Ulster.

Would they be against Catholics then who are allied to a Polish man in Italy?!

Not since the Civil War and the end of Absolutism :wink:

Well, that is a matter of opinion.

No it isn't. The idea of the "Divine Right of Kings" died in the English Civil War and the French Revolution (for those countries). It simply doesn't exist, and it can be (and has been) claimed it never existed ~(But that is moot). Absolutism, as far as political theories go, was fairly short lived, and many attempts to maintain it resulted in violence. It was a concept that was engineered by the aristocracy and monarchies to enstil in the population a sense of awe (which could easily be abused) to give them 'free-reign' over everyone.

Surely logic dictates that Kings weren't appointed by God? Why would he plague Europe with ineefectial, weak and unskillful kings (who were, in the long run, responsible for many nations turning their back on Monarchical government)? Unless of course, God doesn't like monarchy either, so he did his best to undermine the institution and make the people realise they were capable of ruling themselves. Of course, this God would contradict the God of the Bible.

And the BNP are, indeed, a front for the far right with a whole bunch of weird connections with fundamentalist Christian groups; Loyalist and Unionist terrorist gangs in Ulster.

Would they be against Catholics then who are allied to a Polish man in Italy?!

What about those who feel Karol (sp?) is a nice enough old man, but don't agree with papal supremacy?

No it isn't. The idea of the "Divine Right of Kings" died in the English Civil War and the French Revolution (for those countries). It simply doesn't exist, and it can be (and has been) claimed it never existed ~(But that is moot). Absolutism, as far as political theories go, was fairly short lived, and many attempts to maintain it resulted in violence. It was a concept that was engineered by the aristocracy and monarchies to enstil in the population a sense of awe (which could easily be abused) to give them 'free-reign' over everyone.

Surely it is up to the individual person as to whether they believe in the divine right of Kings or not.

Surely it is up to the individual person as to whether they believe in the divine right of Kings or not.

I'm sure it depends on the individual. But it is possible to believe in something that doesn't exist. But belief in something doesn't make something exist (except on the Discworld of course).

But the Divinve Right of Kings means that kings are divinly appionted. So why would God choose ineffectual, weak and unskillful kings who couldn't maintain the institution of Monarchy?

YOU BINCH OF TREASOUNOUS BASTARDS!
ITS NOT THE QUEENS FAULT HER POWER WAS STRIPPED FROM HER!
And let me give u a historical example of the crown,
1940 France falls, Most peoplel are wanting Lord HAlifax in charge including OUR PM! But the king rrealises whats best for ythe nation
It was thanks to his call up of winston churchill that nazi germany was defeated, YOU TREASONOUS PRICKS! AND BY THE WAY IM NOT ENGLISH IM SCOTISH AND MY FAMILY IS SCOTISH HAIL THE QUEEN! and if we didnt have the crown WED HAVE THE FUCKING POPE RULING THE WORLD

YOU BINCH OF TREASOUNOUS BASTARDS!
ITS NOT THE QUEENS FAULT HER POWER WAS STRIPPED FROM HER!
And let me give u a historical example of the crown,
1940 France falls, Most peoplel are wanting Lord HAlifax in charge including OUR PM! But the king rrealises whats best for ythe nation
It was thanks to his call up of winston churchill that nazi germany was defeated, YOU TREASONOUS PRICKS! AND BY THE WAY IM NOT ENGLISH IM SCOTISH AND MY FAMILY IS SCOTISH HAIL THE QUEEN! and if we didnt have the crown WED HAVE THE f--- POPE RULING THE WORLD

By any chance, do you beleive that whole of modern history can be interpreted as a power struggle between the Vatican and the British Royal Family (the Albionians or something like that).

But back to your example. Learn a wider scope of History first. First things first. WW II wasn't Britain vs. Germany. You have no proof that Churchill was a better leader than Halifax, and by the sounds of it you don't seem to understand Churchills role in the war fully.

"YOU BINCH OF TREASOUNOUS BASTARDS!
ITS NOT THE QUEENS FAULT HER POWER WAS STRIPPED FROM HER!
And let me give u a historical example of the crown,
1940 France falls, Most peoplel are wanting Lord HAlifax in charge including OUR PM! But the king rrealises whats best for ythe nation
It was thanks to his call up of winston churchill that nazi germany was defeated, YOU TREASONOUS PRICKS! AND BY THE WAY IM NOT ENGLISH IM SCOTISH AND MY FAMILY IS SCOTISH HAIL THE QUEEN! and if we didnt have the crown WED HAVE THE f--- POPE RULING THE WORLD"

Oh, dear - didn't mummy tell you about eating too much sugar?

So, I'm treasonous. What exactly do you intend to do about this?

So, I'm treasonous. What exactly do you intend to do about this?

He cannot do anything (Thanks to the ECHR). But up until recently is was illegal to even call for a Republic in Britain (see here) (http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,2763,986030,00.html)

So, I'm treasonous. What exactly do you intend to do about this?

He cannot do anything (Thanks to the ECHR). But up until recently is was illegal to even call for a Republic in Britain (see here) (http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,2763,986030,00.html)

So, I'm treasonous. What exactly do you intend to do about this?

He cannot do anything (Thanks to the ECHR). But up until recently is was illegal to even call for a Republic in Britain (see here) (http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,2763,986030,00.html)

Thanks, I was wondering what happened about that.

I'm not sure who's more disturbing, the rabid child or the naive BNP supporter.

Thanks, I was wondering what happened about that.

I'm not sure who's more disturbing, the rabid child or the naive BNP supporter.

Rabid child. Should be put down. It'd be an act of mercy. Naivity can be lost easily. However, although I hate the BNP, I still don't feel the Queen should have the right to dissolve parliament if they ever got into power.

Im Canadian and im all for the independance of my own country, free from British Law, but im of practically full british blood, and i dont know what i'd do if i thought for a minute we had lost our monarchy. It gives us something to look up to, to say we have glory. Its always sad when a monarch dies, and i feel sorry for ANY nation when it loses its monarch, be it a king or queen. I do NOT like, however, dictators, and i prefer my monarchy to hjave little power, but power nonetheless. I believe that monarchies found nations, but shouldnt rule ABSOLUTE forever.

Monarchs are among the worst form of government. At least presidents can pretend to be democratic.

-----------------------------
Free your mind!

Im Canadian and im all for the independance of my own country, free from British Law, but im of practically full british blood, and i dont know what i'd do if i thought for a minute we had lost our monarchy. It gives us something to look up to, to say we have glory. Its always sad when a monarch dies, and i feel sorry for ANY nation when it loses its monarch, be it a king or queen. I do NOT like, however, dictators, and i prefer my monarchy to hjave little power, but power nonetheless. I believe that monarchies found nations, but shouldnt rule ABSOLUTE forever.

If you feel that way then I would be fine with shipping the whole roiyal family over to Canada. But why do you feel the need to have to "look up" to a load of inbred aristocrats?I don't know much about Canada, but surely you have people you can look up to?

And when a monarch dies, yes it is sad. A life has been lost. But to be honest I felt sadder when my pet cat died than when Diana died. Before she died, I couldn't have cared less if she was alive or not. But on that morning when she died, it suddenly seemed like I should wear sack-clothe and put dust in my hair, by the way the media went on about her. Same with the Queen mother, I felt sorry for Elizabeth, because she had lost her mother. But other than that, who gives a shit? (POP quiz: What was the average age of a woman born at the turn of the century?) I don't think any royal deserves a national outpouring of grief when they die (exeot Philip of course, we hold bets when he goes abroad or on an official visit).

How does not having a monarchy mean having a dictator? Monarchs hardly prevent the rise of dictators.

Sigh

Why is there a British National Party when there is no British nation? The UK has three major nationalities inhabiting it- the English, Scots and Irish along with minor nationalities such as the Welsh, Indians, Pakistanis etc.
Well the British nation is of course the Union of Scotland, England and Wales, and NI should be included. Over the years progressive governments have undermined the idea of a United Britain. I would welcome immigrants if only they cared and supported THIS COUNTRY instead of their own and of simply using the British system. I am not a rascist and I seriously dislike it(in all forms) just like the BNP hates it. Hell most of my friends are of Asian and Middle-eastern origin.

I'm an Indian studying in the UK and hoping to settle down here- if the BNP came to power I'm sure they'd do their best to "encourage" me and others like me including people who have been born and brought up in the UK to leave.

Kristaalnatch anyone?

Welcome to the country. Your welcome to stay here if your an Indian national. Its normal to move around with your own nationality anyways. HM government couldnt touch you even if they wanted to BTW

They wouldnt force anyone doing anything legal to leave. This is a complete myth. Yes they would give financial incentives to anyone that did want to leave but thats only if they DID. In fact If I was an immigrant, I wouldnt mind someone making me rich and giving me free passage to my own country so that I could then help my fellow people with the skills gained in the UK.

Oh and please dont call me naive, for I have made a balanced decision on supporting the BNP and believe 100% that they are the political party of the future. They are the only party who will do something for me and my fellow citizens and not just for the gain of the ruling elite and Europe.

You continue to call the BNP Nazi ffs. Stop being childish, stop using bully tactics and get your arguement on the BNP right already.

Monarchs are among the worst form of government. At least presidents can pretend to be democratic.

-----------------------------
Free your mind!

I thought that you should hate all forms of government equally.....

Monarchs are among the worst form of government. At least presidents can pretend to be democratic.

-----------------------------
Free your mind!

I thought that you should hate all forms of government equally.....

:?

Howso.

Surely a Scandinavian Liberal Paradise would be more preferable to a Pschyotic Dictatorship?

(Or a real world example, Britain or Iran).

Only a fool would suggest that all governments are as bad as each other.

Im Canadian and im all for the independance of my own country, free from British Law...and i prefer my monarchy to hjave little power, but power nonetheless. I believe that monarchies found nations, but shouldnt rule ABSOLUTE forever.

If you feel that way then I would be fine with shipping the whole roiyal family over to Canada. But why do you feel the need to have to "look up" to a load of inbred aristocrats?I don't know much about Canada, but surely you have people you can look up to?

Canadians desperately hold onto anything which distinguishes us from Americans and helps us keep our own identity. Our very existence as a nation arose from our passionate rejection of the American Revolution and our desire to keep British governmental and legal systems.

Having a monarchy is one of the biggest symbols that we are not American, so that symbol is treasured by many of us. Unlike Australia, there is very little sentiment here to ditch the British monarchy.

That said, only a minority of Canadians are today of British ancestry. Britain is a foreign country to most of us, and it feels increasingly weird having a British head-of-state. My own idea is that it's time Canada got *it's own* royal family (it's power being mostly symbolic of course) but I've yet to hear anyone else here suggest that.

Presidents cost the state a lot of money, monarchy doesn't.
:shock: :lol:
They don't?
First, I'm a Yank, so I'm biased...
{We got rid of our Monarchs a long time ago, and guess whose they were?} :)
But, the President of the U.S. makes far less, in Salary, at least, than most major CEOs...
and far less than what the Queen of England recieves!

Also, the US Navy tends to object when the President asks to divert a Carrier Task Force so he can have a 'nice vacation' (unlike what happened with Prince Charles, some time back...)

Any powers granted to the Monarchy may seem quite reasonable, for as long as Queen Elizabeth is alive...
but do you guys really want to give *any* power at all to Charles?
The man makes 'Dubya' look like a certifiable genius!

Monarchs are among the worst form of government. At least presidents can pretend to be democratic.

-----------------------------
Free your mind!

Your Mr. Churchill (Winnie is always a source for great quotes!) put it very well...
"Democracy is the very worst system there is... except for all the others!"

When you tell people that it's all right for them to criticize the government, they do (and boy, do they ever!)...
When you tell people they can be jailed, tortured, or killed for criticisizing the government, they tend to clam up for some reason...

So, those who only count volume of complaints wind up with this rather silly notion that citizens of dictatorships have less to complain about than citizens of democracies! :P

Monarchs are among the worst form of government. At least presidents can pretend to be democratic.

-----------------------------
Free your mind!

Your Mr. Churchill (Winnie is always a source for great quotes!) put it very well...
"Democracy is the very worst system there is... except for all the others!"

When you tell people that it's all right for them to criticize the government, they do (and boy, do they ever!)...
When you tell people they can be jailed, tortured, or killed for criticisizing the government, they tend to clam up for some reason...

So, those who only count volume of complaints wind up with this rather silly notion that citizens of dictatorships have less to complain about than citizens of democracies! :P

The monarchy should be stripped of it's wealth, palaces, land and power. They do nothing for the people, even if they do bring in tourists I think that if we build a giant robot Queen at legoland it will bring in even more tourists than the real Liz II. I completely do not accept that some people should be born with better chances in life, enough money to have whatever they want and most imortantly...power over other people. All of these things should be earned.

Presidents cost the state a lot of money, monarchy doesn't.
:shock: :lol:
They don't?
First, I'm a Yank, so I'm biased...
{We got rid of our Monarchs a long time ago, and guess whose they were?} :)
But, the President of the U.S. makes far less, in Salary, at least, than most major CEOs...
and far less than what the Queen of England recieves!

Also, the US Navy tends to object when the President asks to divert a Carrier Task Force so he can have a 'nice vacation' (unlike what happened with Prince Charles, some time back...)

Any powers granted to the Monarchy may seem quite reasonable, for as long as Queen Elizabeth is alive...
but do you guys really want to give *any* power at all to Charles?
The man makes 'Dubya' look like a certifiable genius!

Also, with presidential systems, only the head of state [president] gets paid. With the British Monarchial system the HoS [queen] gets paid, and so does her spouse and her parents.All of them get paid far higher than a President. Also, as you well pointed out, the British system is far more easier to abuse in terms of claiming 'travelling expenses' etc (another pop trivia question: How long would some one the minimum wage (£4.10)need to work to equal the bar allowance for royal functions?). One of our royals, now has the nickname "Prince of Golf," due to his uncanny ability to schedule visits to places at exactly the same time as golf tourniments.

Oh and please dont call me naive, for I have made a balanced decision on supporting the BNP and believe 100% that they are the political party of the future. They are the only party who will do something for me and my fellow citizens and not just for the gain of the ruling elite and Europe.

You continue to call the BNP Nazi ffs. Stop being childish, stop using bully tactics and get your arguement on the BNP right already.

Please. The BNP is a feeble attempt to put a pseudo-legitimate mask on thuggish white supremacists, and their rag-bag of assorted weirdos, criminals, fanatics and fundamentalists who are along for the ride.

The abandonment of the working classes by both Labour and the Conservatives has left Britain's urban poor feeling neglected and disenfranchised. Hardly surprising, since they ARE neglected and disenfranchised. The BNP was invented to try to win over this constituency for the extreme right, telling them that all their problems are caused by a combination of immigrants, refugees and fictitious shadowy cabals operating on a pan-European or indeed global scale (guess who?). In short, the usual paranoid rantings of those who are desperate to find an excuse to persecute the kind of people they already have unreasoning hatreds for.

Sometimes, sadly, people with no real racist feelings get sucked in, and start believing the crap peddled by this gang of little nazi wannabes. They believe the BS they push about how the BNP would sort it all out and be fair and equal, about how the "ruling elite" (often referred to as "international financiers" or some such -- have you cracked the code yet?) would be overturned. They hear the garbage spouted about how Hitler worked an economic miracle (hint: extensive use of slave labour, and an economy that was riven with corruption, in-fighting and inefficiency, were just some of the many reasons Nazi Germany lost so very badly). Like gullible people everywhere, they hear what they want to hear, and so come to believe it.

In many ways, such people are the worst: at least the tattoo'd numpties which make up most of the BNP's membership have the excuse of having very little between their ears to begin with. However, there is hope: there are documented cases of these pocket fascists staring into the abyss, and getting better; abandoning the poisonous ethos which previously they had espoused, realising the criminal nature of their former fellow-travellers and getting the hell out. Fingers crossed, eh?