NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes. I know, its extremely unlikely to happen in reality. However, as an intellectual exercise, would you consider what would happen to British government if the entire royal family bit the dust, and a new king/queen cannot be named?
Since in their model of government, currently the queen is the head of state correct? Wouldn't that be quiet a Constitutional dilemma?

JiangGuo

Yes. I know, its extremely unlikely to happen in reality. However, as an intellectual exercise, would you consider what would happen to British government if the entire royal family bit the dust, and a new king/queen cannot be named?
Since in their model of government, currently the queen is the head of state correct? Wouldn't that be quiet a Constitutional dilemma?

JiangGuo

No as there are links to other eurpoean royal families they could just trace a line back to one of them. For there to be one to take over the throne a great number of people would have to bite the dust together.

Yes. I know, its extremely unlikely to happen in reality. However, as an intellectual exercise, would you consider what would happen to British government if the entire royal family bit the dust, and a new king/queen cannot be named?
Since in their model of government, currently the queen is the head of state correct? Wouldn't that be quiet a Constitutional dilemma?

JiangGuo
Or the PM which will then be the Keeper of the Throne could crown a new king/queen

you know what would happen?

the people would cry and half a national week of mourning, then business would go on as usual, the british royal family doesnt do anything any more, its the parliament and prime minister, the royal family is the figurehead on the ship

you know what would happen?

the people would cry and half a national week of mourning, then business would go on as usual, the british royal family doesnt do anything any more, its the parliament and prime minister, the royal family is the figurehead on the ship

I think your right, The royal family has no real power, But who would inherit(SP?) the family fortune?

I should inherit the money from these Germanic wankers.

We can only hope they do. Monarchy fucking parastic leeches.


Shoot the lot of the bastards.

I really hope the royal family in my country (Sweden) just fucking stop to exist in the future. They're LEECHING. THEY ARE DOING nothing FOR OUR COUNTRY AT ALL.

Fucking monkeys who support the royals.

Fucking monkeys who support the royals.


Shoot those bastards as well come to think of it. They are as guilty as the swine they support.

I think your right, The royal family has no real power, But who would inherit(SP?) the family fortune?

They can trace the bastards to about the 500th person in line to the throne

If our Royal Family was to suddenly cease to exist, I am posotive that the UK would fall into a state of anarchy.
The Monarch is the basis fr all our stately tradition and ceremony. The Monarch has the power to abolish parliament. Great Britain needs her Royal Family. Without them, we would loose our identity, our stature and our iron resolve.

Long live the British Monarchy.

And how can people put them down for having Germanic roots? All of us that call ourselves true Brits are all descended from the anglos, saxons and vikings, who believe it or not are Germanic. The Royalty does wonders for this country. They promote our businesses, bring in millions of pounds each year, and act as ambassodors for our country, when the lazy, overpaid polititians can not be bothered leaving their posh houses and actually do some work.

And how can people put them down for having Germanic roots? All of us that call ourselves true Brits are all descended from the anglos, saxons and vikings, who believe it or not are Germanic. The Royalty does wonders for this country. They promote our businesses, bring in millions of pounds each year, and act as ambassodors for our country, when the lazy, overpaid polititians can not be bothered leaving their posh houses and actually do some work.
Well said.

To be honest, the vast majority of people in the UK think our Royal Family are great. Only the small minority of narrow-minded biggots are against them.
Just look at everyone who turned up to cheer the Queen at her Golden Jubilee. There where people from North England and Scotland lining The Mall and the gates of Buckingham palace to show their loyalty.
What has the Royal Family done to hurt anybody?

To be honest, the vast majority of people in the UK think our Royal Family are great. Only the small minority of narrow-minded biggots are against them.
Just look at everyone who turned up to cheer the Queen at her Golden Jubilee. There where people from North England and Scotland lining The Mall and the gates of Buckingham palace to show their loyalty.
What has the Royal Family done to hurt anybody?
I like monarchies. May the force be with them.

People say the Monarchy does nothing.
During World Wat Two, the current queen, then a princess drove ambulances in London during the Blitz.
Prince Charles used to command a mine-sweeper in the 80's - 90's doing one of the most dangerous jobs set on any naval commander.
Prince Andrew was a Royal Navy helicopter pilot during the Falklands War. Naval Ships did not have much protection against missile attack back then, so a brave pilot and his crew would take a Sea King Helicopter up just before the missile got within striking range of the ship, and the helicopter would fly in it's path so that hte missile would lock onto the helicopter and not the ship. The pilot would then do an evasive manoveur and the missile would miss both ship and helicopter, and land harmlessly in the sea. That's what Prine Andrew did. He defended the British Empire while the people who critisize the Royal Family sat at home doing nothing, and complaining about Margaret Thatcher.

Don't be so narrow-minded, wake up and see what they actually do for us. Do you want us to turn into a republic and have idiots like Bush running the show?
The Royal Family is our last line of defence against political dictators.

Long live the Royal Family.

We can only hope they do. Monarchy fucking parastic leeches.


Shoot the lot of the bastards.

Shoot those bastards as well come to think of it. They are as guilty as the swine they support.

Oh yeah, we can really see who's on the side of clear thinking and calm reason in this debate.

The Monarchy is a symbol. Whether it represents history, tradition, government, nationalism ... the monarchy is an integral part of many societies and important to many people.

"Shooting the lot of the bastards" as Peasant-boy so quaintly put it, is similar to nuking the Pyramids because they cost too much to maintain, or bulldozing the Terracotta army because you disagree with the social and political ideals of the Qing Dynasty. In short, it's destroying history because you only consider the present (aka the present effect on you) to be important.

Royal Families are a direct and visible link to the history and culture of many nations - but of course, some people don't value history unless it's made of bricks.

Yes. I know, its extremely unlikely to happen in reality. However, as an intellectual exercise, would you consider what would happen to British government if the entire royal family bit the dust, and a new king/queen cannot be named?
Since in their model of government, currently the queen is the head of state correct? Wouldn't that be quiet a Constitutional dilemma?

JiangGuo


There is actually no constitution in Britian, its one of the oldest democratic countries in the world, and it managed quite fine, thank you very much without one too. Think of the problems in America over the 'right to bear arms'. Its in the conctitution, so it can't be removed (easily) yet after one shooting in a school in the UK (Dunblane, Scotland) hand guns were outlawed almost overnight. No-one said shit. Fabulous. Americans, burn the constitution!

"To be honest, the vast majority of people in the UK think our Royal Family are great. Only the small minority of narrow-minded biggots are against them."

Out of interest, can you prove that? I'm one of those few narrow-minded bigots who are against the monarchy. I don't think they should be shot, just that all governmental funding should be stopped and that they should be gradually phased out. (Although I think they should be able to keep their estates if they can afford them, and their regal titles.)

As for what would happen if they all died, not much. The Royal Family is of no real importance in this day and age as the Royal Family. I would also say that the Royal Family is the first line of defence for all those who want Royal dictatorships. Oh and our government is set up in such a way that it would be quite hard for us to have a government like the US.

there would be no revolution :(

no uprising in my time :mad:

( puts rifle and red flag in cupboard )

The only members of the Royal Family who are given any sort of Government funding are the immediate legitimate royals, i.e The Queen, Prince Philip Prince Charles and his sons. Major tourist attractions like Windsor Castle, Balmoral and Sandringham are all run out of the Monarchy's pocket, with most of the profits going back into the state to benefit us.
Buckingham palace is only funded by the Government because about 60% of it is used up by Government offices. All other buildings like the Tower of London and Horse Guards parade are owned by the state, i.e. the government which use the Royal links to the buildings to make moey out of them. Most people go to the Tower of London to see the Crown Jewels, which are state owned.
Tony Blair gets a higher wage per annum then the Queen, and I don't think he brings in half as much capital per year as Her Majesty does.

I believe I read that the goverment gives the Queen £200,000,000 or so each year to go to the upkeep of various estates, although this was a couple of years ago, they might have changed this since then. And the Queen has a few billion for her private use, making her one of the richest people alive.

I never said that the Royal Family should lose their estates or any possesions, or stop showing them to the public. I await your proof that a vast majority of people in the UK actively support the Royal Family.

Yes. I know, its extremely unlikely to happen in reality. However, as an intellectual exercise, would you consider what would happen to British government if the entire royal family bit the dust, and a new king/queen cannot be named?
Since in their model of government, currently the queen is the head of state correct? Wouldn't that be quiet a Constitutional dilemma?

JiangGuo
Well considering that over the recent Jubilee the Guardian interviewed someone who was something like 250th in line to the throne (she worked as a a hotdog seller somewhere in Australia), I think they would find something.

There is actually no constitution in Britian, its one of the oldest democratic countries in the world, and it managed quite fine, thank you very much without one too. Think of the problems in America over the 'right to bear arms'. Its in the conctitution, so it can't be removed (easily) yet after one shooting in a school in the UK (Dunblane, Scotland) hand guns were outlawed almost overnight. No-one said shit. Fabulous. Americans, burn the constitution!

There is a constitustion for Britain, but it is unwritten (or more accurately, uncodified).
Oh yeah, we can really see who's on the side of clear thinking and calm reason in this debate.

The Monarchy is a symbol. Whether it represents history, tradition, government, nationalism ... the monarchy is an integral part of many societies and important to many people.

"Shooting the lot of the bastards" as Peasant-boy so quaintly put it, is similar to nuking the Pyramids because they cost too much to maintain, or bulldozing the Terracotta army because you disagree with the social and political ideals of the Qing Dynasty. In short, it's destroying history because you only consider the present (aka the present effect on you) to be important.

No it isn't. The Pyramids and the terracotta army are artifacts from history. The royals aren't.

However, if the terracotta army stood in front of a fully democratic and meritocratic system where people were rewarded by personal endevour rather then the idea that some are born superior. I would gladly bulldoze them.

Royal Families are a direct and visible link to the history and culture of many nations - but of course, some people don't value history unless it's made of bricks.
How?

Royals aren't the only thing we have to be proud of, they aren't the sole writters of history.

People say the Monarchy does nothing.
They do little of value,
During World Wat Two, the current queen, then a princess drove ambulances in London during the Blitz.
That was WWII, not now. Just because she has done something over half a century (which many others did btw), doesn't/didn't entitle her to live like a parasite for the rest of her life.
Why does she deserve the crown any more then an other Ambulance driver?
Prince Charles used to command a mine-sweeper in the 80's - 90's doing one of the most dangerous jobs set on any naval commander.
Why does he deserve to be first in line to the throne over others with the same position. The amount of danger he put himself in means squat, unless you are suggesting that the monarch should be the person who has had to do the most dangerous job.
Prince Andrew was a Royal Navy helicopter pilot during the Falklands War. Naval Ships did not have much protection against missile attack back then, so a brave pilot and his crew would take a Sea King Helicopter up just before the missile got within striking range of the ship, and the helicopter would fly in it's path so that hte missile would lock onto the helicopter and not the ship. The pilot would then do an evasive manoveur and the missile would miss both ship and helicopter, and land harmlessly in the sea. That's what Prine Andrew did. He defended the British Empire while the people who critisize the Royal Family sat at home doing nothing,
Umm.
1. The British Empire didn't exist at the time.
2. Many others did the same job. He wasn't unique.
3. How do you expect me to be a vet of that war?

Don't be so narrow-minded, wake up and see what they actually do for us. Do you want us to turn into a republic and have idiots like Bush running the show?

No, that's why we should have a cerimonial president.
The Royal Family is our last line of defence against political dictators.
Proof?
Long live the Royal Family.
Ahh, the Royal debate. Do we shoot them or do we hang them?

. The Royalty does wonders for this country. They promote our businesses,
How?
bring in millions of pounds each year,
Proof?
and act as ambassodors for our country,
So do Ambassadors, why shouldn't they be king?
#If our Royal Family was to suddenly cease to exist, I am posotive that the UK would fall into a state of anarchy.
Because the only reason people don't kill each other is because they think that the Queen would not approve right?
The Monarch is the basis fr all our stately tradition and ceremony.
Yeah? And? So what?
The Monarch has the power to abolish parliament.
A useful power for an unelected official
Great Britain needs her Royal Family. Without them, we would loose our identity,
Yeah, we would have to burn all copies of the plays written by King Shakespeare.
our stature and our iron resolve.
Baseless.

Wow, that is some post! :cool:

The only members of the Royal Family who are given any sort of Government funding are the immediate legitimate royals, i.e The Queen, Prince Philip Prince Charles and his sons.
Why should they be supported. By all accounts they are wadded.
It would be like the US government giving Bill Gates money for what he does for the US economy.
Major tourist attractions like Windsor Castle, Balmoral and Sandringham are all run out of the Monarchy's pocket,
And?
with most of the profits going back into the state to benefit us.
Why not "cut out the middle man" as they say? Far more effecient.
Buckingham palace is only funded by the Government because about 60% of it is used up by Government offices. All other buildings like the Tower of London and Horse Guards parade are owned by the state, i.e. the government which use the Royal links to the buildings to make moey out of them. Most people go to the Tower of London to see the Crown Jewels, which are state owned.
Great, but I fail to see any strong arguement to keep the monarchy here. Just what tourist attractions do to raise income. Which could be done without the royals there.
Tony Blair gets a higher wage per annum then the Queen, and I don't think he brings in half as much capital per year as Her Majesty does.
Well, at least he does something, over then cutting ribbons.

Also he has been (more or less) democratically elected, the Queen hasn't, and only recieves money (which she does not need) through circumstance of birth.

I believe I read that the goverment gives the Queen £200,000,000 or so each year to go to the upkeep of various estates, although this was a couple of years ago, they might have changed this since then. And the Queen has a few billion for her private use, making her one of the richest people alive.

I never said that the Royal Family should lose their estates or any possesions, or stop showing them to the public. I await your proof that a vast majority of people in the UK actively support the Royal Family.
It costs us British the equivelent of two pints of milk a year. A small amount granted, but I'd prefer the two pints.

The British Empire did exist and still does to this day. Ok, we don't own the world now, but we still control the Falklands and Gibraltar, which is a very important position. As anyone who has been to Gibraltar will understand, no shipping can get in or out of the Mediteranean without passing under the shadow of Gibraltar and it's guns. Ok, there is the Suez canal, but ever since the Suez crisis, we have had a Royal Navy squadroun aswell as army and RAF personnel stationed there.
I am not critisizing anyone over the Falklands War, I'm just saying that when people critisize the Royals for being lazy and useless, they are wrong. I do admit people like Earl Spencer are a complete waste of time, but then again he isnt a member of the Royal Family.
Do you really need anymore proof that the majority likes the Royals? Thousands and thousands of people lined The Mall, and lined streets all over the Country and the Commenwealth to give their respects to the Queen on her Golden Jubilee.
The only piece of land the Queen owns completely personally is Balmoral. Other places like Kensingtom and Sandringham are owned partly by the state, and the £2,000,000 she does reciebe for upkeep of the estates each year is expected to be used on all the state owned palaces aswell.
I do not mean we will loose our entire culture. We need the Family, and the reason people do not believe this, is because they can not see the direct bebnefits of having a monarchy. If we are to abolish th monarchy, we must also abolish the lords and all titles, and have that land seized by the Government, turning us into a communist state and taking a huge chunk out of our political system by getting rid of the lords, who could not be replaced by elected people as this would add to the list of lying scumbags who we are forced to vote for.

The only way that the monarchy could be abolished is through a mojaority act from parliament, who would never do such a thing, as they know what the monarchy does for us.
That is nmy opinion, you are entitled to yours, just do not base your opinion on biting th hand that feeds you.

Great Britan had a go at being a republic once, which had a disasterous outcome. The result of the English Civil War was an Iron-Fist dictatorship which took away peoples rights and cancelled Christmas.

Anyone seen King Ralph? Early (ish) 90's film with John Goodman and Peter O'Toole.

If the British Royal family gets wiped out we could end up with an American on the throne!!!!

Oh, dear GOD!!! Kill me now!

Quote:
That was WWII, not now. Just because she has done something over half a century (which many others did btw), doesn't/didn't entitle her to live like a parasite for the rest of her life.
Why does she deserve the crown any more then an other Ambulance driver?

that is like saying that WWII vets that committed acts of bravery and get paid for thier service today are parasites.

while i am an american and do not know all the specifics of the UK and the monarchy i must say I am quite intrigued by the monarchy.

i would post more on this thread but like i said i am not entirely familiar with the monarchy in relation to the UK

The British Empire did exist and still does to this day. Ok, we don't own the world now, but we still control the Falklands and Gibraltar,
Sorry, but when I think of Empire, I think of vast areas of land centrally ran and defended with military might. [i]Not a few little rocks in the sea.
iirc, we have 14 dependancies. All islands or small groups of islands. Nothing which really say Empire to me.
I am not critisizing anyone over the Falklands War, I'm just saying that when people critisize the Royals for being lazy and useless, they are wrong. I do admit people like Earl Spencer are a complete waste of time, but then again he isnt a member of the Royal Family.
Do you really need anymore proof that the majority likes the Royals?
Just because lots of people like something or agree with something doesn't mean squat. It doesn't stop the Royals being parasitic, it doesn't stop the institution keeping the fallacy that some blood is better then others prevelent, it doesn't make our system of government anymore democratic.
Not so long ago, many people smoked, and enjoyed it. This didn't stop it killing people off early though.
I do not mean we will loose our entire culture. We need the Family, and the reason people do not believe this, is because they can not see the direct bebnefits of having a monarchy.And what are these direct benefits? If we are to abolish th monarchy, we must also abolish the lords and all titles, And,? I fail to see the problem with this. and have that land seized by the Government, turning us into a communist state
Sure :rolleyes:
and taking a huge chunk out of our political system by getting rid of the lords,
Ever heard of the Second Mandate System?
who could not be replaced by elected people as this would add to the list of lying scumbags who we are forced to vote for.
This is not Australia, we are not forced to vote for anyone. That is, there is no compulsory voting.

Anyway, in a contest between elected lying scumbags and unelected elected lying scumbags, I would go for the elected ones. If only because having unelected ones means that the biggest elected lying scumbag (TB) can bring people into governement through the back door.

I assume you prefer cronies to elected lying scumbags then.

that is like saying that WWII vets that committed acts of bravery and get paid for thier service today are parasites.
No it isn't. Because they had to work after the war too, rather then living in the lap of luxury where they could come to no harm.

Great Britan had a go at being a republic once, which had a disasterous outcome. The result of the English Civil War was an Iron-Fist dictatorship which took away peoples rights and cancelled Christmas.
And that would happen all over again right? Because, as we all know, modern British society has a strong uber-puritanical streak in it. Factor in the fact that all republic have done the same thing. I think you have a strong case against Republic.

The only way that the monarchy could be abolished is through a mojaority act from parliament,
No it isn't. The Parliament is barred from discussing the position of the head of the state.

who would never do such a thing,
Substitute would for could

as they know what the monarchy does for us.
What does it do?
That is nmy opinion, you are entitled to yours, just do not base your opinion on biting th hand that feeds you.
How am I biting the hand that feeds me. The institution of monarchy does for me.

And how can people put them down for having Germanic roots? All of us that call ourselves true Brits are all descended from the anglos, saxons and vikings, who believe it or not are Germanic. The Royalty does wonders for this country. They promote our businesses, bring in millions of pounds each year, and act as ambassodors for our country, when the lazy, overpaid polititians can not be bothered leaving their posh houses and actually do some work.

Germanic tribes all descended from norse tribes, but they developed independently of their norse roots. Almost all of northern Europe was settled by the vikings, the Angles, from the northern part of continental Germany, though, were considered to be Danish until the 19th century. Same deal with the Saxons. Vikings were all Scandinavian. They were never considered germanic at all. In fact, all germanic tribes could be said to originate in settlement by Scandinavians.

That, however, doesn't change the fact that the first German king on the throne of England and Ireland, George I, ruled from Hanover and never learned English, but this was nothing new, since several of the kings following William the Conqueror never spoke it either. The current royalty changed their name from the house of "Saxe-Coburg-Gotha" to the house of "Windsor" to avoid the controversy of having a German name during WWII.

Personally? I don't care one way or another for the royal family, since they would never have nearly as much power over my life as the houses of Parliament or the EU have.

No it isn't. Because they had to work after the war too, rather then living in the lap of luxury where they could come to no harm.


And that would happen all over again right? Because, as we all know, modern British society has a strong uber-puritanical streak in it. Factor in the fact that all republic have done the same thing. I think you have a strong case against Republic.


No it isn't. The Parliament is barred from discussing the position of the head of the state.


Substitute would for could


What does it do?

How am I biting the hand that feeds me. The institution of monarchy does for me.
Number of offcial engagement undertaken by the Queen in 2003:? over 360!
The country has net gain from the royal family, the parasites or the benefits spongers who steal thousands of millions each year, the corperate execs and companies that fail to pay billions in tax. If it's about money the what is paid with the civil list is chicken sh*t in the scheme of things.
The queen hads over all monies accrued by her estates, lands and titles to the gov, in 2003 this was some millions in excess of the civil list payments.
£40 million was paid out of the queens pocket to restore Windsor castle, do you think if it was owned by the Gov two faced Tony would have had that much spent restoring it?
And just what would you replace them with? Name one system that is better and runs at a profit.

Number of offcial engagement undertaken by the Queen in 2003:? over 360!
What where they? Could she have done them without the HRH in her name?
The country has net gain from the royal family,
Proof?
(On two counts, 1. That there is a net gain, 2. That this would not exist without a monarchy).

the parasites or the benefits spongers who steal thousands of millions each year, the corperate execs and companies that fail to pay billions in tax. If it's about money the what is paid with the civil list is chicken sh*t in the scheme of things.
Really. Just because there are worse doesn't mean that she isn't parasitic.

And just what would you replace them with? Name one system that is better and runs at a profit.
This is a system of rule. Britain is a country, not Britain PLC.

But here goes, a republic, a Libertarian society.

However, if the terracotta army stood in front of a fully democratic and meritocratic system where people were rewarded by personal endevour rather then the idea that some are born superior. I would gladly bulldoze them.
I assume you mean "in the way of" by "in front of", i.e. obstructing it. Admitedly the Royal Family are not a product of the 'fully democratic/meritocrtatic system', but they are also aloof from all the niggling little things in our governmental system that prevent us from being as idealisably democractic, etc, as you would have us try to attain. They are not required to be "in front of" democracy as the vanguard, either.

As an example, the House of Lords has long had a reputation for being stick-in-the-mud traditionalist without any understanding of the contemporary issues that truly affect the country. At the same time, it is quite obvious that the House of Commons is basically filled with a whole lot of people whose sole aim is to please the people in whatever way they think will work. Between the two, they mutually act as each other's checks and balances. This doesn't mean a perfect system, but it works, which is why I think it is a mistake to fill both houses with people whose interest (however unconscious it may be) is to remain in power by being popularist to whatever electorate/board of membership dictates their fate. (That's not to say that I don't think that some of the traditional hereditary peers aren't pulling their own weight.) That's a side issue that I reckon could easily spark another discussion, but I think the point relates to the issue at hand.

The Royal Family do not block the proper democratic function. They also do not participate in the worst excesses of the 'democratic' process we 'enjoy'. They neither block nor advance the cause of democracy per se, but a third possible interpretation of "in front of" is as a facia, a public image of the nation, and I think they do that rather well.

I also consider them a stablising influence (their personal interests and relationships with other heads of state supporting a secondary line of diplamatic ties with various nations, and their presence as figureheads protects us from anyone else attaining such an influential position in the national coniousness, such as Dubya has. The French solution is to have the President, which I think sort of works (not being an expert in their political process, so excuse me if I'm wrong about that) but has the disadvantage of being a popular appointment. The fact that the Royal Family is pre-privalidged to inhabit positions of 'power' (more in appearance than reality) means that you don't get the problem of the sh*t rising to the top, you instead have people who may or may not desire to be in the position they are in, but they are given a life-long training to fulfill their function.

The failings of the Royal Family are almost always due to characters not born to the positions they are in. Prince Philip married into the family (admitedly from other royal family roots, but not with the certain knowledge of the position he was to take and appropriate upbrining), and is visibly unable to stop hinmself from commiting faux pas, while similar tactical errors are almost unknown from the Queen. Diana was a high-born (if I remember correctly, the Spencer family can trace its roots back to bits of the English/British monarchy that the Windsors are not able to) but did not grow up in the public eye as Charles did. I subscribe at least part of the problems between her and Charles to the chalk'n'cheese nature of the pair. (Note that I do not lay the blame squarely on Diana without any allowance for how Charles behaved towards/against her. I do feel that it was the clash of cultures that caused the spectacular friction between them and the explosive conclusion to the marriage. (And it is at the end of their marriage, or shortly thereafter, that I pull the veil over that chapter. Unless you believe conspiracy theorists, the car accident had nothing to do with the that situation save that she was now adrift in the world at the mercy of the papperazzi with less optimal support and protection staff than she probably should have had.)

To cut everyrhing brief, the Family themselves do us proud. Every little scandle gets blown out of all proportion yet they are still very popular. Some people, like West and Hindley and Shipman, make occasional bigger front-page stories, but they don't do us proud. Posh and Becks show us a glimpse as to how a 'popular vote' Royal Family might well turn out, continuous news coverage through thick and think, good and bad, and I don't particularly feel that I'd miss them. Look at the US and (with the possibly excetion of the Kennedys, for a couple of decades, and possibly in the future a similar look back on Bush or Clinton dynasties) you'll see what it is like to have no solid figureheads more permanent than a statue of Lincoln, Uncle Sam (alternately Sam the Eagle from The Muppets :) ) or the all-pervasive dollar-bill. That's a scary thought. At least to me, as a Brit, as I really can't exclude culture-blindness.


That was WWII, not now. Just because she has done something over half a century (which many others did btw), doesn't/didn't entitle her to live like a parasite for the rest of her life.
Why does she deserve the crown any more then an other Ambulance driver?
Why does he deserve to be first in line to the throne over others with the same position. The amount of danger he put himself in means squat, unless you are suggesting that the monarch should be the person who has had to do the most dangerous job.

Nobody is saying that because she was an Ambulance Driver/he was a minesweeper captain that they were then entitled to their relative positions. What is being said is that while some people perceive the royals as having been born into the high-life, never wanted for anything, never done a days work, grown up with no moral character and attained 'high office' purely through accident of birth, they have indeed done things in their lives that they need not have done, that nobody could have blamed them for doing and for no gain greater than they were already destined for (and for possible loss). Yes, they were probably encouraged not to slouch around, taught how to show a good external image and that is also the point. They are quite capable of having gone through life 'looking good' to the masses, but with no substance behind them, but rather than coast through on impressive-looking but not really challenging experiences they drive ambulances, captain mine-destroyers and (for a recent example of their clan) spend a year away in foreign lands genuinely roughing it along with the rest of the expedition. (The protection officers necessarily assigned to William were probably better housed and fed than he was... :) )

For the power of responsibility to shape the behaviour, compare William and Harry. Harry knows (even hopes) he'll probably never get the throne and as such normal teenage instincts kick in and he gets into trouble. William has had the same upbrining and has kept his dignity. (Or you might argue that he's just putting on a front, but I don't think even a Royal can keep up a false front for more than few years.[/QUOTE]
There's a lot more that can be said, and in refuting your claims I've probably come across as an out-and-out total and utter monarchist. This is incorrect. I appreciate the monarchy and can't get my head round how we would opearate as a nation without them, but I don't have shrines to various members of the Royal Family in my house. I've got a couple of Union Flags at home, but that's just through accumulation of possessions (and, besides, I should surely have the Royal Standard if I were a monarchist... :) ). Yes they are rich, but a lot of the riches are inherited. I'd be surprised if they'd independantly acquired more wealth, during the same time-frame, than (say) Richard Branson has at his most profitable, or Rupert Murdoch even, after going through the balance sheets and seeing how much of that famous income immediately goes out again to fund things for the people.


The British Royal Family: it could be done a lot worse. :)

Speaking of royal families ... it's strange the US democratic system has allowed a father and his son to become president (ie George Bush Snr and George W Bush). Technically it's never happened before until now.

This kind of thing only happens in tinpot democracies and 3rd world nations.

Oh yeah, we can really see who's on the side of clear thinking and calm reason in this debate.

The Monarchy is a symbol. Whether it represents history, tradition, government, nationalism ... the monarchy is an integral part of many societies and important to many people.

"Shooting the lot of the bastards" as Peasant-boy so quaintly put it, is similar to nuking the Pyramids because they cost too much to maintain, or bulldozing the Terracotta army because you disagree with the social and political ideals of the Qing Dynasty. In short, it's destroying history because you only consider the present (aka the present effect on you) to be important.

Royal Families are a direct and visible link to the history and culture of many nations - but of course, some people don't value history unless it's made of bricks.


They are a directly visable sign to oppression of the majority of people. The fact that a small minority believe they are superior to others only by what they were born into is utterly disgusting and vile. They are a direct and visable link to the exploitation of the people. A sign of the opression of the people.

I am clear, and objective, I fully believe that the bastards deserve to be shot for what they are, what they stand for and what they do.

The monarchy is a symbol of nothing more than the oppression of the common man.

who could not be replaced by elected people as this would add to the list of lying scumbags who we are forced to vote for.
This is not Australia, we are not forced to vote for anyone. That is, there is no compulsory voting.
No, but if we do vote, we're forced to vote for people who are there to try to get power. Politicians are in the job they are in due to having ambition. There are people with ambition who fail to get elected (probably for good reason) but there's going to be precious few who get elected without ulterior motive of some kind (however dressed up it is in good faith and 'for the good of the people'

Anyway, in a contest between elected lying scumbags and unelected elected lying scumbags, I would go for the elected ones. If only because having unelected ones means that the biggest elected lying scumbag (TB) can bring people into governement through the back door.
Why would a Royal be as big a lying scumbag as a politician? A Royal may have to muddle through life, but they don't have to convince several thousand people in a small area of the country that they are going to do What's Right (TM) (where "What's Right" is entirely dependant on what area of the country you are talking about). If the politician is aiming at an urban seat he will promise different (and sometimes mutually exclusive) things than he would if was aiming at a rural one instead. A Royal can forget all the pretence and champion what he or she thinks is right. Hence Prince Charles's stance on organic farming. You'd not get many politicians (in the mainstream parties) taking that stance. (Which, incentally, isn't mine, but I do respect him for it.)

I assume you prefer cronies to elected lying scumbags then.
The elected lying scumbags surround themselves with enough cronies anyway (usually those who couldn't get elected on their own right). When the Royals were de facto rulers as well as figureheads they had an anourmous number of hangers-on, but the opportunities for such an abused position are so few in royal circles compared with in the numerous branches of legislature, government(/opposition) and civil service.

Isn't this the plot to King Ralph?

Speaking of royal families ... it's strange the US democratic system has allowed a father and his son to become president (ie George Bush Snr and George W Bush). Technically it's never happened before until now.

There have been other related Presidents...John Adams and John Quincy Adams were father and son.

Maybe in theory. And perhaps the British would mourn for a while.

But in a larger sense, there'd be little more than psychological impact. As far as actually running the country (or the countries that are still listed as being part of the United Kingdom) is concerned, it would likely have no impact. Tony Blair runs the country without much, if any, interference from Queen Elizabeth II.

The Governor General of Canada (and Australia and New Zealand?) has little or no real authority and those countries are run by their prime ministers as well. Australia had a vote where they could have officially been independent, but that struck me as being merely symbolic. I don't think anyone considers Australia to be run by the Crown in terms of real national affairs issues.

It's probably like, "well, technically, I'm the boss, but I have better things to do. Leave me alone so I can look pretty."

People say the Monarchy does nothing.
During World Wat Two, the current queen, then a princess drove ambulances in London during the Blitz.
Prince Charles used to command a mine-sweeper in the 80's - 90's doing one of the most dangerous jobs set on any naval commander.
Prince Andrew was a Royal Navy helicopter pilot during the Falklands War. Naval Ships did not have much protection against missile attack back then, so a brave pilot and his crew would take a Sea King Helicopter up just before the missile got within striking range of the ship, and the helicopter would fly in it's path so that hte missile would lock onto the helicopter and not the ship. The pilot would then do an evasive manoveur and the missile would miss both ship and helicopter, and land harmlessly in the sea. That's what Prine Andrew did. He defended the British Empire while the people who critisize the Royal Family sat at home doing nothing, and complaining about Margaret Thatcher.

Don't be so narrow-minded, wake up and see what they actually do for us. Do you want us to turn into a republic and have idiots like Bush running the show?
The Royal Family is our last line of defence against political dictators.

Long live the Royal Family.


Dun dun da. The royal family are the dictators. At moment the Queen could abolish parliment and take full control. That is current exactly the way the law is. Not really a great thing eh? You dont protect yourself against one dictator by having another.

The royal family have done nothing ever to earn there position, it is all silver spoon bullshit, they are parasitical scum. Wow, she drove abulances, guess what so did thousands of other people. Do they all get special treatment for doing that, nope, why the fuck should that bitch then.

I care for my country, thats why I hate the monarchy. I want my country to be a better more free place, thats why I want rid of them.

Elitist fuckwits the lot of them, not a single one done anything to deserve what they have. Yet they lord over people and exploit there position, they deserve to die.

Does it not occur to you that the Queen loves her country?
I am not singling her out as the only hero, I am just using that point to prove that she, and the rest of her family pull the weight like eveyone else in the country. The members of the Royal Family have jobs like everyone else, and they pay tax like everyone else.
And how are they dictators? Maybe you could have called the monarchy a dictatorship back in the times of the Tudors and Stuarts, but the Monarchy today is different.
You might not like it, but the monarchy is here, and it is here to stay. It is not going anywhere, as politicians know the benefits of being a constitutional monarchy, where the Monarch is a figure-head, but still has some power.
To absolve parliament, the Queen must have complete backing from the House of Lords, who would not dissolve parliament. Anyway, she has no want nor reason to get rid of her country's government. She loves Great Britain, her family loves Great Britain. Do you see politicians visiting areas of mass-destruction like ground-zero after the 9/11 attacks? Do you see politicians personally running aid programmes and mine clearence schemes in Africa like Princess Diana did? The answer is no. The monarchy is the first to open their wallets when it comes to crisises.
They are here to stay, and nothing anybody can do will get rid of them, so tough, and don't cry, it's not British.

Does it not occur to you that the Queen loves her country?
I am not singling her out as the only hero, I am just using that point to prove that she, and the rest of her family pull the weight like eveyone else in the country. The members of the Royal Family have jobs like everyone else, and they pay tax like everyone else.
And how are they dictators? Maybe you could have called the monarchy a dictatorship back in the times of the Tudors and Stuarts, but the Monarchy today is different.
You might not like it, but the monarchy is here, and it is here to stay. It is not going anywhere, as politicians know the benefits of being a constitutional monarchy, where the Monarch is a figure-head, but still has some power.
To absolve parliament, the Queen must have complete backing from the House of Lords, who would not dissolve parliament. Anyway, she has no want nor reason to get rid of her country's government. She loves Great Britain, her family loves Great Britain. Do you see politicians visiting areas of mass-destruction like ground-zero after the 9/11 attacks? Do you see politicians personally running aid programmes and mine clearence schemes in Africa like Princess Diana did? The answer is no. The monarchy is the first to open their wallets when it comes to crisises.
They are here to stay, and nothing anybody can do will get rid of them, so tough, and don't cry, it's not British.


They have jobs gifted to them, wealth given to them that. Money covered in the blood of the normal people for generations. They have thoughs things yes, they earned them no. They are dictators, because they dictate themselves upon people it is as simple as that, they do not earn there position they are so called born into it.

Its not the fact should would want to get rid of parliment it is the fact she can, she has ultimate rule at the end of it, she is a dictator of the people. One does not abuse and exploit what they love, she loves her power, her rule, her country. If she had any deceny or care about her country she would stand down, rather than continuing to lord herself over the people.

Princess diana? Hah, There is a populist whore of the media if there was ever one. Oh look I care for people and clear mines. Bullshit, she did all that for the publicity of it nothing else nothing more. The royal family always has reasons behind there actions. Diana abused charities, she used the unwell and the weak to give herself a favourable shine, she was nothing more than an exploiter of people who deserved better than that.

When ones personal wealth, estate and land goes into billions you can give the people cake, without harming your own wealth, Its a publicity nothing else. What need does one person have for hundreds of millions, while other live and die in poverty, None. They have no right to lay claim to what they do. They claim vast swathes of land as the queens land, bullshit, they can not own what should belong to everyone.

The royal family like the rest of the elite class as parastic fuckers that feed on the rest of the people. As soon as they are gotten rid of and removed it will be net gain improvement for everyone, The justice of so few owning so much can not continue to go own.


They are only here too stay as long as people stay blind to there true faces and colours. They will not be around for ever change always comes, The disease can be treated and cut out. They can be eliminated and destroyed for the greater good of all.

Anyone that stands with the royal family is even worse than them, fucking class traitor scum. Why put down your fellow man in arms, for a few crumbs when you can instead stand with him, stand tall and eat at the table rather than the scraps from it.

Yes. I know, its extremely unlikely to happen in reality. However, as an intellectual exercise, would you consider what would happen to British government if the entire royal family bit the dust, and a new king/queen cannot be named?
Since in their model of government, currently the queen is the head of state correct? Wouldn't that be quiet a Constitutional dilemma?

JiangGuo
The British government would earn it's respect finally from us Americans, that's for sure.

Princess diana? Hah, There is a populist whore of the media if there was ever one. Oh look I care for people and clear mines. Bullshit, she did all that for the publicity of it nothing else nothing more. The royal family always has reasons behind there actions. Diana abused charities, she used the unwell and the weak to give herself a favourable shine, she was nothing more than an exploiter of people who deserved better than that.

Diana was not brought up to fulfill the role of a primary royal. She seized the opportunity (no matter how innocent she might have appeared during the 'fairy-tale wedding') to gain influence that would not have been hers by any otehr means.

Not that this was the only reason for her marriage, nor that other people haven't married to obtain positions, but Diana was not trained from birth to fulfill the role of a primary royal and, as such, royally cocked it all up. Well, if I'm being generous to her I might say she wasn't the only one and that Charles was not blameless, but I perceive him as harmless eccentric and it was the interactions between the two (or three, or four or more) people in the marriage that caused the ruptures in the royal image.

In other words, I sort-of agree with you about Diana. I wouldn't paint her as black as you make out, but I also agree that there was an unnecessary popoularity contest. The royals do not have to be popular, necessarily, but they can achieve popularity by their actions. (Politicians, succesful ones, must be popular and achieve that status mostly through words and occasionally through deeds, though preciouse few of them are honest enough to let such words and deeds stand the test of time. This is because they live in the here and now, and the long-term is up until just after the next election...

but they are also aloof from all the niggling little things in our governmental system that prevent us from being as idealisably democractic,
There seems to be a bit of double think in the royalist camp. On one hand it is claimed that they are aloof from petty politics, but they are also claimed as doing an important job by advising the PM.
I also consider them a stablising influence (their personal interests and relationships with other heads of state supporting a secondary line of diplamatic ties with various nations, and their presence as figureheads protects us from anyone else attaining such an influential position in the national coniousness, such as Dubya has.
See where I said we should have a cerimonial presidency, like Ireland and Germany.
The French solution is to have the President, which I think sort of works (not being an expert in their political process, so excuse me if I'm wrong about that) but has the disadvantage of being a popular appointment.
The French constitution was written by centre-right authoritarians. As a result the system is biased towards the centre-right and the President has a great deal of political clout. This is not what I want Britain to have.
The fact that the Royal Family is pre-privalidged to inhabit positions of 'power' (more in appearance than reality) means that you don't get the problem of the sh*t rising to the top, you instead have people who may or may not desire to be in the position they are in, but they are given a life-long training to fulfill their function.
No matter how 'good' these benefits are, they keep in plaace the idea that some are simply better then others through circumstance of birth.

Also, having a monarchy means that the PM wields far more power then he should (considering you do not need an excessive share of the vote to be a PM).

Shit does rise to the top, and our system makes it easier.

The failings of the Royal Family are almost always due to characters not born to the positions they are in. Prince Philip married into the family
Bah, we brings a bit of mirth to the royal family (not to say that I agree with his views)
(admitedly from other royal family roots, but not with the certain knowledge of the position he was to take and appropriate upbrining),
You'd think he'd be able to learn. Any senior non-royal diplomat would be fired by now. His views come from his social-status, he thinks that he is superior to the people he visits which, in his opinion, means that the usual rules of courtesy don't apply.

To cut everyrhing brief, the Family themselves do us proud. Every little scandle gets blown out of all proportion yet they are still very popular.
I don't care for the scandals personally. I don't have any hatred of any royal. It isn't the Royalty I am against, but the institution of monarchy.

PS. I am knackered. Sorry for any typos or hardness to understand.

No, but if we do vote, we're forced to vote for people who are there to try to get power.
To true. We vote between evil and eviler. Personally I think there should be a [nobody] box.
Politicians are in the job they are in due to having ambition. There are people with ambition who fail to get elected (probably for good reason) but there's going to be precious few who get elected without ulterior motive of some kind (however dressed up it is in good faith and 'for the good of the people'


Why would a Royal be as big a lying scumbag as a politician?
That wasn't aimed at the Royals, but the House of Lords . A Royal may have to muddle through life, but they don'] have to convince several thousand people in a small area of the country that they are going to do What's Right (TM) (where "What's Right" is entirely dependant on what area of the country you are talking about). If the politician is aiming at an urban seat he will promise different (and sometimes mutually exclusive) things than he would if was aiming at a rural one instead.
These are flaws in the democratic system granted. But this is not a valid arguement for monarchy. By extention we could have someone (independent and inpartial of course), appoint people for seats in the Commons. This would stop those damned populists with ulterior motives getiing in.


(I should actually say I am a Libertarian, so saying that the monarchy is better in some ways then democracy doesn't help)
A Royal can forget all the pretence and champion what he or she thinks is right.
Could be an arguement for completely unelected officials. Viva Technocracy.
Hence Prince Charles's stance on organic farming. You'd not get many politicians (in the mainstream parties) taking that stance. (Which, incentally, isn't mine, but I do respect him for it.)
Same here. But he could still champion organic farming without having HRH in his name.

The elected lying scumbags surround themselves with enough cronies anyway (usually those who couldn't get elected on their own right). When the Royals were de facto rulers as well as figureheads they had an anourmous number of hangers-on, but the opportunities for such an abused position are so few in royal circles compared with in the numerous branches of legislature, government(/opposition) and civil service.
This was against the idea of appointed lords. (My point being that the PM could make anyone a Lord, with them in government he could then put them in the Cabinet. Personally I think that this system is far more open to abuse then a democratically elected HoL [a la SMS])

Does it not occur to you that the Queen loves her country?
I love my country. So?

I am not singling her out as the only hero, I am just using that point to prove that she, and the rest of her family pull the weight like eveyone else in the country. The members of the Royal Family have jobs like everyone else, and they pay tax like everyone else.
Great. So why don't they go the whole hog and live like everyone else?
And how are they dictators?
I agree they aren't Dictators (they don't rule by dictat after all). But I do think that they have too much power for an unelected position. And their existence gives too much power to one particular elected official (the Royal Perogative Powers)
Maybe you could have called the monarchy a dictatorship back in the times of the Tudors and Stuarts, but the Monarchy today is different.
You might not like it, but the monarchy is here, and it is here to stay. It is not going anywhere, as politicians know the benefits of being a constitutional monarchy,
What are the benefits?
where the Monarch is a figure-head, but still has some power.
Why shouldn't we at least elect the monarch?
(NB This is hardly a revolutionary concept, see the Holy Roman Empire and the Hungarian Monarchy [from the Middle Ages])
To absolve parliament, the Queen must have complete backing from the House of Lords, who would not dissolve parliament. Anyway, she has no want nor reason to get rid of her country's government. She loves Great Britain, her family loves Great Britain. Do you see politicians visiting areas of mass-destruction like ground-zero after the 9/11 attacks?
Guiliani [sp?]
Do you see politicians personally running aid programmes and mine clearence schemes in Africa like Princess Diana did?
Diana could, as she didn't have the restrictions of work to attend to (or more accurately made it her work). The reason that you don't see politicians doing these things is the same reasons you don't see me doing it. We don't have the time to do it.
Also, given her wealth. She could do that without being royal (which she did, technically, after the divorce)
The answer is no. The monarchy is the first to open their wallets when it comes to crisises.
Proof?
and don't cry, it's not British.
Neithers the monarchy or the idea of monarchy ;)

Concatenating two replies, 'cos of the timeout that occured when I'd finished one...

There seems to be a bit of double think in the royalist camp. On one hand it is claimed that they are aloof from petty politics, but they are also claimed as doing an important job by advising the PM.
I personally find it quite clear. They are 'aloof'. Their interactions with politics are either public (through a more dignified and less fly-by-night version of 'celebrity opinion') or possibly behind-the-scenes through relations with equivalent Heads Of State. The latter is basically PR, in some ways the former is anti-PR... :)

The French constitution was written by centre-right authoritarians. As a result the system is biased towards the centre-right and the President has a great deal of political clout. This is not what I want Britain to have.
If that is right (as I said, I've not much experience or knowledge of the French system) I agree. I don't mind the centre-rightness at all (despite being politically more left-wing than (New) Labour, perhaps around the LibDem area of the spectrum), but I don't see the need for political clout.

No matter how 'good' these benefits are, they keep in plaace the idea that some are simply better then others through circumstance of birth.
Democratic or even Meritocratic appointments can be subverted by the ambitious and lucky/popular/capable (who may not be as lucky/popular/capable once they attain such a position, but carry a perceived power all the same. A 'Royal Idol' competiton with a popular vote would be a farce. Just about any other (non-random) process gives me cause to worry about the selection/appointment procedures. Randomly choosing members of the public for a period (from a year to life) as the 'monarch-equivalent' would be an interesting idea, but you'd run the risk of a nutcase or two.

You could always bring back the tradition of King of Fools, whereby the 'leader' of the tribe is chosen by the elders and 'rules' for a year as a figure-head before being a decapitated-head... :) Variants on include the person who finds a bean in a special communal stew, usually a poisonous one so that the unwilling can't choose to swallow it upon 'randomly' (ie. the whim of the eldars who probably planted it in the desired candidate's bowl) being chosen.

If starting from scratch, I would also not choose a family at random to be the progenitors of all future Heads Of State for the country, but we're not starting from scratch. And abolishing the (current) Monarchy without a replacement method would result in the PM being Head of State, Head of Government and basically Lord High Everything Else, so we would definitely need something better. The actual origins of Royalty arise from ancient and medieval traditions of succession and conquest, of course, and it's only in the last couple of hundred years or so that it has stablised and the game of Musical Chairs has been found to be won by the (currently-named) Windsors, after a little non-conflict shuffling around. All credit to them. Someone had to be lucky (under such a dynamic system) and it was them.

Also, having a monarchy means that the PM wields far more power then he should (considering you do not need an excessive share of the vote to be a PM).

Shit does rise to the top, and our system makes it easier.
I agree, in that our current 'democracy' is indeed a system in need of an overhaul. Nothing much to do with the monarchic side to the whole argument, though, except historically.

Bah, [Prince Philip] brings a bit of mirth to the royal family (not to say that I agree with his views)

You'd think he'd be able to learn. Any senior non-royal diplomat would be fired by now. His views come from his social-status, he thinks that he is superior to the people he visits which, in his opinion, means that the usual rules of courtesy don't apply.
I'd say its more complicated than that. I reckon he doesn't ignore social courtesy (i.e. thing it doesn't matter to him), he just doesn't realise that he's overstepping the marks and chats away with mouth in gear but brain in neutral. We all do it sometimes, but he's uniquely positioned to be able to do so almost continually without the risk of falling out of public life because of it. Compare to the Dixie Chicks comments (heart-felt, and I basically agree with them from here on the other side of the Pond) that certainly didn't do them much good in the immediate aftermath.

Don't know if you watched (were able to watch) the Channel 4 (UK) documentary on the "F*~!ing Fulfords" around a month ago, but that's an aristocratic family who (along with the habitual foul language indicated in the programme title, even among the youngest members of the clan) seem to have a viewpoint on the world that might even embaress Philip.

I don't care for the scandals personally. I don't have any hatred of any royal. It isn't the Royalty I am against, but the institution of monarchy.
Fair enough. I'm against neither. Neither am I particularly for, but in this context I'm obviously responding to views more anti-monarchy than mine.

PS. I am knackered. Sorry for any typos or hardness to understand.
Ditto... :)


####################


To true. We vote between evil and eviler. Personally I think there should be a [nobody] box.
That's the role that (deliberately) spoiled ballots often are assumed to take, along with the recorded apathy level. Some people make a point of deriving the electoral mindset from those figures. I do think, however, that there should be some way to disinguish between "spoilt by accident", "spoilt because I don't know" (an active version of not actually voting at all), "spoilt because candidates X, Y, [Z, etc...] are equally good" and "spoilt because there isn't a single worthy candidate among them". In a campus election of Student Union officials it may be obvious to all and sundry why RON (Re-Open Nominations) is the winner in a given vote, but at the constituency level it only provides suitably maniuplable fodder for the various partisan statistical gurus.

That wasn't aimed at the Royals, but the House of Lords .
As mentioned elsewhere, I'm not pro-monarchy, as such, but I'm anti-non-monarchy and I have much the same opinion in the situation with the House Of Lords. Not a particularly good system, but better (FSVO 'better') than a second house elected on the same basis as the House of Commons.


These are flaws in the democratic system granted. But this is not a valid arguement for monarchy. By extention we could have someone (independent and inpartial of course), appoint people for seats in the Commons. This would stop those damned populists with ulterior motives getiing in.
The fact that the traditional system (with party appointments) puts people into the system for an extended period of time means that populist appointments can end up sticking around beyond the lifespan of their original remit. As long as no-one manages to flood the HoL with supporters at any one time, the diversity of opinions from prior 'generations' of appointees should at least keep the worst excesses in check. (I say 'should', I'm just comparing with internal projections of how other methods might work...)

(I should actually say I am a Libertarian, so saying that the monarchy is better in some ways then democracy doesn't help)
I'm partly a (small 'c') conservative at nature, but that could just be apathy breaking out... :) I have plenty of time for Libertarians. I'm not too happy with either abolitionists or neo-monarchists. I seem to be arguing the Monarchist side of the argument through the luck of the draw (the first items I thought I disagreed with weren't from supporters of the monarchy) but I'm still willing to stick by what I've said until someone comes up with that humdinger of a reason I haven't heard yet...

Could be an arguement for completely unelected officials. Viva Technocracy.
I don't like that idea either, but maybe it would work. I'm willing to be converted if you can explain how.

Same here. But he could still champion organic farming without having HRH in his name.
I like eccentrics, but you just know that most of them slide out of sight after a while. Admitedly I'm not making a strong argument here by saying "keep Prince Charles royal or he'd have to be in the public eye on his own merit", but that's not what I want to say. (In fact, "The Charles formerly known as Prince" would probably stay in the public eye all his living days, whether he had that HRH, anyway... :) )

This was against the idea of appointed lords. (My point being that the PM could make anyone a Lord, with them in government he could then put them in the Cabinet. Personally I think that this system is far more open to abuse then a democratically elected HoL [a la SMS])
I think vice-versa, but I could be wrong. Is there a tendency, either way, for the Senate to be dominated by either the same or the opposite party to those in the House of Representatives. (And I bet I've got the names wrong, but you know what I mean. I don't live there and I certainly can't remember what the third house is called in the US nor how it is appointed. Is it the judiciary? They generally get cropped and appointed on partisan lines by each successive President, don't they?)

To be honest, the vast majority of people in the UK think our Royal Family are great. Only the small minority of narrow-minded biggots are against them.

How do you define a vast majority? I know of only a few people (my sisters basically) that support our outmoded and undemocratic waste of money royal family. And I know quite a few people. Of course, idiot Sun-readers all reckon the rest of the world thinks like them. Which is why racist taxi-drivers think it's fine to malign blacks and asians whilst I'm in the back of their cabs. Wankers!

Anyway, narrow minded bigot am I? And on what grounds do you assert that? Hmmm?

Just look at everyone who turned up to cheer the Queen at her Golden Jubilee. There where people from North England and Scotland lining The Mall and the gates of Buckingham palace to show their loyalty.

Yeah... How many people turned up? I didn't, and I've not yet met anyone else who did. So out of the whole UK population, what percentage went and waved a little plastic flag and saw a darkened car window for all of about 15 seconds? Not a tiny minority I suspect.

What has the Royal Family done to hurt anybody?

They sponge off of the workers of this nation for a start! They live in the lap of luxury in our houses! They and there flunkies, floozies and hangers on are paid at huge expense from the public purse. Money that could be spent oh so much better on education and hospitals.

Why must we, in the 21st century, still try and cling on to this awful, expensive outmoded and undemocratic bunch of freeloaders? And the answer isn't President Blair... He wouldn't dare to try, but we could have a presidency.

;) ;)

Concatenating two replies, 'cos of the timeout that occured when I'd finished one...
Bloody annoying sometimes isn't it :)

If that is right (as I said, I've not much experience or knowledge of the French system) I agree. I don't mind the centre-rightness at all (despite being politically more left-wing than (New) Labour, perhaps around the LibDem area of the spectrum), but I don't see the need for political clout. Neither do I, which is why I am against the French Presidential system nearly as much as the monarchy.


Democratic or even Meritocratic appointments can be subverted by the ambitious and lucky/popular/capable (who may not be as lucky/popular/capable once they attain such a position, but carry a perceived power all the same. A 'Royal Idol' competiton with a popular vote would be a farce. Just about any other (non-random) process gives me cause to worry about the selection/appointment procedures. Randomly choosing members of the public for a period (from a year to life) as the 'monarch-equivalent' would be an interesting idea, but you'd run the risk of a nutcase or two.Give them as little power as posiible. Of course I wouldn't be able to bring any valid objections to any Windsor wanting to run.

You could always bring back the tradition of King of Fools, whereby the 'leader' of the tribe is chosen by the elders and 'rules' for a year as a figure-head before being a decapitated-head... :) Variants on include the person who finds a bean in a special communal stew, usually a poisonous one so that the unwilling can't choose to swallow it upon 'randomly' (ie. the whim of the eldars who probably planted it in the desired candidate's bowl) being chosen.Any idea where this was practised? I've never heard of this tradition before.

If starting from scratch, I would also not choose a family at random to be the progenitors of all future Heads Of State for the country, but we're not starting from scratch. And abolishing the (current) Monarchy without a replacement method would result in the PM being Head of State, Head of Government and basically Lord High Everything Else, so we would definitely need something better. The actual origins of Royalty arise from ancient and medieval traditions of succession and conquest, of course, and it's only in the last couple of hundred years or so that it has stablised and the game of Musical Chairs has been found to be won by the (currently-named) Windsors, after a little non-conflict shuffling around. All credit to them. Someone had to be lucky (under such a dynamic system) and it was them.
Easy hold elections for a cerimonial president (which Lizzie could run in of course), after the results are announced, the new constitution comes in to play. Under a republican system all Royal Perogative powers will no longer be able to be held by the PM in the way they are now, which is also why many Republicans are for these powers to be devolved into Parliament.

I don't think that many are in favour of abolishing the monarchy overnight, meaning that TB would be the interim president. We could retain that great British tradition of continuity and change. ;)

I don't think that the justification of royalty , because it has been around for a while means we should keep it, hold much water [personnaly].

The royal family pretty much stabilised a few centuries ago. The only reason the House name changed was because the heir was a female (eg. Elizabeth is the last of the Windsors).


Don't know if you watched (were able to watch) the Channel 4 (UK) documentary on the "F*~!ing Fulfords" around a month ago, but that's an aristocratic family who (along with the habitual foul language indicated in the programme title, even among the youngest members of the clan) seem to have a viewpoint on the world that might even embaress Philip.
I saw a part of it, but nobles (or anyone actually) who think that they are better then anyone else annoy me, and I got bored quickly. But I agree, even Philip would be appalled at them.

That's the role that (deliberately) spoiled ballots often are assumed to take, along with the recorded apathy level. Some people make a point of deriving the electoral mindset from those figures. I do think, however, that there should be some way to disinguish between "spoilt by accident", "spoilt because I don't know" (an active version of not actually voting at all), "spoilt because candidates X, Y, [Z, etc...] are equally good" and "spoilt because there isn't a single worthy candidate among them". In a campus election of Student Union officials it may be obvious to all and sundry why RON (Re-Open Nominations) is the winner in a given vote, but at the constituency level it only provides suitably maniuplable fodder for the various partisan statistical gurus.
I was actually thinking about having [no one] on the ballot papers after posting that. It would be interesting because, from a constitutional standpoint, it would have to go two ways. 1. No one sits in the seat and when ever there is a vote the seat abstains by default. 2. All votes are 'no.' Obviously scenario 1, would be worse as it is possible that if there are enough empty seats then the dominant party would need even less share of the vote to have power similar to Tony's Landslide. '2' would of course mean that, in theory, it is possible for no laws to be passed. So from a statist view, this would be even worse.

As mentioned elsewhere, I'm not pro-monarchy, as such, but I'm anti-non-monarchy and I have much the same opinion in the situation with the House Of Lords. Not a particularly good system, but better (FSVO 'better') than a second house elected on the same basis as the House of Commons. SMS [Second Mandate System] doesn't elect the the second chamber on the same basis as the Commons (after all, what would be the point? it would be identical). But that the Second House is proprtionally elected depending on the vote share of each party. For example, if Labour get 34% of the vote in a general election then they may have a big majority in the commons, but using SMS they would have 34% of the seats in the Lords. Personally I prefer this, as it would/could seriously handicap the ruling party (compared to the current system).


I don't like that idea either, but maybe it would work. I'm willing to be converted if you can explain how.I'm not a technocrat btw, personally I cannot stand the idea. The basic philosophy behind it is that, by and by large, the general population is unable to understand the complexities of running a modern state, and that generally elected officials don't stick around long enough to grasp all the subleties. They favour using the best and brightest to govern society without universal sufferage (some don't want any elections, others only want elections for those 'capable' [ie inteligent] enough).

[Mesage timeout]
Bloody annoying sometimes isn't it :)
I'm going to try to be more succinct this time. Apologies for any snips you think are unjustified. Bring them to my attention and I'll try to satisfy you.

Give them as little power as posiible. Of course I wouldn't be able to bring any valid objections to any Windsor wanting to run.
Never thought of that. It's a bit like "re-applying for their own job", which I find a bit of a harsh thing in corporate circules, but I can see some merits.

[Re: King of Fools/King for a Year]
Any idea where this was practised? I've never heard of this tradition before.
I don't have references at hand, but the echoes can be seen in Sword Dancing (Morris Dancing with sticks or, in my primary school, metre rulers) . In the version I saw most (trotted out every Christmas while at primary school) they generally have a 'fool' character of some kind who dances in and out of the formation (seemingly at random) and at the end the ensemble the rest of the dancers tangle their 'swords' into a pattern (usually an octogram, if there are 8 of them) surrounding (but not enclosing) the neck of the 'joker' and then one of the circle lifts the interlocked mass up to show the interlocking pattern (until then not actually visible from the side, at least from the height that us youngsters used to be at. You know, I saw it many times and never caught the moment of formation).

Looks quite innocent, in that form, but the more 'adult' version has the fool wearing a hat or an animal's head or something and the swords would be used a bit like the Stargate SG-1 iris to 'slice' the representative 'head' off of the top of the fool. This is a distant echo of when they probably did cut the "fool"'s head off, in times gone by. A (not very good, but better than nothing) description of the dance can be found near the bottom of this page on sword dancing (http://www.bartleby.com/215/0209.html).

The second paragraph of the "Celtic Sacrifice" section of this page about various sacrificial traditions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice) basically repeats what I originally said about the temporary ruler (usually more than a metre... :) ), but I'm sure there's more info out there for someone with an inspirational use of Google... :)

I could not easily track down anything about the 'selection by bean' story. This is something I've only heard about, not read, and is some non-European (South American?) culture or other that I momentarily forget so it could be a bit apocryphal, slightly wrong (e.g. not a bean, but a stone or a bone or something) or a mixed up story from many different places and yet none in particular, but you get the idea about the elders pre-choosing the victim^H^H^H^H^H^Hlucky person concerned... As far as the tribe is concerned it's a random thing, but amazingly it always seems to be someone who can rule not too badly and make the right sort of difficult decisions ('guided' by the elders?) but isn't much missed when his time comes.

I don't think that the justification of royalty, because it has been around for a while means we should keep it, hold much water [personnaly].
Agreed. Just doing so because "we always have" isn't a good reason. The fact that I think they do a good job as well (a fact debatable and arguable as to how true it is and how good an alternative 'they' would be) tips the balance in my mind, but that's just mine and I'm just one.

The royal family pretty much stabilised a few centuries ago. The only reason the House name changed was because the heir was a female (eg. Elizabeth is the last of the Windsors).
I thought that was because the old 'Sax-Coberg-Gotha' (sp?) name wasn't particularly good for PR earlier last century, but I'm not an expert.

SMS [Second Mandate System] [...] the Second House is proprtionally elected depending on [essentially proportional representation]. Personally I prefer this, as it would/could seriously handicap the ruling party (compared to the current system).
Hmm, interesting. I've had a soft-spot for PR but have a fear of a "no majority" situation. If we could be assured of a single-party rule (or a pact with the third party at worst, not forgetting history) in one house then I could perhaps accept the other being elected by PR.

I reckon it would be a major cause for celebration! :D

All they do is sit on their asses anyway, sign some autographs, one sips the occasional cup of tea, maybe stroll around the gardens with a georgie or seven. They are more like celebrities these days than rulers, and their authority is minimal to that of Tony's. So chuck 'em out and head to Holyrood for the party of the century! :D :fluffle: :p

All they do is sit on their asses anyway,

Where the hell do they get these poor donkeys from? On top of fleecing the population through taxation, they get to terrorise poor little beasts of burden as well! ;) ;)

I could not easily track down anything about the 'selection by bean' story. This is something I've only heard about, not read, and is some non-European (South American?) culture or other that I momentarily forget so it could be a bit apocryphal, slightly wrong (e.g. not a bean, but a stone or a bone or something) or a mixed up story from many different places and yet none in particular, but you get the idea about the elders pre-choosing the victim^H^H^H^H^H^Hlucky person concerned... As far as the tribe is concerned it's a random thing, but amazingly it always seems to be someone who can rule not too badly and make the right sort of difficult decisions ('guided' by the elders?) but isn't much missed when his time comes.

Just for interest, the "King of the Bean" festival was current across Europe during festival times (especially around Saturnalia/Christmas). Basically, a small bean was baked into one big cake or a batch of small ones, and whoever got it (usually a child) would be declared "King of the Bean" and given "royal authority" over a village or other local group for a few days (sometimes for the period between Christmas and Epiphany). It's similar to "Boy Bishop" or other "Lord of Misrule" rituals. I don't know about its ancient origins but by the medieval period it was just an excuse for a bit of fun along the traditional "world turned upside-down" model -- masters serving servants, children in charge, parodies of religious ceremonies performed in Church, general comedy pandemonium all round without any real authority over anything important. There are still elements of this remaining today: in some Scottish regiments, for example, it's traditional for the (junior) officers and NCOs to act as waiters during the soldiers' Christmas dinner.

Just for interest, the "King of the Bean" festival [...]
"Boy Bishop" or other "Lord of Misrule" rituals [...] masters serving servants, children in charge, parodies of religious ceremonies performed in Church, general comedy pandemonium all round without any real authority over anything important. [...]

That sounds like one element to my muddled memories, perhaps conflated with the Celtic traditions I'd also mentioned. Thanks.

[Mesage timeout]

I'm going to try to be more succinct this time. Apologies for any snips you think are unjustified. Bring them to my attention and I'll try to satisfy you.
Same here. I actually failed to answer [three of your points iirc] because I had to do something and have only just got back

I don't have references at hand, but the echoes can be seen in Sword Dancing (Morris Dancing with sticks or, in my primary school, metre rulers) . In the version I saw most (trotted out every Christmas while at primary school) they generally have a 'fool' character of some kind who dances in and out of the formation (seemingly at random) and at the end the ensemble the rest of the dancers tangle their 'swords' into a pattern (usually an octogram, if there are 8 of them) surrounding (but not enclosing) the neck of the 'joker' and then one of the circle lifts the interlocked mass up to show the interlocking pattern (until then not actually visible from the side,
Was this on the Wickerman? I think I can also remember seeing it on a Tarot card.

Thanks for the link. Do you (or anyone) know if this has any connection to putting the penny in the Christmas pudding?

Agreed. Just doing so because "we always have" isn't a good reason. The fact that I think they do a good job as well (a fact debatable and arguable as to how true it is and how good an alternative 'they' would be) tips the balance in my mind, but that's just mine and I'm just one. But also one should keep in mind if the same job could be done as well, or better ;), democratically.


I thought that was because the old 'Sax-Coberg-Gotha' (sp?) name wasn't particularly good for PR earlier last century, but I'm not an expert.
You are correct, The Saxe-Coburg-Gothas changed their name in 1916 [?] because anti-German sentiment was riding high (bear in mind that in many ways they were luck. Before the war many shops onwed by people whos names sounded German were vandalised and an admiral [Battenburg I think] was sacked). However I was just using Elizabeth II [ofWinsor] as an example of how royal houses chance without a dynasty being over thrown (ie having a female heir marrying into another family). Really the SCGs and the Windsors are the same dynasty with Elizabeth being the last one.



Anyway, narrow minded bigot am I? And on what grounds do you assert that? Hmmm?

Because obviously only anti-Germans dislike them.

I think vice-versa, but I could be wrong. Is there a tendency, either way, for the Senate to be dominated by either the same or the opposite party to those in the House of Representatives. (And I bet I've got the names wrong, but you know what I mean. I don't live there and I certainly can't remember what the third house is called in the US nor how it is appointed. Is it the judiciary? They generally get cropped and appointed on partisan lines by each successive President, don't they?)
As far as I can remember the US Federal legislature as a whole is called the Congress which is split into two houses, the lower house, The House of Representatives, and the upper house, the Senate, could be wrong though.

I don't think there is a third house, although I think the Supreme Court can declare laws unconstitutional and stop them. The President can also veto laws, which he can do in two way. One, the Presidential veto, which iirc means it goes back to the House of Representatives and needs a 2/3s majority to pass, at which point the only way for it to be stopped is if it is unconstitutional. There is also the Pocket veto, which is when the President vetoes something just before the Congress retires for a holiday or a vote.

IIRC Supreme Court Justices, when appointed, are there until they die or retire, whichever comes first. Whenever there is an opening the President gets the chance to appoint another. They will generally appoint one with similar views and with the nessasery qualifications. However the choice has to be ratified by Congress (I forget the mix needed).

Not quite sure, maybe an American could point if I'm wrong or where I'm wrong.

However, any tendancy for the two houses to be opposite (in constitution) is probably due to the nature of the US legitslature elections. the HoR has election ever 2 years. The Senate is slighty different. The term for a Senator is 6 years, but every 2 years 1/3 third of it faces elections.

Was this on the Wickerman? I think I can also remember seeing it on a Tarot card.
Ages since I've seen that. I don't remember the Sword Dance on it (Surprisingly I remember the schoolgirls jumping over the fire naked, or am I just imagining that? :) )

Thanks for the link. Do you (or anyone) know if this has any connection to putting the penny in the Christmas pudding?
I don't, but sounds reasonable to assume so.

But also one should keep in mind if the same job could be done as well, or better ;), democratically.
'Xactly. We're in the world of opinion here (and I must admit I'm in a "if it aint broke don't fix it" frame of mind, so inherantly biased accordingly). (And fully appreciate that you're in a "it is broke, so call the builder in to sort it out" frame of mind, which is equally valid..!)


[...]and an admiral [Battenburg I think] was sacked[...]
Would that be the same Battenburg that became Mountbatten? Never mind.

However I was just using Elizabeth II [ofWinsor] as an example of how royal houses chance without a dynasty being over thrown (ie having a female heir marrying into another family). Really the SCGs and the Windsors are the same dynasty with Elizabeth being the last one.
The thing that intruiges me most is that the 'set' system of precedent and succession seems to go to put whenever there's a bit of a problem with the direct line (no heirs, or a female one). There's various arguments, I recall, about whether a particular family (the Tudors, perhaps, but somewhere round that point in history) were right to "go sideways a few siblings" or across to some living cousins (with a politically/religiously compatible nature) at one point in appointing a successor rather than back up the line and down a separate branch that had been 'heirs in potentia' in a previous generation but whose 'root' heir had died already. Or something like that.

As far as I can remember the US Federal legislature as a whole is called the Congress which is split into two houses, the lower house, The House of Representatives, and the upper house, the Senate, could be wrong though.[/QUOTE]

I just checked on the authoratative site (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html) and the US is bicameral. Don't know where I got the idea of tricamerality from.

Ages since I've seen that. I don't remember the Sword Dance on it (Surprisingly I remember the schoolgirls jumping over the fire naked, or am I just imagining that? :) )
No, you didn't imagine that :)

Would that be the same Battenburg that became Mountbatten? Never mind.
Don't know. But I think it is the same surname, and it seems uncommon so I think it is the same family.

The thing that intruiges me most is that the 'set' system of precedent and succession seems to go to put whenever there's a bit of a problem with the direct line (no heirs, or a female one). There's various arguments, I recall, about whether a particular family (the Tudors, perhaps, but somewhere round that point in history) were right to "go sideways a few siblings" or across to some living cousins (with a politically/religiously compatible nature) at one point in appointing a successor rather than back up the line and down a separate branch that had been 'heirs in potentia' in a previous generation but whose 'root' heir had died already. Or something like that.
Bear in mind that English Hieridary Law was different to French (but I forget the technicalities), one of the reasons for the English bid for the French throne.

All they do is sit on their asses anyway, sign some autographs, one sips the occasional cup of tea, maybe stroll around the gardens with a georgie or seven.

Actually the members of the Royal Family very infrequently sign autographs: I recall that the Queen giving one to members of a family of 'commoners' that she was visiting was quite a major curio in the news back in the late 80s.