NationStates Jolt Archive

BY republicans I don't mean american, Richard Nixon, Jesus loves me for a sun beam, from my cold dead hands kind of republicanism I mean British republicans. There's nothing wrong with our system of government, have you ever met a royal and had to courtsy and felt silly, no you haven't. The Royals do an awful lot for Britain so why in the name of Gordon have there been three threads (to my count) complaining.

What I advice is play "Zadok the Priest" very loud and buy some commemorative plates, maybe even a whole dinner service.

They cost too much. We should get another Lord Protector as a figurehead instead; they tend to be more ascetic and can probably open buildings and things as well.

The Royal Family are like the useless piece of skin on the end of the penis. In short: the UK should be circumsized of its royal attachment.

Why? if you don't like the Monarchy go live in Ireland, they have Euros and everything

Why? if you don't like the Monarchy go live in Ireland, they have Euros and everything
I might do that, but only because I actually am about two-thirds Irish. In fact, I think I'll stay here. I like England… after the chavs have been exterminated.

I mean, what are they good for? Tourism? You can get Japanese tourists to photograph anything, much like Westerners in Japan. I just don't like the institution because it uses up money that could be better spent on our wonderful NHS or something.

It may seem strange, but the Crown brings to the UK government more revenue that it is spent on the civil list.

Throw out the Royals? They might ask for the return of the Crown Estate, which was surrendered to the Parliament by George III in exchange for a fixed sum of cash. The government gets more money from the Crown Estate than it pays to the Queen...

It may seem strange, but the Crown brings to the UK government more revenue that it is spent on the civil list.

Throw out the Royals? They might ask for the return of the Crown Estate, which was surrendered to the Parliament by George III in exchange for a fixed sum of cash. The government gets more money from the Crown Estate than it pays to the Queen... Then suck more of their wealth from them, which they don't really need… so that they give us more money. Royalty is, after all, a public institution.

Maybe we could change the title of Queen Elizabeth to Empress Elizabeth, then we'd be the United Empire. Doesn't that sound better?

Then suck more of their wealth from them, which they don't really need… so that they give us more money. Royalty is, after all, a public institution.

...
You'd better turn to Bill Gates or Roman Abramovich--they have much more money for you to suck. :)

The days of monarchs being Emperors/Empresses ended with our loss of India.

In response to the thread; there are more valid arguments for leaving the Monarchy as it is than abolishing it purely for the sake of being un-elitist. The only people who oppose the monarchy nowadays are angry teens who tend to grow out of it, and die-hard elderly socialists.

The Royal Family are like the useless piece of skin on the end of the penis. In short: the UK should be circumsized of its royal attachment.
You didn't really prove your point with this simile, considering that circumsision is just as silly an idea as getting rid of the monarchy.

You'd better turn to Bill Gates or Roman Abramovich--they have much more money for you to suck. :)

among other things ;) ...... sorry, i just HAD to

You'd better turn to Bill Gates or Roman Abramovich--they have much more money for you to suck. :)
But they're not bound by our country.

Seriously though, for all those who say that they provide us with money - why can't they provide us with more? They are, after all, a public institution.

(I don't have anything against them personally, btw.)

1. the royal family have done nothing to deserve the position of great wealth and power they enjoy, other than inherit it - not a good enough reason imho

2. a president with a yearly salary could do the same "job" as the monarch at much reduced cost. its not just the monarch/queen herself who costs a load more than a president would, but its keeping the rest of the hundereds of royals and aristocrats in pocket, too

3. the queen was not elected by the people - it IS undemocratic. she does not represent me as i did not vote for her.

4. they hoarde wealth, land and art that could otherwise be displayed in national museums, be put to good use as national parks or be built on, and their vast wealth could be distributed evenly amongst the ordinary people of britain, rather than be hoarded by a few.

5. they are of the old ways. time to bring in the new. (i care little for "tradition" as being a reason for anything - especially anything this important/big)


thats about it - or at least the end of my problems with them. yay for the british republic!

1. the royal family have done nothing to deserve the position of great wealth and power they enjoy, other than inherit it - not a good enough reason imho

2. a president with a yearly salary could do the same "job" as the monarch at much reduced cost. its not just the monarch/queen herself who costs a load more than a president would, but its keeping the rest of the hundereds of royals and aristocrats in pocket, too

3. the queen was not elected by the people - it IS undemocratic. she does not represent me as i did not vote for her.

4. they hoarde wealth, land and art that could otherwise be displayed in national museums, be put to good use as national parks or be built on, and their vast wealth could be distributed evenly amongst the ordinary people of britain, rather than be hoarded by a few.

5. they are of the old ways. time to bring in the new. (i care little for "tradition" as being a reason for anything - especially anything this important/big)
1. The royals have very little power but I agree that they are given way too much money from the public coffers.

2. Does the queen even have the power that a president would in other nations?

3. Not an issue due to lack of power. Though I agree that hereditary heirarchy is a stupid and self-destructive system. It is ineffective to base authority on family connections rather than on merit and ability.

5. Yes.

1. The royals have very little power but I agree that they are given way too much money from the public coffers.

2. Does the queen even have the power that a president would in other nations?

well the power is largely symbolic or whatever, but still she does have it - and shouldn't have any. other than that her 'purpose' is as an ambassador/head of state, which is certainly a job a president could do just as well... although pobably not having the powers of a normal president

Who needs élites, anyway? The royal family lives in absurd luxury while there are still poor people. They didn't do squat to become royal, they just got born into the position. At least dictators have to engineer coups d'état and fight their way to the top rather than having their power handed to them....

Who needs élites, anyway? The royal family lives in absurd luxury while there are still poor people. They didn't do squat to become royal, they just got born into the position. At least dictators have to engineer coups d'état and fight their way to the top rather than having their power handed to them....
you earned a fluffle for that :) :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Who needs élites, anyway? The royal family lives in absurd luxury while there are still poor people. They didn't do squat to become royal, they just got born into the position. At least dictators have to engineer coups d'état and fight their way to the top rather than having their power handed to them....
Another fluffle, and I don't give those out lightly… never before, in fact. I'm not a very fluffley type of person. :fluffle:

Do dictators have a right to power, by conquest? Interesting… should start a topic on that.

Do dictators have a right to power, by conquest? Interesting… should start a topic on that.
well dictators have more right to power than this monarchy have because they at least did something to earn that power... whether it was right, legal, justified or moral, or not....

well dictators have more right to power than this monarchy have because they at least did something to earn that power... whether it was right, legal, justified or moral, or not.... We should just pick a volunteer figurehead who looks good - people send their photos in, and a good-looking one is chosen for a year. Good idea, yes?

But they're not bound by our country.
Still, they're rich. Why not shake them down?

Seriously though, for all those who say that they provide us with money - why can't they provide us with more? They are, after all, a public institution.
The US or Russian presidency are also public institutions. Do they provide the general public with money? I sincerely doubt that.

(I don't have anything against them personally, btw.)
I'm not concerned with the royals at all--after all, I'm from Russia, we dispenced with them in the 1910s. Nevertheless it is my conviction that adopting something along the lines of the Westminster system in Russia in the 1900s could have barely saved my country from its unhappy fate.

We should just pick a volunteer figurehead who looks good - people send their photos in, and a good-looking one is chosen for a year. Good idea, yes?
very good!
except we'd probably end up with some fucking chav... i say we just have Ozzy Osbourne as head of state and be done with it :D

I'm not concerned with the royals at all--after all, I'm from Russia, we dispenced with them in the 1910s. Nevertheless it is my conviction that adopting something along the lines of the Westminster system in Russia in the 1900s could have barely saved my country from its unhappy fate. The Westminster system… as opposed to the autocratic Tsarist system, right? That's a good idea. But it's not really a good comparison.

Jesus loves me for a sun beam
Jesus doesn't love me for a sunbeam :(

Jesus doesn't love me for a sunbeam :(
I love sunbeams, don't see why he wouldn't.

The Westminster system… as opposed to the autocratic Tsarist system, right? That's a good idea. But it's not really a good comparison.
Well, it is good enough for me... Today it is still relevant--look at Nepal, for example.

Maybe it is a bad comparison, but our anti-elitists threw the throne out, took the Tsar's palaces and the Tsar's money. The general public was able to see the former, I grant you that, but not the latter. And then we had a civil war, a reign of terror, the whole bit...

Well, it is good enough for me... Today it is still relevant--look at Nepal, for example.

Maybe it is a bad comparison, but our anti-elitists threw the throne out, took the Tsar's palaces and the Tsar's money. The general public was able to see the former, I grant you that, but not the latter. And then we had a civil war, a reign of terror, the whole bit... Change does not mean revolution. In England we didn't have a revolution, more an evolution. Modifying the Constitutional Monarchy (of a country without a constitution since the Magna Carta… what's with that?) won't lead to Stalin.

Change does not mean revolution. In England we didn't have a revolution, more an evolution. Modifying the Constitutional Monarchy (of a country without a constitution since the Magna Carta… what's with that?) won't lead to Stalin.
Actually, you did have a revolution, back in the 1640s. :)

Of course, you won't get Stalin in the 'United Republic'. You'll get someone like your current Lord Privy Seal or Lord President of the Council, who will be appointing the Prime Minister and cutting the ribbons instead of that old lady. Big difference?

Actually, you did have a revolution, back in the 1640s. :)

Of course, you won't get Stalin in the 'United Republic'. You'll get someone like your current Lord Privy Seal or Lord President of the Council, who will be appointing the Prime Minister and cutting the ribbons instead of that old lady. Big difference? Yeah. Less cost, and my idea means they'll look better.

Yeah. Less cost, and my idea means they'll look better.
Less cost--and less money in the Treasury. Remember, the Crown Estate has been transferred to Mountbatten-Windsor Ltd.

Who needs élites, anyway? The royal family lives in absurd luxury while there are still poor people. They didn't do squat to become royal, they just got born into the position. At least dictators have to engineer coups d'état and fight their way to the top rather than having their power handed to them....

You could say the same for any kid born into a wealthy family.

Do dictators have a right to power, by conquest? Interesting… should start a topic on that.

I wasn't saying that at all. I was saying that as bad as dictators are, at least they have to work for their position rather than be born into it.

You could say the same for any kid born into a wealthy family.

And I do say that for any kid born into a wealthy family.

I've never heard of British republicans, but i'm starting to hate them.

also, i agree, the chavs need to be removed.

The first post was really describing Libertarians more than republicans.


Finally, I'm henry the VIII. (http://ezfolk.com/audio/play.php?band_id=473&song_id=1654&mode=song_hifi)

I've never heard of British republicans, but i'm starting to hate them.

also, i agree, the chavs need to be removed.

The first post was really describing Libertarians more than republicans.


Finally, I'm henry the VIII. (http://ezfolk.com/audio/play.php?band_id=473&song_id=1654&mode=song_hifi)
A Republican is simply someone who wants to abolish the institution of the Royal Family. I consider myself a sort of lame, half-Republican.

I wasn't saying that at all. I was saying that as bad as dictators are, at least they have to work for their position rather than be born into it.
Like Kim Chong-il and Bashar Assad?

Like Kim Chong-il and Bashar Assad?

True, a lot of them are basically defacto monarchs, but I was speaking generally and I have no more support for dictators than for monarchs, anyway.