NationStates Jolt Archive

Melbour 2006 commonwelth games have said they will not play GOD SAVE THE QUEEN. Even though the Queen of Australia Elizabeth the second will be there. P.M. Howard of Aurtralia said it should be played and even the immagration minister who want aurtralia to be a Republic said it should be played in her presence!

I think they should. In the presence of there QUEEN!

Well color me ignorant. I didn't even know that Australia had a queen.

Oh wait... Elizabeth II? Queen of the U.K.? She's still considered queen of Australia? Hmm.

No, it shouldn't be played. It is an awful funeral like dirge with no spirit and a coma inducing effect on all involved. If I never hear that horrible tune again it will be too soon.

I think they should its tradition and the Queen is still the head of state no matter how hard some ozzy in power denies it

Of course it should be played. No matter what you think of the Queen as Australia's Head of State, she remains that Head of the Commonwealth, and these are the Commonwealth Games.

Eh...considering will be there and all...sure.

No, it shouldn't be played. It is an awful funeral like dirge with no spirit and a coma inducing effect on all involved. If I never hear that horrible tune again it will be too soon.


Does raise an intresting point though....whether you want to play it or not....do you really want to hear it?

are you guys talking about "god save the queen" bye the Sex Pistols? lol that would be awesome. Then i would say yes. But if its the regular song than im gonna have to say no.

Ya, Shes the Head of the commonwealth and she will be present. Its only polite!

As an anti-Monachist Brit, I think it shouldn't be played. DOWN WITH THE QUEEN!

As an anti-Monachist Brit, I think it shouldn't be played. DOWN WITH THE QUEEN!
Better Monarchy than Blair :x

Better Monarchy than Blair :x

I'm not sure.

Queen Tony has a nice ring to it.

At least Blair will be gone in a few months/years. We could have to put up with Charles for thirty or forty years. Then William. Then the next. And the next. On and on.

Only if Queen gets to play it themselves

I'm not sure.

Queen Tony has a nice ring to it.
:eek: You have done the unthinkable. You have made a democrat out of me.

At least Blair will be gone in a few months/years. We could have to put up with Charles for thirty or forty years. Then William. Then the next. And the next. On and on.
Yep, and when they order you to don your armour and go and fight the French, then I will completely agree with you that they are infringing on your rights. Oh wait, Blair can do that with conscription, except you don't get the cool armour. :(

Tony is a closet Queen.

Yep, and when they order you to don your armour and go and fight the French, then I will completely agree with you that they are infringing on your rights. Oh wait, Blair might do that with conscription, except you don't get the cool armour. :(
No armour? :(

But yes. I hate the monachy. Is a waste of money, and they actually do have a lot of power, they just don't use it. That doesnt mean they might not try one day >>

No armour? :(

But yes. I hate the monachy. Is a waste of money, and they actually do have a lot of power, they just don't use it. That doesnt mean they might not try one day >>
No they have literally no power. Parliament is sovereign. Be more afraid of it than anything else in the UK. And, they generate tourism, earning way more than the 60p you pay per year to keep them there.

And, they generate tourism,

Personal views of the monarchy aside. That really is a piss poor arguement for keeping the monarchy, even if it were true.

No they have literally no power. Parliament is sovereign. Be more afraid of it than anything else in the UK. And, they generate tourism, earning way more than the 60p you pay per year to keep them there.
No, they USE literally no power. Thwy actually have quite a bit - for example, IIRC they can veto any law. Not a power I would lika non elected person to use. Whether or not they ever have or will is moot. the fact they can is enough.

As for the money they cost, the actuall appearences the monach makes in a year? Not many. Most of the tourism is generated by the place, changing of the guard etc. Why do we need a familiy living at the taxpaywers expense for that?

No, they USE literally no power. Thwy actually have quite a bit - for example, IIRC they can veto any law. Not a power I would lika non elected person to use. Whether or not they ever have or will is moot. the fact they can is enough.
I study law. Trust me, Royal Prerogative and Royal Assent mean nothing nowadays. It's simply assumed. Even the House of Lords has been emasculated. Neither has much power.

As for the money they cost, the actuall appearences the monach makes in a year? Not many. Most of the tourism is generated by the place, changing of the guard etc. Why do we need a familiy living at the taxpaywers expense for that?
Basically it's all their costs. I agree though that they could be more frugal, that they should get real jobs and that not all the extended family should enjoy the same privileges as the main family.

Personal views of the monarchy aside. That really is a piss poor arguement for keeping the monarchy, even if it were true.
I think they do generate tourism, and it was a counter to the statement that they cost a lot; they cost around 60p per person per year.

No armour? :(

But yes. I hate the monachy. Is a waste of money, and they actually do have a lot of power, they just don't use it. That doesnt mean they might not try one day >>
Symbolic power.

In reality they have none. Parliament would just remove the monarch if anything was vetoed etc., sure they've done it before (Charles I, James II)

Basically it's all their costs.
And yet if we scrapped the actual family, all that money could be put to use so much more usefully, without a great drop in the income.

Thwy actually have quite a bit - for example, IIRC they can veto any law.

Not really. If that happened there would likely be a huge constitution crisis which could possibly result in the monarchy lose it position. The monarchy would never do this since it has little to gain and a whole lot to lose from such an action.

Not a power I would lika non elected person to use. Whether or not they ever have or will is moot. the fact they can is enough.

They really can't though.

Any refusal to give Royal Assent will ruin everything and probably only delay the bill passing.

Symbolic power.

In reality they have none. Parliament would just remove the monarch if anything was vetoed etc., sure they've done it before (Charles I, James II)
Exactly. As I said, Royal Prerogative and Royal Assent mean nothing. The only power they have is to invade any nation they so choose, but that would get them deposed.

And yet if we scrapped the actual family, all that money could be put to use so much more usefully, without a great drop in the income.
No, Government would find a new way to waste it. It's so very good at that.

I think they do generate tourism, and it was a counter to the statement that they cost a lot; they cost around 60p per person per year.

I have never seen a shred of proof supporting the claim that the monarchy generate tourism, and as a Brit I am slightly insulted at the implication we have nothing else of value here.

Though maybe we should set up an opt out scheme for people. Even better, we should privatise the monarchy!

I have never seen a shred of proof supporting the claim that the monarchy generate tourism, and as a Brit I am slightly insulted at the implication we have nothing else of value here.

Though maybe we should set up an opt out scheme for people. Even better, we should privatise the monarchy!
Well in the old days the Monarchy controlled its assets so it wasn't so wasteful with them. Perhaps they should earn the money that they spend, and yes, private sponsorship would be a good idea. Funny; private owner of the kingdom changing to privately sponsored ruler. How ironic.

In any case, I never said Britain has nothing else of value (well, the food is not much to speak of :x), but the argument runs that the Monarchy boosts tourism.

I say play Amhrann Na bhFiann instead(Irish national anthem)

In any case, I never said Britain has nothing else of value (well, the food is not much to speak of :x)

:eek: We have fantastic food!

You can't beat fish and chips...

I voted no for the following reasons.

1. I'm American.
2. I'm Irish-American
3. The Royal Family are pompus douches.

:eek: We have fantastic food!

You can't beat fish and chips...
It's all the other dishes that suck :p

It's all the other dishes that suck :p

Seeing as I can't actually think of a single other 'traditional' British dish, I'm not going to argue this point too strongly...

Roast dinners are nice, though. I presume they're British, although that might be completely wrong.

We excel at stealing the national dishes of other nations and doing them better :p

I voted no for the following reasons.

1. I'm American.
2. I'm Irish-American
3. The Royal Family are pompus douches.

*scratches head*
American and Irish-American?
Wouldn't that just make you 1/4 Irish?

In any case, I never said Britain has nothing else of value (well, the food is not much to speak of :x),

I never said you stated it, just the Monarchist arguement with regards to tourism has the subtle implication that there is little else on offer in Britain other than the Edwardian themepark that is the royal family.

(And the food is actually quite good imo, and the opinions of many others, British cuisine has really become a lot better in the past few decades).

but the argument runs that the Monarchy boosts tourism.

How come. I mean what is so special about the personages that attracts people from other country to spend their money here? And why, if abolised, would they not still come?

Seeing as I can't actually think of a single other 'traditional' British dish,

Chicken Tikka Masala

Seeing as I can't actually think of a single other 'traditional' British dish, I'm not going to argue this point too strongly...

Roast dinners are nice, though. I presume they're British, although that might be completely wrong.

We excel at stealing the national dishes of other nations and doing them better :p
The roast dinners are indeed awesome, though I'm not sure myself if they're British. Although the ones we had in South Africa mostly came from the Dutch, some from Britain, so it could be so. :x

Stealing ideas and improving on them is called progress :p

I never said you stated it, just the Monarchist arguement with regards to tourism has the subtle implication that there is little else on offer in Britain other than the Edwardian themepark that is the royal family.

(And the food is actually quite good imo, and the opinions of many others, British cuisine has really become a lot better in the past few decades).
Yep, although that could be due to the import of foreign dishes.

How come. I mean what is so special about the personages that attracts people from other country to spend their money here? And why, if abolised, would they not still come?
I am not entirely sure. It's simply what I've seen in quite a few magazine and newspaper articles (some older editions of the Times) when they referred to the effect of Monarchy on tourism. They may be wholly fabricated though.

Yep, although that could be due to the import of foreign dishes.

Not only that but an increase in the quality of food available in Britain now.

I am not entirely sure. It's simply what I've seen in quite a few magazine and newspaper articles (some older editions of the Times) when they referred to the effect of Monarchy on tourism. They may be wholly fabricated though.

I really think it is. Just an example in recieved opinion as fact and lazy thinking. However I think the whole arguement should be done away with because it is silly to base a debate on a nations constitution on how many tourists the head of state may or may not attract.

I am a staunch monarchist and to a certain extent, an imperialist. I think that this anthem, which may I love has a wonderful patriotic melody, should definitely be played. I also think that it should be sang at the commencement of each school day and on special occasions. I also wish the BBC still played it as they used to. The Royal Family is an institution which we should cherish. It is truly great to Britain.

Stealing ideas and improving on them is called progress :p

Good cooks borrow; great cooks steal

Not only that but an increase in the quality of food available in Britain now.
Indeed. It's a lot better than what I'd imagined it to be based on what most described it as.

I really think it is. Just an example in recieved opinion as fact and lazy thinking. However I think the whole arguement should be done away with because it is silly to base a debate on a nations constitution on how many tourists the head of state may or may not attract.
It sort of makes them look like a ridiculous attraction for little kids :x Sort of like Mickey Mouse at Disneyland...although Charles has the ears.

I also wish the BBC still played it as they used to.

How did the BBC used to play it?


On a swanny-whistle? <-Cookie available

I think people should be more supportive of the Royal Family. They cost practically nothing, do a hell of a lot of work for charity (look at the Prince's Trust, for example) and, like it or not, they do generate tourism.

I think they have one of the worst jobs in the world, because they have been denied all their lives that basic human right; freedom. They cannot get up in the morning and decide they want to be an artist, or a builder, or a bus driver; they have to do everything exactly the way it's meant to be done. And don't say they get money for no work; the Queen is one of the hardest working women on the planet, and makes a point of not only reading, but understanding everything that she is required to do and sign (which is a lot).

I wouldn't want to be in their place at all, and I doubt most people would either. Give them a break; at least you're allowed to talk freely, complain about politics and life and do what you want without seeing it in the papers the next day.

I am a staunch monarchist and to a certain extent, an imperialist. I think that this anthem, which may I love has a wonderful patriotic melody, should definitely be played. I also think that it should be sang at the commencement of each school day and on special occasions. I also wish the BBC still played it as they used to. The Royal Family is an institution which we should cherish. It is truly great to Britain.
Oh, come on. "God Save The Queen" is dire.

I am a staunch monarchist and to a certain extent, an imperialist. I think that this anthem, which may I love has a wonderful patriotic melody, should definitely be played. I also think that it should be sang at the commencement of each school day and on special occasions. I also wish the BBC still played it as they used to. The Royal Family is an institution which we should cherish. It is truly great to Britain.
Imperialism died for a reason. Better a small, powerful nation.

*snip*
Yes, I cannot imagine any job that deprives you more of freedom than being a modern Monarch (or Royal). They should be allowed to lead near-to-normal lives, and work for their income.

do a hell of a lot of work for charity (look at the Prince's Trust, for example)

Another bloody stupid arguement.

Giving to charity may make them good people, either morally or at public relations, but being charitable isn't the basis for our system of government.

We could abolish the monarchy and they could still give to charity as private citizens. Sorry, but I really have no idea what this arguement actually is claiming.

and, like it or not, they do generate tourism.

Proof. Please. Actual statistical proof, not the lazy thinking that is endemic amounst the fourth estate.

I think they have one of the worst jobs in the world, because they have been denied all their lives that basic human right; freedom. They cannot get up in the morning and decide they want to be an artist, or a builder, or a bus driver;

Wow, I know people like that too. But they aren't supported by the state and haven't been on the gravy train since their first day.

This arguement that they have one worst jobs in the world is absurd bollocks. And you must know it.

they have to do everything exactly the way it's meant to be done. And don't say they get money for no work; the Queen is one of the hardest working women on the planet, and makes a point of not only reading, but understanding everything that she is required to do and sign (which is a lot).

Well that really is commendable. However it isn't in the job description. So while she could be admired for such devotion, it hardly reflects on the post.

I wouldn't want to be in their place at all, and I doubt most people would either. Give them a break; at least you're allowed to talk freely, complain about politics and life and do what you want without seeing it in the papers the next day.

I'm really beginning to wonder if you believe this crap you write.

You have basically regurgitated, almost word for word, the strawman that many anti-monarchists use to attack the institution.

Wow, someone doesn't take criticism too well, do they?

Yes, I cannot imagine any job that deprives you more of freedom than being a modern Monarch (or Royal).

Workfare "recipients"
Women in regressive cultures
Workers and labourers in regressive countries
Subsistence workers and labourers

And those are just types of employment, not the individual jobs. Just admit it, the Royal Family have it good, far better then the majority of the country in fact.

If you honestly believe the monarchy are deprieved of their freedom, then I'm sure you will will join the "Save Betty Liberation Army," which will allow the Queen, and the rest of the brood to live their life the way they want to.

Wow, someone doesn't take criticism too well, do they?

You haven't criticised me yet. Don't jump to conclusions ;)

If you honestly believe the monarchy are deprieved of their freedom, then I'm sure you will will join the "Save Betty Liberation Army," which will allow the Queen, and the rest of the brood to live their life the way they want to.
No, what I meant is that they should be allowed to work and generate their own income as opposed to taxed income.

Personally, I think the Monarchy provides an important political role.

But only look after the Monarch of the day, and maybe the heir.

The rest can go and get real jobs.

The Queen takes her Duties as Sovergein very serious, it been known for the Queen to known about the state of affairs then the present PM becasue she reads ever note that is sent in the red boxes Ambassadors metting Her Majesty to be vdery informed about world events.

Another bloody stupid arguement.

Giving to charity may make them good people, either morally or at public relations, but being charitable isn't the basis for our system of government.

We could abolish the monarchy and they could still give to charity as private citizens. Sorry, but I really have no idea what this arguement actually is claiming.

The fact that you do not understand it doesn't make it less true. The Princes Trust is not a case of the Prince giving money, it is a charity that he has established and maintained that works for good causes. The Duke of Edinburgh award is another example of this. And, of course, this is ignoring the income and publicity charities gain from a royal visit.


Proof. Please. Actual statistical proof, not the lazy thinking that is endemic amounst the fourth estate.

It's late, and I can't be bother to look it up. How about you disprove it to me?

Wow, I know people like that too. But they aren't supported by the state and haven't been on the gravy train since their first day.

You know many monarchs who have to do what is set down in law, do you?

This arguement that they have one worst jobs in the world is absurd bollocks. And you must know it.

Why?


Well that really is commendable. However it isn't in the job description. So while she could be admired for such devotion, it hardly reflects on the post.

This is a point reflecting on the unnecessary nature of personal attacks.

I'm really beginning to wonder if you believe this crap you write.

I'm beginning to wonder if you were ever taught manners.

The fact you do not like something does not, I'm afraid, automatically translate as that thing being wrong. Perhaps you should look take a look at the facts, and not simply throw insults about in an attempt to get your way.

Play it, it's not likly to kill anyone, its polite and it is the Common Wealth games. I personally think keep the monarch + royal family, its just tradition and they arn't doing anyone any harm. Also wooow go the Common Wealth. hehe

Personally, I think the Monarchy provides an important political role.

But only look after the Monarch of the day, and maybe the heir.

The rest can go and get real jobs.
Agreed; the extended family shouldn't enjoy the privileges it does.

Oh yea, and if we're going to keep the monarch and their heir, they need to do some serious work to justify themselves.

The fact that you do not understand it doesn't make it less true.

No, I understand it. I just don't understand why people make the arguement as if it matter at all.

The Princes Trust is not a case of the Prince giving money, it is a charity that he has established and maintained that works for good causes. The Duke of Edinburgh award is another example of this. And, of course, this is ignoring the income and publicity charities gain from a royal visit.

And this is a pro-Monarchy arguement how?

It's late, and I can't be bother to look it up. How about you disprove it to me?

Nope, you made the claim, you support it.

You know many monarchs who have to do what is set down in law, do you?

No. I know many people who cannot get up in the morning and do what they want to do with their life.

Why?

Because there are far worse jobs in the world, and in the country.

I'm beginning to wonder if you were ever taught manners.

The fact you do not like something does not, I'm afraid, automatically translate as that thing being wrong. Perhaps you should look take a look at the facts, and not simply throw insults about in an attempt to get your way.

I have looked at the facts. I think there are strong reasons for the monarchy to remain. However the ones you listed I don't consider strong, nor relevent.

And sorry about the insults, various reasons irl which I shall not go into.

I forgive you. :)

To be fair, I wasn't making arguments to keep the monarchy, I was making points as to why people shouldn't give the people a hard time just because they disagree with the institution.

If you want a monarchy debate, then I suggest you set up a thread on it. I will be more than happy to answer in the morning. :p

If by "God Save the Queen" you mean the Sex Pistols version of the song, I'm not averse. :D

I forgive you. :)

Ahh, Thank you.

If you want a monarchy debate, then I suggest you set up a thread on it. I will be more than happy to answer in the morning. :p

No, not really. The monarchy used to be a huge thing for me, but I am resigned to it now. Still don't agree with it, but I can tolerate it. (And I'm talking about the institution, not the people of whom I have no opinion, though I did titter when Charles called himself a political dissedent.) I see strong arguements for it, though remain unconvinced, it is only a handful that annoy me though.

Well really I should be going too.

I'd like to start by saying to all the foreigners coming here for the Commonwealth games: be prepared for a rather appalling public transport system. Privatising trains was one of the stupidest things ever done. Admittedly the way they have one ticket for bus trains and trams is nice, but with the zones and whatnot it will confuse the tripe out of you. And its not worth the full fare prices for the service provided.

On topic (for once in this thread) I believe Australia should have voted to become a Republic at the last opportunity, unfortunately John Howard was smart enough and put forward a crappy policy of what would happen after we stopped being part of the Commonwealth. But since we didn't lets give old lizzie her due; she gets bagged enough as it is. Its not gonna hurt anyone to play it. Actually, I'd like to know if they are gonna play both verses of the National Anthem. Anyone know?

Of course it should be played. No matter what you think of the Queen as Australia's Head of State, she remains that Head of the Commonwealth, and these are the Commonwealth Games.
Exactement.