NationStates Jolt Archive

Yup, it's HRH's 80th birthday today. So I was wondering, what would NSers say to her as a birthday message?

And because I know you guys love a poll, I've included one. Though it's not related to the question I just asked.

What the hell is Qe2 and HRH?

What the hell is Qe2 and HRH?
Queen Elizabeth II.
Her Royal Highness.

Kick her out.
Down with the monarchy!

Oops. I voted for the change of succession one. I want her to do that, but not abdicate.

it is also my sisters birthday.....

shes a good queen, when she dies give the thrown to William, all charles have the inconveinient ability of getting there heads chopped off...

Risking a repetition:
La noblesse, à la latèrne.

All I can say is thank god the British Royal women outlive the men. Didn't QE2's MOM just pass away?

I think she should remain queen til after Charles croaks. Then we'll see.

Of course, I'm not English so I really don't care. But then again, in all fairness, I probably wouldn't care if I was. :p

Boo, Queen! Get off my money!

Aww, your poll and OP don't match. I can't decide what to answer... maybe both...

What I want to know is if the Queen is writing secret memoirs about her life, which will be one long bitch rant. 'Now that one is dead and no longer has to remain politically neutral one shall tell it you as it was. First off, that **** Attlee...'

Happy Birthday Elizabeth, may you continure to live a long and properpus life, because I have no idea what we're going to do when you eventually do die.

Elizabeth the Last (http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,,1757958,00.html) <-- Interesting Linky, so how about you actually bother clicking on it. :p

Everyone else in the Royal Family have nothing her. She is a suberb stateswoman, with over 50 years of experience, but the rest are elitist inbred fools.

When she dies will either have to face the incompetance of Charles or William, or face all the problems that come with being a republic and elected Presidents

all charles have the inconveinient ability of getting there heads chopped off...
The second Charles manage to keep his head attached.

He was just an incompetent adulterer, which somehow seems more appropriate...

Happy birthday Ma'am!

Aww, your poll and OP don't match. I can't decide what to answer... maybe both...
Sorry...

What I want to know is if the Queen is writing secret memoirs about her life, which will be one long bitch rant. 'Now that one is dead and no longer has to remain politically neutral one shall tell it you as it was. First off, that **** Attlee...'
Heh, that'd be great. Especially if it dedicated 100 pages telling us how much she hated Blair.

Happy Birthday Elizabeth, may you continure to live a long and properpus life, because I have no idea what we're going to do when you eventually do die.
Properpus? I assume prosperous. Either that or you think she's a cat. Nice message.

Elizabeth the Last (http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,,1757958,00.html) <-- Interesting Linky, so how about you actually bother clicking on it. :p
Very interesting article. And what a surprise it's in the Guardian! :rolleyes:

Everyone else in the Royal Family have nothing her. She is a suberb stateswoman, with over 50 years of experience, but the rest are elitist inbred fools.
I want Harry on the throne. He'd be fucking awesome as King.

When she dies will either have to face the incompetance of Charles or William, or face all the problems that come with being a republic and elected Presidents
Hopefully Charles will either be dead or will have enough sense to gauge public opinion and pass the throne directly to William.

If Queen Liz 2, Charles, William, and Harry all died tomorrow, who would be king/queen?

Yup, it's HRH's 80th birthday today. So I was wondering, what would NSers say to her as a birthday message?

how about "drop dead"?


actually no, that's pointless and harsh. she's a normal woman and deserves life as much as anyone else... i'll change that to "abdicate and take the rest of your blue-blood antidemocratic family with you"

If Queen Liz 2, Charles, William, and Harry all died tomorrow, who would be king/queen?
Andrew, I believe.

how about "drop dead"?


actually no, that's pointless and harsh. she's a normal woman and deserves life as much as anyone else... i'll change that to "abdicate and take the rest of your blue-blood antidemocratic family with you"
Couldn't you even manage 'Happy birthday'?

Very interesting article. And what a surprise it's in the Guardian! :rolleyes:Yep, the Guardian, bastion of the republican movement in the UK. I remember than ran a campaign against the treason act, under which you can be proscecuted for, through peaceful means, advocating abolition of the monarchy in print.
I want Harry on the throne. He'd be fucking awesome as King.I don't think the royal family would dream of having him as next in line.Hopefully Charles will either be dead or will have enough sense to gauge public opinion and pass the throne directly to William.I think the guardian is right, the monarchy is coming to an end. It's only recently that lthe majority of hereditary peers where removed from the House of Lords, with the rest of them leaving eventually. But then we've already witnessed the wonders of what a loan can do for you.

Couldn't you even manage 'Happy birthday'?
oh fine... happy birthday :)

now insert the rest of my roundhead claptrap :P

I think the guardian is right, the monarchy is coming to an end. It's only recently that lthe majority of hereditary peers where removed from the House of Lords, with the rest of them leaving eventually. But then we've already witnessed the wonders of what a loan can do for you.
The Monarchy (and The Lords) has been 'coming to an end' for at least a century now, and they're still going strong. And, unfortunately for the Republicans, support for Charles seems to be going up over time, not down.

I'm always curious as to the immense faith people put in the offspring of Charles and Diana. Have they done something amazing that I missed? :confused:

The Monarchy (and The Lords) has been 'coming to an end' for at least a century now, and they're still going strong. And, unfortunately for the Republicans, support for Charles seems to be going up over time, not down.

I'm always curious as to the immense faith people put in the offspring of Charles and Diana. Have they done something amazing that I missed? :confused:Do you think that a man who couldn't keep his wife faithful could keep a country faithful? :p

The Lords as a hereditary institution HAS ended. It just some are going to serve on the benches until they retire to stop it looking like Tony Blair has made the house into a rubber stamp with all this creditors.

The Lords as a hereditary institution HAS ended. It just some are going to serve on the benches until they retire to stop it looking like Tony Blair has made the house into a rubber stamp with all this creditors.
No, it hasn't; there are still 93 Hereditary Peers. Plus, what has replaced it is hardly 'democratic'; it simply shows how good old institutions are at reforming themselves for survival. If the cash-for-peerages incidents hadn't arisen, the Lords would have continued being ignored.

actually I think the reform of the house of Lords has strengthened the position of the monarchy, not weakened it. A heretitary house of Lords was undemocratic, as the House wielded power. The Monarch does not.

It showed that you can have perfectly democratic government (in Australia, Canada, New Zealand for example), without an inherited upper house, and still have a hereditary monarch.

The monarchs position is ceremonial. Ceremony is largely about tradition. Why then break a tradition that is hundreds of years old?

The second Charles manage to keep his head attached.

He was just an incompetent adulterer, which somehow seems more appropriate...


yeah well the whole stuart line was a bit dodgey

James I - crippled royal finances
Charles I - managed to piss off everyone and get the monarch abolished
Charles II - cheery old charlie was a
James II - got hiimself kicked out after 3 years - along came william III
Mary II & William III (co-monarchs) - alright i suppose
Anne - you cant have a queen wiht the same name as my mum

and then it saftley ended the staurt line

Queen Elizabeth II.
Her Royal Highness.


Its Actually Her Majesty (HM) Queen Elizabeth II, not HRH.

I have to admit, I thought you were talking about the ship when I saw the thread title.

I have to admit, I thought you were talking about the ship when I saw the thread title.
That's alright, I thought it was a thread on physics at first. :p

The monarchs position is ceremonial. Ceremony is largely about tradition. Why then break a tradition that is hundreds of years old?I'm not saying that there's a reason to break this tradition, but simply because the tradition is there doesn't mean that it shouldn't be broken.

which is in effect, a reason. :)

Its Actually Her Majesty (HM) Queen Elizabeth II, not HRH.

Good catch, and not a bad way to make your debut. NS needs more pedantry.

I've seen the TLA HRH used in official correspondence... I'm fairly sure it's a valid way to addres Her Majesty.

I've seen the TLA HRH used in official correspondence... I'm fairly sure it's a valid way to addres Her Majesty.

Proof, if proof be needed:

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page412.asp

This page: http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page236.asp would suggest that HRH is also appropriate. I think the above page did not use a TLA for Her Majesty to show she was above the others.

Good catch, and not a bad way to make your debut. NS needs more pedantry.
:confused: No, it really doesn't. Not when it's pointing out my mistakes, anyway. :p

This page: http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page236.asp would suggest that HRH is also appropriate. I think the above page did not use a TLA for Her Majesty to show she was above the others.

A page which doesn't even contain the phrase 'Her Royal Highness' or its TLA is evidence? Note how it uses YRH, not HRH.

No, it hasn't; there are still 93 Hereditary Peers. Plus, what has replaced it is hardly 'democratic'; it simply shows how good old institutions are at reforming themselves for survival. If the cash-for-peerages incidents hadn't arisen, the Lords would have continued being ignored.Look at the act, no one is allowed to sit in the House of Lords by Virtue of their birth. These 92 peers are permited to sit in the house so as not to create a vacuum in the intermediate stage of the House of Lords. It is an attempt to smooth the transition. Though it has been left to a later government to remove the remaining hereditary peers.

I don't think I said what had replaced it was democratic, just not hereditary.

In short we cannot conceive a more ridiculous figure of government, than hereditary succession.
Tom Paine - The Rights of Man, 1971.

I don't mind there being a royal line.... I mind them being richer than me!

ANORAK IN THE UK!!!!!!

In short we cannot conceive a more ridiculous figure of government, than hereditary succession.
Tom Paine - The Rights of Man, 1971.1971?

1971?
I assume it was a typo. 1791.

Considering it was written as a response to a Burke's Reflections on the French Revolution, which was basically 400 pages denouncing the revolutionaries as eedjits, I consider The Rights of Man to be a little bit reactionary in itself. It goes over the top quite a bit.

I assume it was a typo. 1791.I assume so, too, but the quote attributes it to Tom Paine, who might be a different person than Thomas Paine.

I assume so, too, but the quote attributes it to Tom Paine, who might be a different person than Thomas Paine.
Google him, see if he is anyone. ;)

Happy Birthday Ma'am

ts nice ot have a monarch , Elizabeth Regina should carry on till the crown passes to the next in line to throne , can a President say they given their life to serve the people and carry out duties more throughly then most people, and at least fun to know that she scares the hell out Bush

"If a nation does not want a monarchy, change the nation’s mind. If a nation does not need a monarchy, change the nation’s needs." - Jan Smuts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_Man
Yes, it's wikipedia, but it's still accurate.

*giggles* Yes, I meant 1791. I've not actually read The Rights of Man. But that's the only relavent Thomas Paine quote I could remember. I have read Common Sense, which seems to say much the same thing with other things added in. I thought it was quite reasonable.

If Queen Liz 2, Charles, William, and Harry all died tomorrow, who would be king/queen?

Prince Andrew, Duke of York.
Followed by His Children, Edward, His Daughter, Anne, her Children, and then it gets a bit complicated.

Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_Succession_to_the_British_Throne
if you want to know more.

Yup, it's HRH's 80th birthday today. So I was wondering, what would NSers say to her as a birthday message?

And because I know you guys love a poll, I've included one. Though it's not related to the question I just asked.

The correct way to address the Queen is as Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

HRH is for Prince Phillip, children of the Sovereign, their children, and the Sovereign's close family members, ie descendants of previous Sovereigns.

I think she should stay Queen until she dies. Afterall that is how a monarchy works...

Much as I find the royal family as a whole to be a bunch of blueblood arsewipes I can't bring myself to dislike the Queen (or her mum).

She's always been pretty decent as public figures go and as a national figurehead there's been far worse (Churchill...) over the years.

Charles better smarten up though, the succession is not a sure thing with the current stash of royals.

well i voted for abolishing the monarchy because i don't like the idea of a monarchy or an aristocracy. having said that the royal family is great as a tourist attraction so i reckon they should remain as just that. their massive homes and all that can be converted into public buildings for whatever purpose. my birthday message to liz would say "have some fun for once, ya stuck up mare" and it would be affixed to a pie made with magic mushrooms so she can have a proper wigout.

The Qe2 is a pretty ship.

The Qe2 is a pretty ship.
True...but it's not 80.

My message would be "a little bird told me, that you were eighty, so I shot it".

True...but it's not 80.
Oh, but it is.

Yup, it's HRH's 80th birthday today. So I was wondering, what would NSers say to her as a birthday message?

And because I know you guys love a poll, I've included one. Though it's not related to the question I just asked.


I would say "Happy Birthday Henrietta R. Hippo"

Oh, but it is.
Um, no. It's 37 this year.

I was born on Christmas Day. Why can't the Taxpayer subsidise my birthday?

A sincere happy birthday to Her Majesty, and hopes for many more years of healthy reign.

For centuries more of reign by the monarchy.

i think the queen should turn england back into a complete monarchy, close down parliment and open up the tower of london. she should take complete control of that country and then mysteriously she may disappear and have a sole beneficiary, that would just happen to be.............ME

She should give William the throne when she dies, apart from that, I hope she lives another 20-30 years. She's loved around the world as an excellent stateswoman. Elizabeth II >>>>>>>>>> Condoleeza Rice (even though Condo isn't head of state :P) anyway yes, long live the monarchy and rule Britannia.

My message to her:
Happy birthday!

Abolish the monarchy. It no longer serves a purpose at all, and England would be better off without the last remnants of nondemocratic rule.

I was born on Christmas Day. Why can't the Taxpayer subsidise my birthday?

Are you the Queen [insert King if you are male]?
Are you Head of State?
Have you devoted the last fifty-four years of your life to your country in a manner similar to the extraordinary contributions of the Queen?
Are you a national figure-head?
Do you keep your political opinions to yourself?
Are you the very embodiment of our nation?
Are you the patron of more British charities and organisations that any other British person?

I thought not. Which is why the taxpayer doesn't subsidise your birthday.

And just so that you know, the taxpayer hasn't subsidised the Queen's birthday either. The Queen is payed for her duties to the State, and is, if you will, the property of the State. And more of the money She spends comes from Her own private investments and property than from Parliament. And She pays most of the money from Parliament back.

And what's special about being born on Christmas Day???

:rolleyes: Thinks to himself: Some people just can't be happy with the way things are. How sad it is that they must question every minute detail to do with the Queen, her powers and income etc etc. It's a complete train crash.

Um, no. It's 37 this year.
Silly, yes it is!

i think the queen should turn england back into a complete monarchy, close down parliment and open up the tower of london. she should take complete control of that country and then mysteriously she may disappear and have a sole beneficiary, that would just happen to be.............ME

I don't think so somehow.

Abolish the monarchy. It no longer serves a purpose at all, and England would be better off without the last remnants of nondemocratic rule.

What, and a republic with a President would be better how? Surely it is better to have an impartial Head of State - with little real power - who serves as a safeguard for our people? The Queen, although you might not think it, is the person that prevents Britain becoming something dreadful like a dictatorship or a Communist state etc.
How could a President, who derives his position from politics and who is only trying to further his career, be better than someone that has devoted their entire life to this country?

The queen should go and visit a brothel! :D

Abolish the monarchy. It no longer serves a purpose at all, and England would be better off without the last remnants of nondemocratic rule.


Yes it does, and no it wouldnt.

Are you the Queen [insert King if you are male]?
No, but i'm just as human as the next man/woman.
Are you Head of State?
Have I ever, in my life, even had that kind of opportunity? No. The monarchy is hereditary - based on chance, not ability. I'd like to be given the choice of who is our head of state - an elected one, and one that we don't need a lavish birthday party for.
Have you devoted the last fifty-four years of your life to your country in a manner similar to the extraordinary contributions of the Queen?
Extraordinary contributions? Where?
Are you a national figure-head?
Again, most national figureheads like Churchill, for example, got there by ability. As above, i'd like to be given a little choice over the matter, too.
Do you keep your political opinions to yourself?
No, and proud of it. Ditto Charles, or next king. If i were to keep my mouth shut, would I get that monay and become Head of STate?
Are you the very embodiment of our nation?
No. Is she? No. Not all the people of the UK are upper-class toffs who get born into this world of wealth and privilage. I hardly feel united by her.
Are you the patron of more British charities and organisations that any other British person?
And where does that money come from/ The British Taxpayer, along with the duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. The people of the UK pay huge amounts into charity, and it's insulting to think we need a monarchy to be generous, and can't do it ourselves.

I thought not. Which is why the taxpayer doesn't subsidise your birthday.

[QUOTE=Little India]And just so that you know, the taxpayer hasn't subsidised the Queen's birthday either. The Queen is payed for her duties to the State, and is, if you will, the property of the State. And more of the money She spends comes from Her own private investments and property than from Parliament. And She pays most of the money from Parliament back.
So the privy purse, the mney the taxpayer provides to the Queen, doesn't exist? These Royal Duties are just anachronistic sinecures, left over from another era. I could live without having a state opening of Parliament, or a Christmas Address. I could also live without having to pay for the Royals to go to Eton on cheated exams, and every other royal scandal in the Tabliods.

And what's special about being born on Christmas Day???

:rolleyes: Thinks to himself: Some people just can't be happy with the way things are. How sad it is that they must question every minute detail to do with the Queen, her powers and income etc etc. It's a complete train crash.

Queen's powers and income? Minute detail? Just have a look at the 'details' that are the Royal Perogatives - all powers she can exercise at discretion, and on the advice of the PM, as she often does. It's hardly sad to question the British Constitution.

Yes it does, and no it wouldnt.
Figurehead. That's it. A patriotic figurehead. Waste of time and money, really.


What, and a republic with a President would be better how? Surely it is better to have an impartial Head of State - with little real power - who serves as a safeguard for our people? The Queen, although you might not think it, is the person that prevents Britain becoming something dreadful like a dictatorship or a Communist state etc.
How could a President, who derives his position from politics and who is only trying to further his career, be better than someone that has devoted their entire life to this country?
...

You really think that a monarch is any different in this regard? Give the monarch the same power as a President, and they'll act just like a President.

Frankly, I prefer the USian system of government. Then again, I've lived under it my whole life. So what do I know, eh?

Silly, yes it is!
Surely you mean she. Boats and ships are, for some ridiculous reason, referred to as females.

Abolish the monarchy. It no longer serves a purpose at all, and England would be better off without the last remnants of nondemocratic rule.
Haha, you think getting rid of the monarchy would remove the last remnants of non-democratic rule? :p

We've got loads of anti-democratic institutions up our sleeves, my friend. The Monarchy is probably the least worrying of these, as it's the one with no real power.

The anti-democratic institutions to worry about are the ones that pretend to be democratic, such as Ministers prerogative powers. I'm sure many will cry "but they're Royal powers, exercised by Ministers, so get rid of the Royals and you get rid of them!" I, however, very much doubt any Government would surrender them; if the Crown disappeared, I've no doubt that they would be reinvented under a new name.

Surely you mean she. Boats and ships are, for some ridiculous reason, referred to as females.
I have no idea why I am even getting a seriuos responce here!

*smack*

I don't think so somehow.



What, and a republic with a President would be better how? Surely it is better to have an impartial Head of State - with little real power - who serves as a safeguard for our people? The Queen, although you might not think it, is the person that prevents Britain becoming something dreadful like a dictatorship or a Communist state etc.
How could a President, who derives his position from politics and who is only trying to further his career, be better than someone that has devoted their entire life to this country?
Exactly.
*shiver* President Tony Blair

No, but i'm just as human as the next man/woman.

Have I ever, in my life, even had that kind of opportunity? No. The monarchy is hereditary - based on chance, not ability. I'd like to be given the choice of who is our head of state - an elected one, and one that we don't need a lavish birthday party for.

Do you seriously think that any elected President would not hold lavish parties? Yes, the monarchy is a genetic lottery, but that is what makes it special, makes it what it is. But seriously, do you think that the Queen would be Head of State if the majority of people in Britain didn't want her to be? She derives Her position from the will of the people, in whom resides Sovereign power.

Extraordinary contributions? Where?

Every single day of Her life. You may not see them, but they are there. The time over the last half-century that She has represented our country abroad, where She has made massive charitable donations, and allowed us to see a different side of the monarchy. That, I think, is Her greatest achievement. The Queen has made us see, not only how things have changed over the last century, but also how continuity is no bad thing. The monarchy is different to many people's expectations.

Again, most national figureheads like Churchill, for example, got there by ability. As above, i'd like to be given a little choice over the matter, too.

Which is why we have a Parliament and an elected Government. And before you start ranting about the undemocratic-ness or some other such word describing the House of Lords, save it. I've argued time and time again about the Lords, and really cannot be bothered to do so at this time.

No, and proud of it. Ditto Charles, or next king. If i were to keep my mouth shut, would I get that monay and become Head of STate?

That is not my point. My point is that it is incredibly difficult not to air one's views about politics - politics being after all, involved in many of the events in our daily lives. However, it is the Queen's constitutional position to not publicly display any affiliation for any political party or ideology, a task that the Queen has fulfilled amicably.

No. Is she? No. Not all the people of the UK are upper-class toffs who get born into this world of wealth and privilage. I hardly feel united by her.

Yes. Whether you like it or not, the Queen is the symbol of our nation. Think about it - She's on the money, Her name is on the passports.
And not all the people of the UK are socialist republicans, and many ARE united by her.

And where does that money come from/ The British Taxpayer, along with the duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. The people of the UK pay huge amounts into charity, and it's insulting to think we need a monarchy to be generous, and can't do it ourselves.

Again, you misunderstand my point. What I am trying to get across is that the Queen is involved with more charitable organisations that many give Her credit for. And yes, the British people fortunate enough to be able to donate money to various charities are extremely generous in helping to fund good causes. But can you honestly say that any British person is involved in as many charitable organisations as the Queen and the Royal Family collectively?

So the privy purse, the mney the taxpayer provides to the Queen, doesn't exist? These Royal Duties are just anachronistic sinecures, left over from another era. I could live without having a state opening of Parliament, or a Christmas Address. I could also live without having to pay for the Royals to go to Eton on cheated exams, and every other royal scandal in the Tabliods.

I never said the Privy Purse does not exist. I stated that money is granted to the Queen for the duties that She performs for this country - I believe I referred to it as money from Parliament? - and then stated that all the money that is not used - which is a substantial amount, as the monarchy is largely self-sufficient - along with income tax on Her Majesty's possessions and investments is returned to Parliament.
Yes, the State Opening of Parliament is just a silly ceremony where all the Lords put on the wigs and the Queen puts on the Imperial State Crown and reads a speech. But all the pomp and circumstance that goes with such events as the State Opening of Parliament, the Queen's Speech on Christmas Day are things that help define our nation, and are part of our culture and our heritage.

Queen's powers and income? Minute detail? Just have a look at the 'details' that are the Royal Perogatives - all powers she can exercise at discretion, and on the advice of the PM, as she often does. It's hardly sad to question the British Constitution.

The Royal Prerogatives are powers that are rarely, if ever, exercised without the advice and consent of the Cabinet and the Prime Minister. But, you seem to forget, that if the Queen did not exercise the powers granted to Her under the Royal Prerogatives, there would be no Prime Minister, no Cabinet, no Parliament, no Laws, nothing. The Queen performs all these acts, but only with advice and consent of the Government. The Queen reigns, but does not rule. She is a figurehead, and, as is the role of a Constitutional monarch, does as She is told by the elected Government.
No, it certainly is not sad to question our Constitution, but it is sad to question it when you don't know the full facts, and have only a vague inclination as to it's full detail and provision.

I think that we shall never agree in our ideas about monarchy - they appear to be polar opposites.
Never mind.

We (being Canada) need the queen, as she is a safegaurd of our democracy. But she's definately overpaid.

Exactly.
*shiver* President Tony Blair

*Feels like shooting himself at just the thought. Having to see his smarmy face on the news daily is bad enough, without thinking about him becoming President.*

Is it just me, or do you feel that he wants to become the President of a Europe that is one country, a superstate that is not politically, culturally or economically separate? I do. Heaven help us if his ambitions are fulfilled! :(

We (being Canada) need the queen, as she is a safegaurd of our democracy. But she's definately overpaid.

Many people here in the UK fail to see how important the Queen is in protecting our rights, as well as the rights of the other Commonwealth realms where She is Queen.

Get rid of her.

To be honest, I like the Queen.

Charles is a nice man, on the basis of the one time I've met him, but I wouldn't want him to be King.

William and Harry seem alright, but even then....

I don't know...I always just think a Queen has a much better chance of growing old gracefully and becoming loved by the people than a King has, just one of those feelings. Maybe the throne should pass to the next female....it's no longer about who can be the best warrior or anything, it's about who can command the most public respect and feeling.

Do you seriously think that any elected President would not hold lavish parties? Yes, the monarchy is a genetic lottery, but that is what makes it special, makes it what it is. But seriously, do you think that the Queen would be Head of State if the majority of people in Britain didn't want her to be? She derives Her position from the will of the people, in whom resides Sovereign power.[QUOTE=Little India]

Undoubtedly an elected Head of State would hold lavish parties - but the people would elect someone who wouldn't, if they wanted to. She doesn't derive her power from the people at all, under our constitutional law, she derives her power from God.

[QUOTE=Little India]Every single day of Her life. You may not see them, but they are there. The time over the last half-century that She has represented our country abroad, where She has made massive charitable donations, and allowed us to see a different side of the monarchy. That, I think, is Her greatest achievement. The Queen has made us see, not only how things have changed over the last century, but also how continuity is no bad thing. The monarchy is different to many people's expectations.

I hardly count showing a 'different' side of the monarchy a great achevement. We have ambassadors and (in the commonwealth) High Commissoners to represent the country abroad politically, and the Prime Minsiter for all other occasions. In any case, most Britons visit other countries some time in their lives, which is the impression most people get of British people, not the queen or politicians.

The Queen has hardly made me see how continuity is no bad thing, on the contrary, I think the monarchy nees to be changed!

Which is why we have a Parliament and an elected Government. And before you start ranting about the undemocratic-ness or some other such word describing the House of Lords, save it. I've argued time and time again about the Lords, and really cannot be bothered to do so at this time.

Fine then - but the fact remains that an important position in Government, the Head of State is unelected, which is fundementally wrong.

That is not my point. My point is that it is incredibly difficult not to air one's views about politics - politics being after all, involved in many of the events in our daily lives. However, it is the Queen's constitutional position to not publicly display any affiliation for any political party or ideology, a task that the Queen has fulfilled amicably.

Yes, she fills the job of being non-partisan very well, but that doesn't make the monarchy any more or less acceptable. Since the monarchy is hereditary, not elected, and not based on ability, there is no choice of whether we have a good or a bad Head of State.

Yes. Whether you like it or not, the Queen is the symbol of our nation. Think about it - She's on the money, Her name is on the passports.
And not all the people of the UK are socialist republicans, and many ARE united by her.

If you want a symbol to put on money or passports, put on the Union Jack, the Coat of Arms (which would probably remain) or Britannia. Im sure if needs be, there would be no shortage of alternative symbols.

According to a MORI poll, (linky (http://www.mori.com/polls/2000/notw001215.shtml)) 27% of people would vote in favour of a President elected by the people. And looking at our general elections, 27% of people are not Socialists, in party at least.

Just because a majority support the Monarchy, doesn't mean that everyone feels unified by her. In my opinion, it's a divisive way of 'choosing' our head of state. The farce over Charles and Diana/Camilla was hardly unifying, it seemed like a ridiculous dividing soap opera.

Again, you misunderstand my point. What I am trying to get across is that the Queen is involved with more charitable organisations that many give Her credit for. And yes, the British people fortunate enough to be able to donate money to various charities are extremely generous in helping to fund good causes. But can you honestly say that any British person is involved in as many charitable organisations as the Queen and the Royal Family collectively?

Well, Bill Gates has just given £400,000,000 to charity, but does that immediatly give him an inalienable right to be the US Head of State? Yes, she's done a lot of good charity work, but you don't have to be a Monarch to be generous.

I never said the Privy Purse does not exist. I stated that money is granted to the Queen for the duties that She performs for this country - I believe I referred to it as money from Parliament? - and then stated that all the money that is not used - which is a substantial amount, as the monarchy is largely self-sufficient - along with income tax on Her Majesty's possessions and investments is returned to Parliament.

Living in a great many palaces and castles hardly counts as a 'duty' - however, if these were fully opened to the public, and all the artwork and architechture put on display permantly, more visitors would come to see them, and the cash would still flow.

In any case, the Monarchy is above such sordid affairs as taxation, since when the Queen Mother died, she was not required to pay the inheritance tax on the (obviously substansial) inheritance.

Yes, the State Opening of Parliament is just a silly ceremony where all the Lords put on the wigs and the Queen puts on the Imperial State Crown and reads a speech. But all the pomp and circumstance that goes with such events as the State Opening of Parliament, the Queen's Speech on Christmas Day are things that help define our nation, and are part of our culture and our heritage.

Well, if we really want a little ceremony, let an elected figurehead do it. I'm sure that's a suitable compramise.

The Royal Prerogatives are powers that are rarely, if ever, exercised without the advice and consent of the Cabinet and the Prime Minister. But, you seem to forget, that if the Queen did not exercise the powers granted to Her under the Royal Prerogatives, there would be no Prime Minister, no Cabinet, no Parliament, no Laws, nothing. The Queen performs all these acts, but only with advice and consent of the Government. The Queen reigns, but does not rule. She is a figurehead, and, as is the role of a Constitutional monarch, does as She is told by the elected Government.

The existance of the Cabinet is nothing to do with the Royal Perogatives - the cabinet evolved out of the Privy Council, when Parliament took over the duties of government while Kings George I and II were in Hanover (which they also ruled) and while George III was unable to rule.

The Roys Perogatives are wide ranging, and there is no gurantee that a future King/Queen or Prime Minister would use them in a less positive way than they are now. Indeed, the powers were used to veto, as I said, a Bill in Parliament as recently as 1999.

If we abolished the monarchy the Powers would undoubtedly pass to parliament, and not the current Prime Minister/Monarch combination, and Parliament is where they should lie.

No, it certainly is not sad to question our Constitution, but it is sad to question it when you don't know the full facts, and have only a vague inclination as to it's full detail and provision.

Suggesting that I "have only a vague inclination as to it's full detail and provision?" because I have a differing view on the Monarchy? Petty insults are hardly going to change my viewpoint any time soon.

I think that we shall never agree in our ideas about monarchy - they appear to be polar opposites.
Never mind.

Seems the Monarchy is divisive, eh? [/Joke]

I thought this was going to be a thread about doing algebra with irrational numbers.
*feels cheated*
I'm still going to say:
Qe2 = 80
Q = 80/(e * 2)
Q = 14.715
Anyway.

I thought this was going to be a thread about doing algebra with irrational numbers.
*feels cheated*
I'm still going to say:
Qe2 = 80
Q = 80/(e * 2)
Q = 14.715
Anyway.
Heh. Q = dead. R has taken his place.

I thought this was going to be a thread about doing algebra with irrational numbers.
*feels cheated*
I'm still going to say:
Qe2 = 80
Q = 80/(e * 2)
Q = 14.715
Anyway.

Ah but if it's irrational, Q is only approximately equal to 14.715

Ah but if it's irrational, Q is only approximately equal to 14.715
But, there is no key to make the approx. equal sign, and I'm too lazy to find one, so fuuuuck you and your ontological accuracy.

it is also my sisters birthday.....

shes a good queen, when she dies give the thrown to William, all charles have the inconveinient ability of getting there heads chopped off...

This will only happen if HRH Charles Prince of Wales leaves the congregation of the Anglican Church. His Royal Highness' claim to the Crown cannot be invalidated otherwise as far as memory serves.

Boo, Queen! Get off my money!

The monarchy is, essentially, economically self-sufficient.

Yep, the Guardian, bastion of the republican movement in the UK. I remember than ran a campaign against the treason act, under which you can be proscecuted for, through peaceful means, advocating abolition of the monarchy in print.
I don't think the royal family would dream of having him as next in line.I think the guardian is right, the monarchy is coming to an end. It's only recently that lthe majority of hereditary peers where removed from the House of Lords, with the rest of them leaving eventually. But then we've already witnessed the wonders of what a loan can do for you.

Don't you believe it! The remaining Hereditary Peers are disgusted with the "cash-for-peerages" scandal and are intent on making life as difficult as possible for the Government. In addition, the Salisbury Convention has now been renounced by the Conservative and Unionist and Liberal Democratic peers so that is going to make the Government's agenda even more strenuous. The Lords Spiritual and Temporal in this present Parliament assembled are refusing to allow further reform of the House for the time being, the House of Lords Act 1999 making absolute abolition a much more distant prospect.

Do you think that a man who couldn't keep his wife faithful could keep a country faithful? :p

The Lords as a hereditary institution HAS ended. It just some are going to serve on the benches until they retire to stop it looking like Tony Blair has made the house into a rubber stamp with all this creditors.

This is a common misconception. Once an Elected Hereditary Peer dies, their seat is immediately contested and refilled by another Elected Hereditary. By the way, most of the Elected Hereditary peers are unable to "retire" as many have served for many years in Parliament.

No, it hasn't; there are still 93 Hereditary Peers. Plus, what has replaced it is hardly 'democratic'; it simply shows how good old institutions are at reforming themselves for survival. If the cash-for-peerages incidents hadn't arisen, the Lords would have continued being ignored.

If the United Kingdom used a system of Direct Proportional Representation in her Parliamentary elections then the distribution of seats in the House of commons would be very similar to that in the House of Lords as it stands. As a result of this, the Lords has been given the pet name of the "democratic chamber".

actually I think the reform of the house of Lords has strengthened the position of the monarchy, not weakened it. A heretitary house of Lords was undemocratic, as the House wielded power. The Monarch does not.

It showed that you can have perfectly democratic government (in Australia, Canada, New Zealand for example), without an inherited upper house, and still have a hereditary monarch.

The monarchs position is ceremonial. Ceremony is largely about tradition. Why then break a tradition that is hundreds of years old?

1. Parliament Acts (of dubious legality in some eyes).

2. Approximately 1,000 A.D., England did not have an Hereditary Monarchy or House of Lords and the country worked perfectly well. Inheritance was introduced by the Normans.

3. Prerogatives

Never mind politics, Happy Birthday Ma'am!!

yeah well the whole stuart line was a bit dodgey

James I - crippled royal finances
Charles I - managed to piss off everyone and get the monarch abolished
Charles II - cheery old charlie was a
James II - got hiimself kicked out after 3 years - along came william III
Mary II & William III (co-monarchs) - alright i suppose
Anne - you cant have a queen wiht the same name as my mum

and then it saftley ended the staurt line

James I was a very frugal monarch who managed his personal finances well, admittedly because he preferred Absolute Monarchy to Constitutional.

Charles I was not legally tried or executed. Firstly, the trial would have been "Rex v. Rex" and second, Oliver Cromwell's troops prevented the moderate majority of the Commons from voting on the King's side and 'persuaded' the House of Lords to 'dissolve'.

Charles II, the Merry Monarch was well liked by the people and a very impartial King.

James II was exiled as a result of the religious bigotry in England at the time, which was sparked off I might add by the Scots.

Mary II should never have been Queen as James II had a son. Consequently, William III should never have been King. The same applies for Queen Anne. All in all the pair were selfish, grasping idiots who were only concerned with what they could get out of England and Scotland in return for brutally oppressing Roman Catholicism, a case of affairs that exists to this day.

Anne was a pleasant enough lady, although she could bear grudges, especially with the Duchess of Marlborough.

I've seen the TLA HRH used in official correspondence... I'm fairly sure it's a valid way to addres Her Majesty.

No, it is not. The Queen is no mere Princess and, as such, is styled as Her Majesty.

Look at the act, no one is allowed to sit in the House of Lords by Virtue of their birth. These 92 peers are permited to sit in the house so as not to create a vacuum in the intermediate stage of the House of Lords. It is an attempt to smooth the transition. Though it has been left to a later government to remove the remaining hereditary peers.

I don't think I said what had replaced it was democratic, just not hereditary.

In short we cannot conceive a more ridiculous figure of government, than hereditary succession.
Tom Paine - The Rights of Man, 1971.

1. There are 92 Hereditary Peers sitting in the House of Lords by virtue of birth or office.

2. They sit because the government would never have got the Bill through without the Weatherill Amendment.

3. As an attempt to smooth transition it has failed dismally. Good luck to any government fool enough to try. The House of Lords will not give in without a fight and will, indeed has, delayed many Bills as a protest.

Anyway, surely good Hereditary Succession is ideal compared to poor elected leadership.

Much as I find the royal family as a whole to be a bunch of blueblood arsewipes I can't bring myself to dislike the Queen (or her mum).

She's always been pretty decent as public figures go and as a national figurehead there's been far worse (Churchill...) over the years.

Charles better smarten up though, the succession is not a sure thing with the current stash of royals.

I'm afraid that you will have to justify your denunciation of Sir Winston Spencer Churchill.

well i voted for abolishing the monarchy because i don't like the idea of a monarchy or an aristocracy. having said that the royal family is great as a tourist attraction so i reckon they should remain as just that. their massive homes and all that can be converted into public buildings for whatever purpose. my birthday message to liz would say "have some fun for once, ya stuck up mare" and it would be affixed to a pie made with magic mushrooms so she can have a proper wigout.

Do you realise how much money it would cost to maintain the Royal Palaces and Fortresses? You cannot just convert them to public ownership. They belong to St. Edward's Crown (literally) and cannot be sold. Why doesn't the government open your home to the touring public, eh?

i think the queen should turn england back into a complete monarchy, close down parliment and open up the tower of london. she should take complete control of that country and then mysteriously she may disappear and have a sole beneficiary, that would just happen to be.............ME

Are you a descendent of Sophia, Electress of Hanover? Most probably not. Therefore, you will never inherit the British throne.

She should give William the throne when she dies, apart from that, I hope she lives another 20-30 years. She's loved around the world as an excellent stateswoman. Elizabeth II >>>>>>>>>> Condoleeza Rice (even though Condo isn't head of state :P) anyway yes, long live the monarchy and rule Britannia.

The British Sovereign may not 'will' the Crown.

Abolish the monarchy. It no longer serves a purpose at all, and England would be better off without the last remnants of nondemocratic rule.

No longer serves a purpose? Really, you must do better than that!

1. All criminal prosecutions will cease overnight.
2. All law-making will grind to a halt.
3. All prisoners will be released onto the streets.
And so on and so forth, the problems continue.

And where does that money come from/ The British Taxpayer, along with the duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. The people of the UK pay huge amounts into charity, and it's insulting to think we need a monarchy to be generous, and can't do it ourselves.


So the privy purse, the mney the taxpayer provides to the Queen, doesn't exist? These Royal Duties are just anachronistic sinecures, left over from another era. I could live without having a state opening of Parliament, or a Christmas Address. I could also live without having to pay for the Royals to go to Eton on cheated exams, and every other royal scandal in the Tabliods.



Queen's powers and income? Minute detail? Just have a look at the 'details' that are the Royal Perogatives - all powers she can exercise at discretion, and on the advice of the PM, as she often does. It's hardly sad to question the British Constitution.

1. You are in severe error. The Queen's charitable donations do not come from the public purse and Her Majesty reaps no income from the Duchy of Cornwall.

2. The monies of the Privy Purse are generated from the Duchy of Lancaster, not taxation. The official Ceremonies of State are an integral part of the running of the United Kingdom and without them the country can barely function. Royal schooling expenses are provided by the Royal Family itself, not you, and if you believe all of the rubbish that is printed in the tabloid Press then you deserve to pay for others education as yours appeared to do no good. Besides, in what way does, say, HRH The Prince Henry of Wales wearing a Nazi uniform to a fancy dress party affect your personal income? And why does it matter at all?

3. The Royal Prerogative is also essential to the running of the United Kingdom. No Royal Prerogative, no dissolving of Parliament, so no Parliamentary elections, so no government, so no infrastructure, so no money, so no services, so no means of scratching a living, and so on. Technically, the United Kingdom has no constitution. What she does have is a body of constitutional law and even a Cabinet post devoted to this, held by the Lord Falconer of Thoroton.

Haha, you think getting rid of the monarchy would remove the last remnants of non-democratic rule? :p

We've got loads of anti-democratic institutions up our sleeves, my friend. The Monarchy is probably the least worrying of these, as it's the one with no real power.

The anti-democratic institutions to worry about are the ones that pretend to be democratic, such as Ministers prerogative powers. I'm sure many will cry "but they're Royal powers, exercised by Ministers, so get rid of the Royals and you get rid of them!" I, however, very much doubt any Government would surrender them; if the Crown disappeared, I've no doubt that they would be reinvented under a new name.

ALL power in the United Kingdom stems from St. Edward's Crown and is merely delegated by the Sovereign, ie. the Monarch holds ALL of the power.

Figurehead. That's it. A patriotic figurehead. Waste of time and money, really.


...

You really think that a monarch is any different in this regard? Give the monarch the same power as a President, and they'll act just like a President.

Frankly, I prefer the USian system of government. Then again, I've lived under it my whole life. So what do I know, eh?

There was quite a chuckle in Britain over one of Bush's relatives being suspected of vote rigging. That's one advantage of monarchy; you can't cheat in elections.

Do you seriously think that any elected President would not hold lavish parties? Yes, the monarchy is a genetic lottery, but that is what makes it special, makes it what it is. But seriously, do you think that the Queen would be Head of State if the majority of people in Britain didn't want her to be? She derives Her position from the will of the people, in whom resides Sovereign power.

Wrong. Sovereign power is vested in St. Edward's Crown and he who wears it.

We (being Canada) need the queen, as she is a safegaurd of our democracy. But she's definately overpaid.

The Monarch is not presented with a wage. What a ridiculous notion!

Many people here in the UK fail to see how important the Queen is in protecting our rights, as well as the rights of the other Commonwealth realms where She is Queen.

Justice, a publicly approved executive, need I list more?

Fine then - but the fact remains that an important position in Government, the Head of State is unelected, which is fundementally wrong.



If you want a symbol to put on money or passports, put on the Union Jack, the Coat of Arms (which would probably remain) or Britannia. Im sure if needs be, there would be no shortage of alternative symbols.



Living in a great many palaces and castles hardly counts as a 'duty' - however, if these were fully opened to the public, and all the artwork and architechture put on display permantly, more visitors would come to see them, and the cash would still flow.



In any case, the Monarchy is above such sordid affairs as taxation, since when the Queen Mother died, she was not required to pay the inheritance tax on the (obviously substansial) inheritance.



The existance of the Cabinet is nothing to do with the Royal Perogatives - the cabinet evolved out of the Privy Council, when Parliament took over the duties of government while Kings George I and II were in Hanover (which they also ruled) and while George III was unable to rule.

1. The Monarch is not a part of the Executive, so it appears that your 'facts' are fundamentally wrong.

2. First off, it is the Union Flag, not the Union Jack. The two are different. Secondly, as the Sovereign is the Fount of Honour, then the Royal Coat of Arms would also go with the monarchy, along with every other Coat in the United Kingdom. Thirdly, the Lady Brittania is threatened with removal from the coinage of the Royal Mint so she is hardly likely to be reinstated on banknotes.

3. Most of the Royal Residences are open to the viewing public for a large part of the year, but one must remember that they are people's homes. Your home is not open to tourists is it? Anyway, in what way is the architecture of the Royal Palaces not on display? Is it swathed in scaffolding for 9 months of the year or what? As it is, the Royal Residences are open for parts of the year, people come to see them and the cash already flows.

4. This just takes the cake! The Queen pays, among others:-
-Value Added Tax;
-Council Tax;
-Income Tax;
-Capital Gains Tax;
-full tax value on the Privy Purse; and
-Her Majesty's estate is subject to income tax.
Now then, you tell me, are there any taxes that you can name that the Queen does not pay?

5. The Cabinet is everything to do with the Royal Prerogative. The Prime Minister is chosen by the Queen, not the people, and employed as leader of Her Majesty's Government (the Executive). The Cabinet and the Privy Council are separate, and if the Queen were so minded she could run the country directly through consultation with the Privy Council (whose members are chosen by the Monarch). As for Parliament taking over the duties of government, I say pish. Parliament running the Executive! The current delegation of power in the United Kingdom stems from the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, not the failings of the Privy Council or the madness of a Monarch. By the way, the Cabinet is on the Privy Council.

1. You are in severe error. The Queen's charitable donations do not come from the public purse and Her Majesty reaps no income from the Duchy of Cornwall.

That wasn't my point. My point was that there are plenty of people who donate to charity in amounts appropraite to their income, and that simply donating t ocharity does not give one a right to be Head of State.

2. The monies of the Privy Purse are generated from the Duchy of Lancaster, not taxation. The official Ceremonies of State are an integral part of the running of the United Kingdom and without them the country can barely function. Royal schooling expenses are provided by the Royal Family itself, not you, and if you believe all of the rubbish that is printed in the tabloid Press then you deserve to pay for others education as yours appeared to do no good. Besides, in what way does, say, HRH The Prince Henry of Wales wearing a Nazi uniform to a fancy dress party affect your personal income? And why does it matter at all?

I actually don't read the tabloid press, for your information.

Again, you miss my point. My point was that the Royal Family manages to get into all the best acadamies in the UK, ones that most people would have to get in based on ability to pay and by academic ability. The royals get 'in' regardless. If there was the merest hint that my 6th Form College was cheating in exams, all exams would be stopped and grades removed. Was that the case with the Royals? No. It's a system based on class and privelage (Along with a very difficult service to the UK), not ability.

3. The Royal Prerogative is also essential to the running of the United Kingdom. No Royal Prerogative, no dissolving of Parliament, so no Parliamentary elections, so no government, so no infrastructure, so no money, so no services, so no means of scratching a living, and so on. Technically, the United Kingdom has no constitution. What she does have is a body of constitutional law and even a Cabinet post devoted to this, held by the Lord Falconer of Thoroton.

Under a republican system, the Royal Perogatives wouldn't exist, and I'm sure we'd find a way to dissolve parliament or scratch a living. New elections are held in the USA, Israel, Ireland, France, Germany or any other democratic republic without Royal Perogatives. We don't need the Monarchy, or Perogatives.

the sooner she and her filthy money grabbing kin die the better. She does nothing apart from sit on her nasty old arse all day counting my money. Give it back you old crone.

:upyours:

1. The Monarch is not a part of the Executive, so it appears that your 'facts' are fundamentally wrong.

Actually, the Monarch is the cheif of all Legislative, Judicial and Executive Power. As you convenently point out later on, the Queen appoints the PM as the Leader of Her Majesties Government, and the queen could rule directly if she was so minded.

2. First off, it is the Union Flag, not the Union Jack. The two are different. Secondly, as the Sovereign is the Fount of Honour, then the Royal Coat of Arms would also go with the monarchy, along with every other Coat in the United Kingdom. Thirdly, the Lady Brittania is threatened with removal from the coinage of the Royal Mint so she is hardly likely to be reinstated on banknotes.

Plenty of Republics have Coats of Arms, in fact almost all do. And I really couldn't care less about whatever you want to call the Union Jack/Flag.

3. Most of the Royal Residences are open to the viewing public for a large part of the year, but one must remember that they are people's homes. Your home is not open to tourists is it? Anyway, in what way is the architecture of the Royal Palaces not on display? Is it swathed in scaffolding for 9 months of the year or what? As it is, the Royal Residences are open for parts of the year, people come to see them and the cash already flows.

My house isn't open to tourists because my house, unfortunately, isn't a national treasure. There's plenty not on display. Like you said, they are people's homes and there are private areas off the bits we are 'allowed' to see.

4. This just takes the cake! The Queen pays, among others:-
-Value Added Tax;
-Council Tax;
-Income Tax;
-Capital Gains Tax;
-full tax value on the Privy Purse; and
-Her Majesty's estate is subject to income tax.
Now then, you tell me, are there any taxes that you can name that the Queen does not pay?

Inheritance, unless i'm deeply mistaken.

5. The Cabinet is everything to do with the Royal Prerogative. The Prime Minister is chosen by the Queen, not the people, and employed as leader of Her Majesty's Government (the Executive). The Cabinet and the Privy Council are separate, and if the Queen were so minded she could run the country directly through consultation with the Privy Council (whose members are chosen by the Monarch). As for Parliament taking over the duties of government, I say pish. Parliament running the Executive! The current delegation of power in the United Kingdom stems from the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, not the failings of the Privy Council or the madness of a Monarch. By the way, the Cabinet is on the Privy Council.

How can you say that the Cabinet is both separate to, and a member of, the Privy Council?

The Cabinet isn't anything to do with the Royal Perogatives. It came out existance of its own accord, noy by any Royal Decree or an Act of Parliament. The PM has access to these powers as head of Government as a mere tradition, since it would be even more undemocratic for the unelected chief executive to use them!

Parliament has far more influence than the Queen over the executive, since the Queen appoints the leader of the Largest party in the HOC and the HOC can pass a motion of non-confidence in the government if it wanted to.

No longer serves a purpose? Really, you must do better than that!

1. All criminal prosecutions will cease overnight.
2. All law-making will grind to a halt.
3. All prisoners will be released onto the streets.
And so on and so forth, the problems continue.


What utter tripe. What utter utter garbage. In fact it is such nonsense that I can barely be arsed to reply.
1. Betty doesn't prosecute people (CPS it may be called but the old hag has nothing to do with it)
2. We don't need Betty to say which laws we can or can't have. All she does is rubber stamp them, so no need.
3. Erm, why?

the sooner she and her filthy money grabbing kin die the better. She does nothing apart from sit on her nasty old arse all day counting my money. Give it back you old crone.

:upyours:

Okay, I'm a staunch Republican, but that's rather unfair. QE2 is by all means a good Monarch, and if she wanted to be an elected Head of State, I'd vote for her tomorrow. She does her job very well. Whether Charles will remains to be seen.

3. Erm, why?

It's obvious. All Prisoners are not locked in jail. All the keeps them in is the thought of the Queen wielding a handbag!

Way to go, Old Girl.

Actually, the Monarch is the cheif of all Legislative, Judicial and Executive Power. As you convenently point out later on, the Queen appoints the PM as the Leader of Her Majesties Government, and the queen could rule directly if she was so minded.



Plenty of Republics have Coats of Arms, in fact almost all do. And I really couldn't care less about whatever you want to call the Union Jack/Flag.



My house isn't open to tourists because my house, unfortunately, isn't a national treasure. There's plenty not on display. Like you said, they are people's homes and there are private areas off the bits we are 'allowed' to see.



Inheritance, unless i'm deeply mistaken.



How can you say that the Cabinet is both separate to, and a member of, the Privy Council?

The Cabinet isn't anything to do with the Royal Perogatives. It came out existance of its own accord, noy by any Royal Decree or an Act of Parliament. The PM has access to these powers as head of Government as a mere tradition, since it would be even more undemocratic for the unelected chief executive to use them!

Parliament has far more influence than the Queen over the executive, since the Queen appoints the leader of the Largest party in the HOC and the HOC can pass a motion of non-confidence in the government if it wanted to.

The Executive governs on Her Majesty's behalf, but the Queen is not a member of it.

The Fount of Honour would be transferred to...? By the way, the Union Jack is for use by the Royal Navy.

The Royal Palaces and Fortresses are owned by St. Edward's Crown, not the general public, so in what respect are they under "national" ownership?

The Queen's property and Her assets are subject to inheritance tax, therefore you are deeply mistaken.

Cabinet Ministers are, by tradition, members of the Privy Council as well, as they advise the Monarch. The two are, as institutions, separate. Parliament itself did not stem from an Act of Parliament either and the Prime Minister is an appointed, not elected, official.

The Monarch has no influence over how political parties appoint their leaders. Anyway, the Queen could sack the entire Cabinet if she wished.

What utter tripe. What utter utter garbage. In fact it is such nonsense that I can barely be arsed to reply.
1. Betty doesn't prosecute people (CPS it may be called but the old hag has nothing to do with it)
2. We don't need Betty to say which laws we can or can't have. All she does is rubber stamp them, so no need.
3. Erm, why?

1. All criminal prosecutions are made by the Queen, in the form of Regina v. [Insert Name]. The Queen also possesses the Prerogative of Mercy, being able to overturn any conviction. Oh, I forgot, all civil trials will collapse as well because there would be no judges.

2. I have two words for you: Enabling Bill.

3. All prisoners are detained at Her Majesty's pleasure.

It's obvious. All Prisoners are not locked in jail. All the keeps them in is the thought of the Queen wielding a handbag!

This is not too far from the truth actually. All the Queen has to do is sign on the dotted line and, bingo, you're out.

the sooner she and her filthy money grabbing kin die the better. She does nothing apart from sit on her nasty old arse all day counting my money. Give it back you old crone.

:upyours:

For the financial year ending in 2004, the Royal Family received roughly £36.8million for official expenses. In return, the Crown Estates surrendered approximately £184.8million to the Exchequer. Tot it up and the Royals sponged -£148million from public funds.

Charles I was not legally tried or executed. Firstly, the trial would have been "Rex v. Rex" and second, Oliver Cromwell's troops prevented the moderate majority of the Commons from voting on the King's side and 'persuaded' the House of Lords to 'dissolve'.
You do know that at the time using military force was a perfectly acceptable way of 'persuading' people to do what you wanted?

Charles II, the Merry Monarch was well liked by the people and a very impartial King.
He was also a womanising, syphilitic bigot.

James II was exiled as a result of the religious bigotry in England at the time, which was sparked off I might add by the Scots.
Err...no. It was sparked off by Titus Oates. Who was, by all accounts, a fuckhead.

Mary II should never have been Queen as James II had a son. Consequently, William III should never have been King. The same applies for Queen Anne. All in all the pair were selfish, grasping idiots who were only concerned with what they could get out of England and Scotland in return for brutally oppressing Roman Catholicism, a case of affairs that exists to this day.
Hang on, hang on...there was a revolution. Revolution is an accepted way of gaining power. More to the point, it was a revolution supported by the people. Just because Williamanmary (cookie for reference) weren't the 'rightful' heirs, doesn't mean they didn't have a rightful claim to the throne once they'd overthrown the true king.

Anne was a pleasant enough lady, although she could bear grudges, especially with the Duchess of Marlborough.
Anne was more conservative than Margaret bloody Thatcher!

I would ask her to continue to fade into irrelevance ...

Cabinet Ministers are, by tradition, members of the Privy Council as well, as they advise the Monarch. The two are, as institutions, separate.

Are you claiming that the Privy Council and the Cabinet are seperate?

Parliament itself did not stem from an Act of Parliament either and the Prime Minister is an appointed, not elected, official.
I think you'll find that the Parliament of the United Kingdom was established by the Act of Union in 1800, which is an Act of Parliament.

If you want to look into the origins of the Parliaments before it (i.e. England, Scotland and Ireland's Parliaments) go ahead, but they aren't the same thing.

For the financial year ending in 2004, the Royal Family received roughly £36.8million for official expenses. In return, the Crown Estates surrendered approximately £184.8million to the Exchequer. Tot it up and the Royals sponged -£148million from public funds.


look at this http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/6-28-2002-21391.asp
or this
http://www.guardian.co.uk/jubilee/story/0,11550,724311,00.html

Hidden income etc and a break down of the old witch's outgoings.

Just imagine, Buckingham Palace Hotel. What would those crazy yanks and japanese pay for that?

I hate her. I hate her family. I hate her pets. I hate people who work for her. I hate people who like her. I hate people who admire her.
A lot of hate considering I believe hate is such a negative thought.

and
1. All criminal prosecutions are made by the Queen, in the form of Regina v. [Insert Name] - in theory only, they would still go on without her or are you suggesting that it's Monarchy or anarchy
The Queen also possesses the Prerogative of Mercy, being able to overturn any conviction - Has she ever done it? No, because she knows that it wouldn't be allowed, again it's only a right in name, not in reality
Oh, I forgot, all civil trials will collapse as well because there would be no judges - I don' t think that Betty is some kind of puppeteer, controlling judges. AGAIN, in theory only, not in reality.

2. I have two words for you: Enabling Bill. I have 3 words for you - Not in reality. The queen would not be allowed by Parliament to refuse a bill, she knows that I know that, so why don't you?

3. All prisoners are detained at Her Majesty's pleasure - Jeez, you really are autistic aren't you? Talk about flogging a dead horse. Those are just outdated words.

I'm sooooo bored of you.

the queen is best and what republicans dont realise is they have no right to abolish the monarchy

the queen is best and what republicans dont realise is they have no right to abolish the monarchy

Yeah, a good point, well made. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
:headbang:

well why would they have the right

well why wouldn't they?
Take the power back, you've got to take the power back

-snip-
Wow, 2-3 pages of someone talking to themselves. :p

what do you mean take power back. how can it be back when people didnt have power in the first place

what do you mean take power back. how can it be back when people didnt have power in the first place
Someone's missing the basic point of Parliament...

no i understand parliament but that wasnt exactly getting power back , it was more getting power.

no i understand parliament but that wasnt exactly getting power back , it was more getting power.
Erm...quite. So the people now have power...

But you said we never had power in the first place, even though you now admit that we have power.

im saying that britain was not originally democratic, now it does have some democracy.

Are you claiming that the Privy Council and the Cabinet are seperate?


I think you'll find that the Parliament of the United Kingdom was established by the Act of Union in 1800, which is an Act of Parliament.

If you want to look into the origins of the Parliaments before it (i.e. England, Scotland and Ireland's Parliaments) go ahead, but they aren't the same thing.

Privy Councillors are not all on the Cabinet are they, so there must be some distinction, yes?

I am well aware of the terms of the Treaty of Union. I was referring to the actual origins of Parliament in the dark, dark past, ie. a number of people debating policy. That didn't come from an Act of Parliament now did it?

im saying that britain was not originally democratic, now it does have some democracy.
No country was originally democratic.

how so?

The Executive governs on Her Majesty's behalf, but the Queen is not a member of it.

But, as you previously said, she could dismiss the Cabinet and rule directly if she wanted too, as all executive power of the state is vested in her. She recieves a weekly briefing from the PM as a result of this.

The Fount of Honour would be transferred to...? By the way, the Union Jack is for use by the Royal Navy.

So what is the flag of the UK, then?

The Royal Palaces and Fortresses are owned by St. Edward's Crown, not the general public, so in what respect are they under "national" ownership?

I said thay were national treasures, not nationally owned. The should be, but aren't.

The Queen's property and Her assets are subject to inheritance tax, therefore you are deeply mistaken.

Then explain: Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/queenmother/article/0,2763,712192,00.html)

Cabinet Ministers are, by tradition, members of the Privy Council as well, as they advise the Monarch. The two are, as institutions, separate. Parliament itself did not stem from an Act of Parliament either and the Prime Minister is an appointed, not elected, official.

The Monarch has no influence over how political parties appoint their leaders. Anyway, the Queen could sack the entire Cabinet if she wished.

Thus proving my point #1.

The Cabinet HAS to be a member of the Privy Council in order to access the executive power of the Crown. Institutionally thay are separate, but in practice they are virtually one and the same.

Privy Councillors are not all on the Cabinet are they, so there must be some distinction, yes?

I am well aware of the terms of the Treaty of Union. I was referring to the actual origins of Parliament in the dark, dark past, ie. a number of people debating policy. That didn't come from an Act of Parliament now did it?
The actual origins of Parliament was a number of people debating policy? What planet are you from? In the Middle Ages, Parliament was called by the monarch to raise tax money so the country could go to war. That was the sole point of the whole thing.

Yup, it's HRH's 80th birthday today. So I was wondering, what would NSers say to her as a birthday message?

And because I know you guys love a poll, I've included one. Though it's not related to the question I just asked.
I don't believe you:rolleyes:

Privy Councillors are not all on the Cabinet are they, so there must be some distinction, yes?
The Cabinet is a commitee of the Privy Council, that carries out the majority of its functions. It is a part of the Privy Council. That's why all Ministers are Privy Council members.

Like with medicine and drugs, all Cabinet Ministers are Privy Councillors, but not all Privy Councillors are Cabinet Ministers.

I am well aware of the terms of the Treaty of Union. I was referring to the actual origins of Parliament in the dark, dark past, ie. a number of people debating policy. That didn't come from an Act of Parliament now did it?
Which Parliament? Don't forget that the current one came out of three seperate ones.

It's a successor to the previous ones created by Acts of Parliament, you can't compare the previous ones to it and say they were the same Parliaments, because they weren't.

You do know that at the time using military force was a perfectly acceptable way of 'persuading' people to do what you wanted?


He was also a womanising, syphilitic bigot.


Err...no. It was sparked off by Titus Oates. Who was, by all accounts, a fuckhead.


Hang on, hang on...there was a revolution. Revolution is an accepted way of gaining power. More to the point, it was a revolution supported by the people. Just because Williamanmary (cookie for reference) weren't the 'rightful' heirs, doesn't mean they didn't have a rightful claim to the throne once they'd overthrown the true king.


Anne was more conservative than Margaret bloody Thatcher!

1. Even if it resulted in the wrongful execution of a King?

2. Charles II was very tolerant of religion in comparison with, say, Edward VI.

3. I might reference Cherry's marvellous work: 'Princes, Poets and Patrons'.

4. James II never officially abdicated and, even if he had, the Crown would have been inherited by his son, therefore invalidating the claim of Mary II.

how so?
Assuming that was a reply to me...I don't see what I have to prove. There is no country that was originally democratic. For example - England started off as a colony of the Roman Empire, then became a loose-knit coalition of various kingdoms before being united under Alfred. It was then conquered numerous times, ultimately by William the Bastard. We only got Parliament in the 13th century, and only in its current form (ie. with a Prime Minister) in the 18th century.

America started off as a colony of the British Empire...
France was feudalistic.
Germany only came into being in 1871, when it was a monarchy.
Australia - colony.
China - Empire.
etc, etc.

1. Even if it resulted in the wrongful execution of a King?

Right and wrong are pure opinions, relative to the observer.

1. Even if it resulted in the wrongful execution of a King?

2. Charles II was very tolerant of religion in comparison with, say, Edward VI.

3. I might reference Cherry's marvellous work: 'Princes, Poets and Patrons'.

4. James II never officially abdicated and, even if he had, the Crown would have been inherited by his son, therefore invalidating the claim of Mary II.
1. Yes.

2. And Edward VI was very tolerant of religion compared to, say, Mary. Or Elizabeth. Or in other words, what's your point?

3. And I might reference the Papal Plot.

4. James II did, however, officially scarper from the bloody country, therefore invalidating his right to rule.

look at this http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/6-28-2002-21391.asp
or this
http://www.guardian.co.uk/jubilee/story/0,11550,724311,00.html

Hidden income etc and a break down of the old witch's outgoings.

Just imagine, Buckingham Palace Hotel. What would those crazy yanks and japanese pay for that?

I hate her. I hate her family. I hate her pets. I hate people who work for her. I hate people who like her. I hate people who admire her.
A lot of hate considering I believe hate is such a negative thought.

and
1. All criminal prosecutions are made by the Queen, in the form of Regina v. [Insert Name] - in theory only, they would still go on without her or are you suggesting that it's Monarchy or anarchy
The Queen also possesses the Prerogative of Mercy, being able to overturn any conviction - Has she ever done it? No, because she knows that it wouldn't be allowed, again it's only a right in name, not in reality
Oh, I forgot, all civil trials will collapse as well because there would be no judges - I don' t think that Betty is some kind of puppeteer, controlling judges. AGAIN, in theory only, not in reality.

2. I have two words for you: Enabling Bill. I have 3 words for you - Not in reality. The queen would not be allowed by Parliament to refuse a bill, she knows that I know that, so why don't you?

3. All prisoners are detained at Her Majesty's pleasure - Jeez, you really are autistic aren't you? Talk about flogging a dead horse. Those are just outdated words.

I'm sooooo bored of you.

My figures are more recent and up-to-date than yours. Anyway, why should the Royal Family's personal expenditure be open for review. Mine isn't, yours isn't, so what's the difference. And who would run this hotel? Who gets the mint sauce?

Your inflated hatred of monarchy should not be extended on a personal basis to Her Majesty, the Royal Family, their Households or people who aren't as critical of monarchy as you. You are entitled to your opinion, but such abuse is not acceptable.

And now:

1. Justice stems from the Sovereign. Where would the Fount of Justice be vested otherwise, eh?

2. The Monarch's power of veto ensures that the United Kingdom does not institute an Enabling Bill, which gave Adolf Hitler dictatorial control over Germany. Something tells me that the public would support the Queen if she decided to veto such a Bill.

3. Outdated, maybe. However, they still apply.

If you are bored with my view on this matter then I suggest that you simply refrain from disputing it.

So what is the flag of the UK, then?

The Union Flag.

[Related to inheritance tax.]Then explain: Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/queenmother/article/0,2763,712192,00.html)

Certain bequests are exempt, but the remainder of the, sizeable, estate is subject to inheritance tax.

The actual origins of Parliament was a number of people debating policy? What planet are you from? In the Middle Ages, Parliament was called by the monarch to raise tax money so the country could go to war. That was the sole point of the whole thing.

Referred to as a policy of taxation perhaps?

My figures are more recent and up-to-date than yours. Anyway, why should the Royal Family's personal expenditure be open for review. Mine isn't, yours isn't, so what's the difference. And who would run this hotel? Who gets the mint sauce?

Because they are are public people in a public 'job'.

Your inflated hatred of monarchy should not be extended on a personal basis to Her Majesty, the Royal Family, their Households or people who aren't as critical of monarchy as you. You are entitled to your opinion, but such abuse is not acceptable.

I'll just call her a Bitch now out of pure spite.

And now:

1. Justice stems from the Sovereign. Where would the Fount of Justice be vested otherwise, eh?

Whatever replaces the monarch, either a President (are differently named equivalent) or the PM or the State, whatever. Italy abolished it's monarchy by referendum and had a constitutional convention to deal with those issues. So could we.

2. The Monarch's power of veto ensures that the United Kingdom does not institute an Enabling Bill, which gave Adolf Hitler dictatorial control over Germany. Something tells me that the public would support the Queen if she decided to veto such a Bill.

If the people vote for a government that does that, it is that government's right to have an 'Enabling Bill' passed. They have a popular-elected mandate to do so. Does the queen? No.


3. Outdated, maybe. However, they still apply.

Yet mean nothing. If we went to be a Republic I have an inkling we wouldn't suddenly unlock Belmarsh.

If you are bored with my view on this matter then I suggest that you simply refrain from disputing it.

It's like picking scabs. Boring, but can't let go. Anyway, i'mm off to watch Sharpe. Bye then...

The Union Flag.

So why the hell make a fuss about it before?

Referred to as a policy of taxation perhaps?
No...it was just it was that, or let the country be conquered by France (again).

Anyway, the original claim made was that Parliament was initially for 'debating' policy. Not referring to xx subject as policy. There was no debate at all - it was 'give me money, or we're going down the pan'. But in Old English/Old French.

The Cabinet is a commitee of the Privy Council, that carries out the majority of its functions. It is a part of the Privy Council. That's why all Ministers are Privy Council members.

Like with medicine and drugs, all Cabinet Ministers are Privy Councillors, but not all Privy Councillors are Cabinet Ministers.


Which Parliament? Don't forget that the current one came out of three seperate ones.

It's a successor to the previous ones created by Acts of Parliament, you can't compare the previous ones to it and say they were the same Parliaments, because they weren't.

I am willing to concede that distinctions can sometimes be very slim.

I have at no time suggested that the Parliaments of England, Scotland, Great Britain and all the rest are one and the same. I was referring to Parliament as an idea, a concept.

My figures are more recent and up-to-date than yours. Anyway, why should the Royal Family's personal expenditure be open for review. Mine isn't, yours isn't, so what's the difference. And who would run this hotel? Who gets the mint sauce?

Your inflated hatred of monarchy should not be extended on a personal basis to Her Majesty, the Royal Family, their Households or people who aren't as critical of monarchy as you. You are entitled to your opinion, but such abuse is not acceptable. It is not acceptable to who? It is perfectly acceptable, any person willing to work as a slave for Betty should be shot, along with her and her family.

And now:

1. Justice stems from the Sovereign. Where would the Fount of Justice be vested otherwise, eh? - so you agree that she should be immune from law as she is the Fount of Justice? What if she ran somebody over? fiddled with a kid (a la Michael Jackson)?- let her be as she is the Fount of Justice .

2. The Monarch's power of veto ensures that the United Kingdom does not institute an Enabling Bill, which gave Adolf Hitler dictatorial control over Germany. Something tells me that the public would support the Queen if she decided to veto such a Bill. That is such a poor example. It's not real. She knows she couldn't get away with vetoing a law. Has a monarch ever tried?

3. Outdated, maybe. However, they still apply, in name yes. In reality?

If you are bored with my view on this matter then I suggest that you simply refrain from disputing it.

I may be bored of it but I'll keep arguing my point. Even though I should be working and watching 24.

I have at no time suggested that the Parliaments of England, Scotland, Great Britain and all the rest are one and the same. I was referring to Parliament as an idea, a concept.
Then you should've made yourself clear by referring to 'parliament' and not 'Parliament'.

1. Yes.

2. And Edward VI was very tolerant of religion compared to, say, Mary. Or Elizabeth. Or in other words, what's your point?

3. And I might reference the Papal Plot.

4. James II did, however, officially scarper from the bloody country, therefore invalidating his right to rule.

1. I'm afraid that I must beg to disagree.

2. And to which King Edward are you referring? Queen Elizabeth I was possibly the most tolerant of the children of Henry VIII.

3. And today we have a huge, international network of Islamic terrorists. Don't make me laugh.

4. Ahem, his son.

PS read my replies which I inadvertantly included in your quote.

I'm sooooo bored of you.

Bugger off then

1. I'm afraid that I must beg to disagree.

2. And to which King Edward are you referring? Queen Elizabeth I was possibly the most tolerant of the children of Henry VIII.

3. And today we have a huge, international network of Islamic terrorists. Don't make me laugh.

4. Ahem, his son.
1. Fine.

2. The one that you originally brought up. Elizabeth I was not tolerant. She had Mary Queen of Scots executed (technically illegally, I might add). She initiated a brutal campaign against Catholics. She ordered any foreign Catholics seeking refuge in the country to be deported back to their home country. That is not tolerance. Edward VI's religious policy was shaped (at least in part) by Edward Seymour, the Duke of Somerset, and John Dudley, the Duke of Northumberland, both of whom acted as Protectors during his reign.

3. That was my point. The Papal Plot was thought up and spread by Oates and Fuller, even though they both knew there was no truth to it whatsoever. Their sole aim of the plot was to create fear and panic in educated society. That it failed, and they were pilloried for it, is another matter - for a long while it achieved its objective. Nobles were forced to ostensibly accept that the Papal Plot was real.

4. But you said he didn't abdicate. He couldn't leave the throne to his son unless he either died or abdicated. As neither of those instances occurred, how was his son the legitimate king? Technically, neither James II, his son, nor Williamanmary should've been eligible for the throne, because they claimed it by right of descent in the Stuart line - which itself was descended from the Tudor line, which only came to power in England because of a violent rebellion known as the Wars of the Roses.

You can't claim that Williamanmary shouldn't have been on the throne because their revolution wasn't legal. Legality has nothing to do with rebellions.

Bugger off then

I may be bored, dimwit, but I can still make my point.

Because they are are public people in a public 'job'.



I'll just call her a Bitch now out of pure spite.



Whatever replaces the monarch, either a President (are differently named equivalent) or the PM or the State, whatever. Italy abolished it's monarchy by referendum and had a constitutional convention to deal with those issues. So could we.



If the people vote for a government that does that, it is that government's right to have an 'Enabling Bill' passed. They have a popular-elected mandate to do so. Does the queen? No.




Yet mean nothing. If we went to be a Republic I have an inkling we wouldn't suddenly unlock Belmarsh.



It's like picking scabs. Boring, but can't let go. Anyway, i'mm off to watch Sharpe. Bye then...

1. What job? No one told me about any job. They're not paid a wage or a salary. Are they slaves?

2. Rude, ill-mannered fool.

3. So, you don't know.

4. I do not wish to retell the entire history of the Weimar Republic here. In short, Hitler was stuffing ballot boxes.

5. And to whom would responsibility pass? And who says that there is a majority of Britishers who prefer Republicanism?

6. Lovely simile!

So why the hell make a fuss about it before?

The Union Flag and the Union Jack are not the same.

No...it was just it was that, or let the country be conquered by France (again).

Anyway, the original claim made was that Parliament was initially for 'debating' policy. Not referring to xx subject as policy. There was no debate at all - it was 'give me money, or we're going down the pan'. But in Old English/Old French.

That argument seems to still work then.

Then you should've made yourself clear by referring to 'parliament' and not 'Parliament'.

In return, please refer to:-
-the flag of the United Kingdom as the Union Flag.
-Parliament as the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled.

Thank you.

In return, please refer to:-
-the flag of the United Kingdom as the Union Flag.
-Parliament as the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled.

Thank you.
Well, seeing as I haven't been talking about the flag of the UK, the first point is moot. And I had a valid point - parliament (uncapitalised) is a congregation of people (or a group of owls). Parliament (capitalised) refers to a legislative body that either directly or indirectly governs a country.

In return, please refer to:-
-the flag of the United Kingdom as the Union Flag.
-Parliament as the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled.

Thank you.
Actually, there is no reason not to call the Union Flag the Jack. Without getting into the debate on the topic, most people would accept that ultimately common usage can be taken as the truth.

1. Fine.

2. The one that you originally brought up. Elizabeth I was not tolerant. She had Mary Queen of Scots executed (technically illegally, I might add). She initiated a brutal campaign against Catholics. She ordered any foreign Catholics seeking refuge in the country to be deported back to their home country. That is not tolerance. Edward VI's religious policy was shaped (at least in part) by Edward Seymour, the Duke of Somerset, and John Dudley, the Duke of Northumberland, both of whom acted as Protectors during his reign.

3. That was my point. The Papal Plot was thought up and spread by Oates and Fuller, even though they both knew there was no truth to it whatsoever. Their sole aim of the plot was to create fear and panic in educated society. That it failed, and they were pilloried for it, is another matter - for a long while it achieved its objective. Nobles were forced to ostensibly accept that the Papal Plot was real.

4. But you said he didn't abdicate. He couldn't leave the throne to his son unless he either died or abdicated. As neither of those instances occurred, how was his son the legitimate king? Technically, neither James II, his son, nor Williamanmary should've been eligible for the throne, because they claimed it by right of descent in the Stuart line - which itself was descended from the Tudor line, which only came to power in England because of a violent rebellion known as the Wars of the Roses.

You can't claim that Williamanmary shouldn't have been on the throne because their revolution wasn't legal. Legality has nothing to do with rebellions.

2. The load of them were bad eggs. I didn't say that I condoned their policies.

3. Have you referenced the essay that I suggested? If not, please do so. It is an interesting record of the period and quite telling.

4. If James II didn't abdicate, then he was still King. If he did then his son would have been King. The Stuarts were not all descended from the Tudors. The Tudor dynasty inherited through conquest and right, after our friend Richard III might have or might not have had his nephews murdered.

Well, seeing as I haven't been talking about the flag of the UK, the first point is moot. And I had a valid point - parliament (uncapitalised) is a congregation of people (or a group of owls). Parliament (capitalised) refers to a legislative body that either directly or indirectly governs a country.

I did not say that you were talking about the Union Flag.
I have not disputed the difference due to the capitalisation. My request for the use of the Lords Temporal and Spiritual, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled is also valid as it is synonymous with Parliament.

2. The load of them were bad eggs. I didn't say that I condoned their policies.

3. Have you referenced the essay that I suggested? If not, please do so. It is an interesting record of the period and quite telling.

4. If James II didn't abdicate, then he was still King. If he did then his son would have been King. The Stuarts were not all descended from the Tudors. The Tudor dynasty inherited through conquest and right, after our friend Richard III might have or might not have had his nephews murdered.
2. I didn't say you did say that. I was asking what your point was, and you still haven't told me.

3. No. Though I'm taking an exam on the period on the 25th of May. Does that pass muster?

4. You missed my point. Here is my point, in easy to digest sentences:

James II was the rightful king. There was then a rebellion. This was the 'Glorious', 'Bloodless' or 'Orange' Revolution. James II was no longer king.

Got that? Good...

Now, I fear this bit may be a bit difficult for you to grasp, but I'll make it as easy as possible.

Revolution is, and always has been, a perfectly acceptable way of gaining power. Just ask the Americans. Or the French. Or the Italians. Or the Spanish. Or the Communists (everywhere). It matters not a jot who the rightful ruler is. Once a rebellion occurs, all bets are off.

Actually, there is no reason not to call the Union Flag the Jack. Without getting into the debate on the topic, most people would accept that ultimately common usage can be taken as the truth.

Yes, there is reason. The Union Jack is flown on ships of the Royal Navy at sea. The Union Flag is not.

If the majority of people believe that the moon is made of green cheese then does that make it true? No, it doesn't.

I did not say that you were talking about the Union Flag.
I have not disputed the difference due to the capitalisation. My request for the use of the Lords Temporal and Spiritual, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled is also valid as it is synonymous with Parliament.
Well, technically that's incorrect - it's not synonomous with Parliament, it's just that 'Parliament' is the accepted short version of the full title. It's like saying 'the UK' or 'the United Kingdom' when referring to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Yes, there is reason. The Union Jack is flown on ships of the Royal Navy at sea. The Union Flag is not.

If the majority of people believe that the moon is made of green cheese then does that make it true? No, it doesn't.
I would advise you to look up the debate on the topic. I assure you that it is not as clear cut as you would like to think. :)

2. I didn't say you did say that. I was asking what your point was, and you still haven't told me.

3. No. Though I'm taking an exam on the period on the 25th of May. Does that pass muster?

4. You missed my point. Here is my point, in easy to digest sentences:

James II was the rightful king. There was then a rebellion. This was the 'Glorious', 'Bloodless' or 'Orange' Revolution. James II was no longer king.

Got that? Good...

Now, I fear this bit may be a bit difficult for you to grasp, but I'll make it as easy as possible.

Revolution is, and always has been, a perfectly acceptable way of gaining power. Just ask the Americans. Or the French. Or the Italians. Or the Spanish. Or the Communists (everywhere). It matters not a jot who the rightful ruler is. Once a rebellion occurs, all bets are off.

2. I was disputing a previous post, which suggested that Charles II was a merciless bigot.

3. Read the essay, it is very informative and interesting. Good luck.

4. I believe that we were talking at cross-purposes. I do recognise your argument. By the way, is it still acceptable today?

2. I was disputing a previous post, which suggested that Charles II was a merciless bigot.

3. Read the essay, it is very informative and interesting. Good luck.

4. I believe that we were talking at cross-purposes. I do recognise your argument. By the way, is it still acceptable today?
2. I never said merciless, but I did say bigot. Because he was.

3. If I could find it...? Link?

4. If it's successful, yes. If not, then the people of the country clearly don't think it's acceptable, and, ultimately, it's up to them to judge.

I would advise you to look up the debate on the topic. I assure you that it is not as clear cut as you would like to think. :)

Neither is the border between Palestine and Israel.

Neither is the border between Palestine and Israel.
That's one of the most random counter arguments I've seen in a while. :p

Well, technically that's incorrect - it's not synonomous with Parliament, it's just that 'Parliament' is the accepted short version of the full title. It's like saying 'the UK' or 'the United Kingdom' when referring to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I withdraw the request because it's too tedious to write the phrase out time and again.

That's one of the most random counter arguments I've seen in a while. :p

Very well, you set down the difference for me.

2. I never said merciless, but I did say bigot. Because he was.

3. If I could find it...? Link?

4. If it's successful, yes. If not, then the people of the country clearly don't think it's acceptable, and, ultimately, it's up to them to judge.

2. I suppose everyone is a bigot in some way.

3. Library

4. What about the blood which so often goes hand in hand with revolution?

Very well, you set down the difference for me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Jack

The issue of whether it is acceptable to use the term "Union Jack" is one that causes considerable controversy. Although it is often asserted that "Union Jack" should only be used for the flag when it is flown as a jack (a small flag flown at the bow of a ship), it is not universally accepted that the "Jack" of "Union Jack" is a reference to such a jack flag; other explanations have been put forward (see [1]). The term possibly dates from the early 1700s, but its origin is uncertain. The word Jack may have come from the name of the James VI, King of Scots who inherited the English crown, causing the flag to be designed, that is Jac from Jacobus, Latin for James. Even if the term "Union Jack" does derive from the jack flag (as perhaps seems most likely), after three centuries, it is now sanctioned by usage, has appeared in official usage, and remains the popular term. The BBC website disregards the term "union flag" because of its "great potential for confusion", preferring union jack (in lower case) (see [2]). The term "Union Flag", on the other hand, is the term preferred in official documents by vexillologists. The Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (c. 21) section 4(1)(a)(ii) refers to the national colours of the United Kingdom as "the Union flag (commonly known as the Union Jack)".

So, the jury's out. Unless they're scrapped.

I am willing to concede that distinctions can sometimes be very slim.

I have at no time suggested that the Parliaments of England, Scotland, Great Britain and all the rest are one and the same. I was referring to Parliament as an idea, a concept.
Which concept? The English, Scottish, or Irish? Or the current UK Parliament? The three Parliaments were very different.

2. I suppose everyone is a bigot in some way.

3. Library

4. What about the blood which so often goes hand in hand with revolution?
2. Indeed (is that the end of the argument over that point?).

3. At 9.54pm?

4. Again, if the people think it's acceptable, then yes.

2. Indeed (is that the end of the argument over that point?).

3. At 9.54pm?

4. Again, if the people think it's acceptable, then yes.

2. Please let it be.

3. Of course not you blame fool!

4. Ah, well!

Which concept? The English, Scottish, or Irish? Or the current UK Parliament? The three Parliaments were very different.

The problem has, I think, been resolved. It was a matter of capitalisation. Second(?) parliament should be lower case (or is it first?). Oh, I can't remember! It's too late.

3. Of course not you blame fool!
Heh. In all honesty, I'm not going to have time to read it before mid-June at the earliest. And I'm not going to resurrect this thread then.

Heh. In all honesty, I'm not going to have time to read it before mid-June at the earliest. And I'm not going to resurrect this thread then.

Take a note of the title and find it at a later date. I only suggested it as reading material.

In return, please refer to:-
-the flag of the United Kingdom as the Union Flag.
-Parliament as the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled.

Thank you.
Both of which are inept responses to his post, and of little or no relevance.

I think I'll refer to this (http://www.parliament.uk) site to point out that "Parliament" is a perfectly acceptable short version of the full title.

Both of which are inept responses to his post, and of little or no relevance.

I think I'll refer to this (http://www.parliament.uk) site to point out that "Parliament" is a perfectly acceptable short version of the full title.

I didn't say that it wasn't! I am not disputing the word Parliament.

Good night.

I didn't say that it wasn't! I am not disputing the word Parliament.

Good night.
So why were you requesting us to use its full title?