PDA

View Full Version : Royalist or Repubican



Bill. MC
18th July 2015, 23:37
Should Great Britain dump its royal family and aristocracy and become a republic?

Alice
18th July 2015, 23:43
Republican but I don't want to chop their heads off or anything.

Bill. MC
18th July 2015, 23:55
Republican but I don't want to chop their heads off or anything.

but will you choose an option on the poll?

andyastro
19th July 2015, 00:07
i own mayfare, why should i listen to you, pleb.

Alice
19th July 2015, 00:20
but will you choose an option on the poll?

Okay, just to please you I voted. Consider yourself lucky, I don't normally do polls.

Alice
19th July 2015, 00:21
i own mayfare, why should i listen to you, pleb.

Oh please, the only fare you even come close to is wel.

Durgemeister
19th July 2015, 01:20
Republican. Always have been. Ship them back to Germany, and return Buckingham Palace, and all their other dwellings back to the People, but just to piss the property developers off, make sure they are protected by a covenant, and cannot be sold as private dwellings.

Although their time has passed, it appears the elitist "big society" that Cameron and his chinless Etonian wonders are creating is bringing it back...

Lord Ponsonby
19th July 2015, 07:40
Oh please, the only fare you even come close to is wel.

That doesn't even make sense. Hardly surprising that you are not a teacher.

Cynic
19th July 2015, 08:39
I voted in favour of the Royal Family. Main reason is that assuming that you have to replace them with some other Head of State, the very last thing I would want to replace it with, is a Politician.

Scrotnig
19th July 2015, 08:57
I'm a royalist.

Get rid of the royal family and you will get President Blair.

Memnoch
19th July 2015, 11:01
Should Great Britain dump its royal family and aristocracy and become a republic?Why Great Britain specifically? Why not the whole U.K?

Luna
19th July 2015, 11:19
Get rid of the royal family and you will get President Blair.

Now that is a terrifying thought!

Memnoch
19th July 2015, 11:37
I'm not opposed to the concept of monarchy itself, but I do have issues with the current occupant of the big chair. She and her appalling husband are completely out of touch and their children are all terrible examples. If she wants her dynasty to survive she will have to find a way to make sure Charles does not succeed her and start handing over as many of her duties as possible to William immediately.

Scrotnig
19th July 2015, 11:51
I'm not opposed to the concept of monarchy itself, but I do have issues with the current occupant of the big chair. She and her appalling husband are completely out of touch and their children are all terrible examples. If she wants her dynasty to survive she will have to find a way to make sure Charles does not succeed her and start handing over as many of her duties as possible to William immediately.
Orf with his head!

Dordie
19th July 2015, 11:57
Orf with his head!

And make sure he's not still breathing.

Dordie
19th July 2015, 12:06
I'm not opposed to the concept of monarchy itself, but I do have issues with the current occupant of the big chair. She and her appalling husband are completely out of touch and their children are all terrible examples. If she wants her dynasty to survive she will have to find a way to make sure Charles does not succeed her and start handing over as many of her duties as possible to William immediately.

You know! I can't argue with the idiot Memnoch, he does seem to have at least got this right!

Scrotnig
19th July 2015, 12:08
You know! I can't argue with the idiot Memnoch, he does seem to have at least got this right!

He does get some things right, unlike Fork Me who has never got anything right, ever...if Forker told me the sky was blue I'd have to look to make sure.

Scrotnig
19th July 2015, 12:10
the sky was blue
I've just realised that comment is a "pedant would-be scientist's dream" so I shall now sit back and enjoy the phun.

Memnoch
19th July 2015, 12:13
I've just realised that comment is a "pedant would-be scientist's dream" so I shall now sit back and enjoy the phun.Nothing wrong with that. The sky was blue at nine o'clock this morning. (And if you're worried about the conditional clause, don't be. He's not in a subjunctive mood. See what I did there? No, of course you didn't.)

Bill. MC
19th July 2015, 13:42
Why Great Britain specifically? Why not the whole U.K?

IMO the Northern Irish are welcome to keep them (as long as it is only them who pay for the royalty) and because a UK republic sounds daft - of course we could call it the United Rebulic of Great Britain and N. Ireland.

Bill. MC
19th July 2015, 13:45
I'm not opposed to the concept of monarchy itself

Despite the fact that they are parasites who receive the largest amount of benefits? remember it is YOUR money!

Memnoch
19th July 2015, 14:01
Despite the fact that they are parasites who receive the largest amount of benefits? remember it is YOUR money!I said the concept of monarchy. I didn't mention its funding, that's a completely different argument. But if you want to take a baby/bathwater approach in lieu of imagination, fine.

Do you think a president would be cheaper?

Alice
19th July 2015, 14:56
I'm not opposed to the concept of monarchy itself, but I do have issues with the current occupant of the big chair. She and her appalling husband are completely out of touch and their children are all terrible examples. If she wants her dynasty to survive she will have to find a way to make sure Charles does not succeed her and start handing over as many of her duties as possible to William immediately.

We got a sample coin in school the other day from the Royal Mint or whoever, you know the sort of commemorative type thingy. The accompanying letter gave a date in September, might have been the 9th, and apparently that's the day our Bertha will become the longest reigning Monarch ever, surpassing that of Queen Victoria. It seemed a bit presumptions to me but I digress. I don't think she's going anywhere, at least not voluntarily. And if Charles lives as long as his Mother as Grandmother, he could see us out!

Plutonium
19th July 2015, 14:57
I voted no. The present set up is the devil we know. What would a republican system look like in this country? Would we end up with an elected autocrat - like President Blair, as somebody said?

I do think the royals should live more humbly, though, like the Low Countries or Scandinavian monarchs. Get rid of some of their palaces.

Plutonium
19th July 2015, 15:01
I'm not opposed to the concept of monarchy itself, but I do have issues with the current occupant of the big chair. She and her appalling husband are completely out of touch and their children are all terrible examples. If she wants her dynasty to survive she will have to find a way to make sure Charles does not succeed her and start handing over as many of her duties as possible to William immediately.

Short of the Queen outliving Charles, you can't prevent him succeeding her. That's the point of the hereditary principle.

Having said that, Charles may turn out to be a controversial monarch. The Queen has been careful to keep out of politics and not say anything controversial. I suspect Charles may be more interventionist, which may cause a constitutional crisis.

Bill. MC
19th July 2015, 16:23
I voted no. The present set up is the devil we know. What would a republican system look like in this country? Would we end up with an elected autocrat - like President Blair, as somebody said?


LOL this must be one of the funniest and daftest objections for dumping the royal family.

Plutonium
19th July 2015, 18:02
LOL this must be one of the funniest and daftest objections for dumping the royal family.

Why? It's all very well saying that you want a republic, but what kind of republic? The Australians had a referendum on whether to become a republic, and they said no, because the proposed republic set up was not looked on favourably.

Would the president be a figurehead like the Queen, so basically he or she gets paid a lot of money for not doing much except going on state visits, as at present? Or would the president have real power, like the US President? So we would be shifting from a parliamentary system, as at present, to a system in which power is concentrated in one person.

Memnoch
19th July 2015, 22:39
We got a sample coin in school the other day from the Royal Mint or whoever, you know the sort of commemorative type thingy. The accompanying letter gave a date in September, might have been the 9th, and apparently that's the day our Bertha will become the longest reigning Monarch ever, surpassing that of Queen Victoria. It seemed a bit presumptions to me but I digress. I don't think she's going anywhere, at least not voluntarily. And if Charles lives as long as his Mother as Grandmother, he could see us out!
No doubt, after all they are bred for longevity and big teeth. Nevertheless, I think she knows that Charles is not popular and if she doesn't do something she could end up being known as Queen Elizabeth the Last. I do not believe the monarchy will survive if Charles hangs around as long as his mother.

TortieCat
20th July 2015, 12:49
I voted in favour of the Royal Family. Main reason is that assuming that you have to replace them with some other Head of State, the very last thing I would want to replace it with, is a Politician.

That is a bit of a hoary chestnut, if you ask me. OK you may get a politician but you'd have a vote and you could vote to get rid of 'em four years later. We're stuck with The House of Windsor regardless.

If we really insist on keeping them then I'd advocate that they get real jobs whose income would support them - just like the rest of us.

Or we could privatise them! :cat:

Cynic
20th July 2015, 13:18
That is a bit of a hoary chestnut, if you ask me. OK you may get a politician ....

Do you not think we have enough/too many of those already? The trouble with democratically elected officials is that they tend to gain authority and responsibility and give other politically appointed people the opportunity to divert attention from themselves and blame others for their mistakes. What of the elected President is politically opposed to, or falls out with the current democratic Government? The current system gives us a neutered figurehead who represents your country diplomatically, he/she has no real power and does what they're told by Parliament.

If we elected a President; would we expect him/her to get a real job and support themselves? Ignoring the cost of a national election to elect a President, a quick Google tells me the British Monarchy cost taxpayers 35.7 million; that the President of France, cost French taxpayers 91 million; the Italian President costs Italian taxpayers 181.5m per year. There are other cheaper examples; Poland & Germany - but they are not much cheaper than our current system.

Alice
20th July 2015, 13:54
Do you not think we have enough/too many of those already? The trouble with democratically elected officials is that they tend to gain authority and responsibility and give other politically appointed people the opportunity to divert attention from themselves and blame others for their mistakes. What of the elected President is politically opposed to, or falls out with the current democratic Government? The current system gives us a neutered figurehead who represents your country diplomatically, he/she has no real power and does what they're told by Parliament.

If we elected a President; would we expect him/her to get a real job and support themselves? Ignoring the cost of a national election to elect a President, a quick Google tells me the British Monarchy cost taxpayers 35.7 million; that the President of France, cost French taxpayers 91 million; the Italian President costs Italian taxpayers 181.5m per year. There are other cheaper examples; Poland & Germany - but they are not much cheaper than our current system.

Why do we need a President?

Cynic
20th July 2015, 14:02
Why do we need a President?

Non-political diplomatic Head of State is about the only reason I can think of.

Alice
20th July 2015, 14:24
Non-political diplomatic Head of State is about the only reason I can think of.

So we don't actually need one, it's just a made up job. No doubt one that the politicians would make up to give themselves and their chums something to aspire to in their twilight years when they had so called retired from politics.

Dordie
20th July 2015, 14:35
So we don't actually need one, it's just a made up job. No doubt one that the politicians would make up to give themselves and their chums something to aspire to in their twilight years when they had so called retired from politics.

The house of Lords is for that.

Cynic
20th July 2015, 15:00
So we don't actually need one, it's just a made up job. No doubt one that the politicians would make up to give themselves and their chums something to aspire to in their twilight years when they had so called retired from politics.

They do look after the other Heads of States when they turn up on a duty-free visit. s:24

Alice
20th July 2015, 15:08
They do look after the other Heads of States when they turn up on a duty-free visit. s:24

We could just get an ordinary Joe to do that. Or even a celebrity lookalike, that'd be fun. They'd think they were having dinner with David Beckham when really it would just be an ex plumber or someone.

Chris Mitchell
20th July 2015, 15:14
I voted no, although I'm not an out and out monarchist. I'd like to see a royal family on the Danish or Dutch model, where they don't have any real power. That's almost the case here, but I do object to being a "subject" of my country rather than a citizen.

Cynic
20th July 2015, 15:20
We could just get an ordinary Joe to do that. Or even a celebrity lookalike, that'd be fun. They'd think they were having dinner with David Beckham when really it would just be an ex plumber or someone.

Ant & Dec would be good fun; the visitors wouldn't hurry back though.

Alice
20th July 2015, 15:25
Ant & Dec would be good fun; the visitors wouldn't hurry back though.

Good idea plus it would send a subtle message about their importance to us. Head of State of somewhere rich and important; Ant & Dec. Head of State of a shitehole wanting to borrow money; the Chuckle Brothers.

Memnoch
20th July 2015, 15:58
I voted no, although I'm not an out and out monarchist. I'd like to see a royal family on the Danish or Dutch model, where they don't have any real power. That's almost the case here, but I do object to being a "subject" of my country rather than a citizen.What makes the absence of a written constitution so interesting is it gives you a bit of latitude with regard to interpretation. You could consider yourself a citizen of your country and a subject of your monarch. Technically a subject has no say in how he is governed, but you do have a say, and yet you have a monarch. So you are citizen and subject. If you like.

KiNoRonin
21st July 2015, 02:37
I Voted No, but I think there should be a 'Royalist Party' which has the Queen as their Party Leader and if they get Elected with enough Seats in Parliament, then the Queen gets to Rule in her Own Right.


3X3

Memnoch
21st July 2015, 08:45
I Voted No, but I think there should be a 'Royalist Party' which has the Queen as their Party Leader and if they get Elected with enough Seats in Parliament, then the Queen gets to Rule in her Own Right.


3X3That is, quite simply, nuts. You're talking about fundamentally changing the constitution every five years depending on who gets elected. Apart from being utterly pointless, it would be completely unmanageable and stupidly expensive.

Alice
21st July 2015, 09:12
Plus it'd be a bit weird having the Queen knocking on your door asking if she could count on your vote.

TortieCat
21st July 2015, 11:29
Do you not think we have enough/too many of those already? The trouble with democratically elected officials is that they tend to gain authority and responsibility and give other politically appointed people the opportunity to divert attention from themselves and blame others for their mistakes. What of the elected President is politically opposed to, or falls out with the current democratic Government? The current system gives us a neutered figurehead who represents your country diplomatically, he/she has no real power and does what they're told by Parliament.

If we elected a President; would we expect him/her to get a real job and support themselves? Ignoring the cost of a national election to elect a President, a quick Google tells me the British Monarchy cost taxpayers 35.7 million; that the President of France, cost French taxpayers 91 million; the Italian President costs Italian taxpayers 181.5m per year. There are other cheaper examples; Poland & Germany - but they are not much cheaper than our current system.

Firstly, I'd argue that a President would not, necessarily, have to be a politician. Why not throw it wide open? If the position was merely going to be a 'neutered' figurehead then anybody could do the hand-shaking and ribbon-cutting.

Secondly, set a realistic limit on expenditure. Currently the 'grace and favour' and cronyism that surrounds the Windsors is rankly obscene. We rail at politicians screwing the system but seem happy to let the Windsors get away with it. I do not understand why the Windsors cannot, to some degree, finance themselves.

Thirdly, the Royal Prerogative still carries clout. It is now in the hands of politicians, however, that prerogative gives our PM more unchallengeble power than that of the US president. This from good old Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative

The scope of the royal prerogative is difficult to determine due to the uncodified nature of the constitution. It is clear that the existence and extent of the power is a matter of the common law of England, making the courts the final arbiter of whether a particular type of prerogative exists or not. Nevertheless, certain prerogative powers have been widely acknowledged and accepted over time, while others have fallen out of use.

So perhaps the first thing the UK needs, like the USA, is a WRITTEN Constitution.

Oh and fourthly, it allows us to remain Subjects not Citizens and the whole nonsense of these State occasions is anachronistic. It maybe good for tourism but I find the British upper echelons' fixation with silk stockings, suspenders, wigs, and diamond shoe buckles ridiculous.

They look like they've stepped right out of Panto or a G&S operetta.

28671


28672

Durgemeister
21st July 2015, 11:42
Oh and fourthly, it allows us to remain Subjects not Citizens and the whole nonsense of these State occasions is anachronistic. It maybe good for tourism but I find the British upper echelons' fixation with silk stockings, suspenders, wigs, and diamond shoe buckles ridiculous.

They look like they've stepped right out of Panto or a G&S operetta.


One of my gripes, all the pointless pomp and ceremony.... and if I am round my Dad's house, and the news comes on with any of the Royals (Specifically the Queen, and Prince Phillip) wearing their "Military Uniform", the veins pop out of his head, it really winds him up... me too, but I just think about rolling my eyes.

Memnoch
21st July 2015, 13:02
One of my gripes, all the pointless pomp and ceremony.... and if I am round my Dad's house, and the news comes on with any of the Royals (Specifically the Queen, and Prince Phillip) wearing their "Military Uniform", the veins pop out of his head, it really winds him up... me too, but I just think about rolling my eyes.Mind you, they have both done proper jobs in the armed forces, unlike a lot of third world dictators crushed under the weight of their medals and gold braid..

Cynic
21st July 2015, 14:38
One of my gripes, all the pointless pomp and ceremony.... and if I am round my Dad's house, and the news comes on with any of the Royals (Specifically the Queen, and Prince Phillip) wearing their "Military Uniform", the veins pop out of his head, it really winds him up... me too, but I just think about rolling my eyes.

The only Royal I'm aware of who wears a uniform, but has never served, is Princess Anne. In fairness, the uniform she wears is that of a Colonel in Chief (or the Naval/RAF equivalent). There is a wikki page here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_service_by_the_members_of_the_British_Royal_Family).

I was interested to see that both Charles and Andrew attended the Commando Training Centre Royal Marines (Edward also attended, but decided it wasn't for him and resigned before he finished). I spotted Andrew was wearing Parachute Wings on his RN uniform for the last Queens Birthday Parade, which is indicative that he did something a bit special which no-one is talking about (or, he's a walt). It also explains how Charles got his wings without doing P-Company, he had already passed Commando selection, which exempts him.

Chris Mitchell
21st July 2015, 22:41
That is, quite simply, nuts.

Well don't sound surprised!

Bill. MC
21st July 2015, 23:36
I Voted No, but I think there should be a 'Royalist Party' which has the Queen as their Party Leader and if they get Elected with enough Seats in Parliament, then the Queen gets to Rule in her Own Right.


It is a pity that Canada doesn't follow Austrialia's example by having a strong movement towards republicanism. FFS you lot are no longer a British colony.

Plutonium
22nd July 2015, 08:27
It is a pity that Canada doesn't follow Austrialia's example by having a strong movement towards republicanism. FFS you lot are no longer a British colony.

English-speaking Canadians see the monarchy as part of their identity, making them distinct from the republican USA.

Memnoch
22nd July 2015, 13:44
Well don't sound surprised!

I think I might have entertained the notion that his loopiness might be limited to hippy mumbo jumbo and that he could actually be normal in other areas.

I apologise for my unrealistic optimism.

Memnoch
22nd July 2015, 13:46
It is a pity that Canada doesn't follow Austrialia's example by having a strong movement towards republicanism. FFS you lot are no longer a British colony.
Neither is Australia. It's an independent country that happens to have the same monarch as us. So is Canada. They are no more British colonies than Britain is a colony of either of them.

HTH

Equinox
27th July 2015, 18:25
Republican. Always have been. Ship them back to Germany, and return Buckingham Palace, and all their other dwellings back to the People, but just to piss the property developers off, make sure they are protected by a covenant, and cannot be sold as private dwellings.

Although their time has passed, it appears the elitist "big society" that Cameron and his chinless Etonian wonders are creating is bringing it back...
Don't worry about it Durge, just focus on getting a job and all will be well.
Cameron and his chinless wonders will leave you alone then. z:1

Durgemeister
27th July 2015, 18:42
Don't worry about it Durge, just focus on getting a job and all will be well.
Cameron and his chinless wonders will leave you alone then. z:1

Yet another tedious cock-puppet who makes up lies about people. See you around fuckwit !