BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: GUEST,Patsy Warren
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 05:56 AM

I don't think the Monarchy will allow themselves to be obsolete because of their heritage and so called priviledged birth it is a lot for them to lose. Especially by the hangers on (which seems to include Ozzie and Sharon these days) they are probably doing alright on it thank you very much! Toe sucking Fergie comes to mind.

Thankfully we do not have the continual coverage of the Royal family as we did through the 70s/80s/90s at every turn. Pointless stories about Prince Charles spraining a finger or thumb playing polo, dear God! Or the 'It's a Knock-Out' fiasco to show us peasants that they are just ordinary fun loving folk like us (yeah right). At that time it seemed that the papers and tv coverage were doing their damndest to keep them in our minds knowing that people were losing interest and to question their importance in modern England. France went in the right direction by getting rid of their Aristocracy earlier and if England had had the guts to rise up and follow suit we would not be having this conversation now. I don't hate Queen Elizabeth infact the opposite she gets my sympathy having had to put up with her shower of a family. Enough to make her reach for the Prozac at times I bet.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: theleveller
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 04:59 AM

"It isn't owned by the monarch or the state, it's owned by the Crown and run by the Crown Estate Commissioners who are appointed by the monarch. If the monarchy were to be abolished, there would be no Crown. The estate would doubtless be sold to the highest bidders, and they wouldn't be obliged to contribute all its profit to the treasury."

Not quite.

From The Official Website of the British Monarchy:
"The Crown Estate is not the personal property of the Monarch. It cannot be sold by the Monarch, nor do any profits from it go to the Sovereign.

The Crown Estate is managed by an independent organisation, headed by a Board, and any profits from the Estate is paid every year to the Treasury for the benefit of all UK taxpayers. The Treasury is effectively the principle Government stakeholder and is kept informed of the estate's overall business plans and strategies."

From an article by Republic:

"The Crown's legal status is that of a corporation sole, an independent legal entity with the right to hold assets. To suggest that Elizabeth Windsor personally 'owns' and 'gives' the assets and revenues of this incorporated body is as ludicrous as suggesting that the Chairman of British Airways personally 'owns' the assets and tax revenues of the incorporated body he represents.

If the monarchy were to disappear tomorrow, the Crown Estate would continue to do what it has always done for nearly one thousand years – provide income for the administration of the country."


Like John MacKenzie says:
"Some folk find it convenient to ignore the facts, as they get in the way of their prejudices :)"

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Smokey.
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 09:23 PM

We could have 'Donald Wheer's Ya Troosers?' for the national anthem..

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: maple_leaf_boy
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 09:14 PM

I wouldn't have a problem with having a monarch if they'd restore the
Stuarts.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 08:11 PM

Interesting conversation, Emma B. I'd be more impressed, though, if Oliver Postgate appeared to know the difference between Tom Jefferson and Abe Lincoln.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Smokey.
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 07:57 PM

Well, that's one way to fuck up a discussion..

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Emma B
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 07:37 PM

"the inevitable intervention of The Law of Unforeseen Consequences"

reminded me of this from the late lamented Oliver Postgate

The Law of Unintended Consequences

"Right then." said God. "What have you been up to now?"

"Me?" asked the Devil, innocent as ever.

"Yes you. You know quite well it is I who make laws !"

"Yes indeedy! and very pretty they are too. Your Laws are immutable, eternal, absolute, self-evident, unchanging throughout eternity and . . ."

"All right, I know all that! I just want to know what this "Law of Unintended Consequences" is and why you thought it up?"

"Who? Me? Never!" replied the Devil. "If you didn't think it up yourself it probably isn't really a Law at all. It could be an "observable phenomenon."

"If it is observable, I will have observed it" said God firmly.

"Of course, of course! But they're not all that easy to spot."

"Why not?"

"Because not being intended, unintended consequences are not on the list of what was expected to happen, so if one does happen, nobody has to notice it or connect it with whatever was intended. Or, if they do notice it they just write it off as part of the 'law of unintended consequences', and of course as your laws are immutable, eternal and that, they know they can't do anything about it even if they wanted to, which half the time they don't."

"Now aren't you being the least bit uncharitable? Give me a "for instance". Give me a nice simple example of one of these unintended consequences."

"All right. Try this: The French government has recently legislated to increase the compulsory maternity benefits and paid time-off for lady workers in industry."

"Yes, so I heard, so I heard, very thoughtful and kind."

"So what is the consequence?" asked the Devil.

"They can look after their babies of course. That's what it's for."

"Maybe. But what actually happens is that they can't get jobs. Nobody can afford to employ them any more."

"Yes, but the government didn't mean that to happen."

"I daresay, but they should have bloody seen that it was going to!"

"Are you perhaps being the least bit intolerant?" said God, "I mean anybody can make a mistake."

The Devil sighed: "You asked for a simple "for instance" and that's what I gave you. Obviously sometimes there can be unintended consequences that could not possibly have been foreseen. But that wasn't one of them. That particular one could and should have been foreseen. Somebody just couldn't be bothered to think it through, or maybe worse than that, they could have been showing off - just wanting to be seen to be doing something apparently good to boost their political image, and if that was their intended consequence they achieved it, and to hell anything else that happens."

"OK, cool it!" said God. "So some people are careless and some are single-mindedly self-interested. But that's not the end of the world is it?"

"I don't know about that. You were on the aircraft carrier in Iraq, when President Bush stood under the banner: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED."

"Oh I suppose so." muttered God.

"So he had achieved his intended consequence."

"Yes, sort of."

"So later, when it all went wrong, he could call what did happen an "unintended consequence", as if it was something out of his control, like a change in the weather. Bush's underlying assumption being that people are only responsible for the things that they say they intended to happen as a result of what they did, and that if something different happens it's just too bad. So he can say: "Although there do seem to be some problems there now, we did what seemed to be the right thing at the time, so what is happening now is not actually our fault."

"So OK. That's probably what Bush does think. If he didn't intend the chaos to happen, and nobody told him it was likely to, it was just a mistake."

The Devil shook his head in disbelief. He said: "Where were you? You know that thousands of very important and well-informed people were saying - in fact shouting in his ear - that to go in and lay waste to Iraq was likely to have just the sort of consequences that it has had. So although President Bush can take the view that the bloody carnage going on there is an "unintended" consequence, it was definitely not an "unforeseen" consequence. It was amply, lavishly, foreseen, and that makes it different in kind from a mistake or a piece of mental inattention, different because the carnage is clearly the result of an actual refusal to see the situation that was most likely going to result from his action. And his reason for refusing to see or care about it was that all he wanted was to be seen to be doing something grand and grandiose after nine-eleven. That was his intended consequence."

"My! You have got it in for him haven't you?" said God. "But Bush's motives are not part of your Law of Unintended Consequences."

"Dammit! It's not my law!" snapped the Devil, "It's an observable phenomenon, part of your creation, a built-in personality-fault of your loved ones, which, in my diabolical view, shows this world of yours to be in a seriously dangerous condition."

"Now wait a minute!" said God, looking a shade wrathful. "Thou art a harbinger of Doom, OK. But it's not down to us. You know perfectly well that long ago we "endowed the people with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". You were in on that, and it's thanks to you that the pursuit of happiness by one lot can cause the misery of another lot."

"Oh no it isn't! You can't pin that one on me!" countered the Devil firmly. "That was inherent in the proposition."

"Well, anyway, whatever the reason, that was why Abe Lincoln put in the bit about Government, er, you know . . ."

The Devil sighed. "Yes, I know: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it."

"There you are, you see! The people out there are in charge of themselves. They have the life and the liberty to pursue their happiness."

"Yes and if they don't get it, they can boot out the government and get another one that will give it to them . . .what were the words? " . . . laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.'"

"Yes indeed!" said God. "Rather good don't you think?"

"So the purpose of a government is to provide its people with the maximum of happiness and safety along with the liberty to enjoy it?"

"Got it in one! The good things of this green and lovely world are there for all living things to enjoy."

"And if the government ceases to provide plentiful green and lovely goodies, what happens?"

"The people exercise their inalienable right and boot them out, vote in another government which will. But governments take their situation seriously. Indeed their political success is maintained by the ever-increasing 'standard of living' that they can garner for their people, who are, as you say, depending on them to provide it."

"Right! I'm beginning to understand it now." said the Devil. "And what happens when the world runs short of goodies?"

"Well, I don't know. The governments would just have to tell their people they can't provide them with so many."

"And get booted out by their electorate and lose their power? Not likely!" laughed the Devil.

"Well, what would they do?"

"What they always do - pinch somebody else's goodies. Declare a righteous war to liberate a few oil-wells in foreign places. Pursue honourable trade and corner the market. You gave them greed. They just worked out how to use it."

"All right, Mister Know-it-all." said God crossly. "Of course people have to pursue their own interests. If they didn't they would have become extinct long ago, along with the Dodo, which couldn't be bothered to look after itself. The thing is that in the long run it all works out for the best."

"Who are you kidding?" laughed the Devil. "In the long run it all works out for the worst."

"Now wait a minute!" said God, now seriously wrathful. "That's a serious allegation. You just justify it. Go on! Give me a "for instance"!"

"Better than that," said the Devil. "I can give you a "Just supposing . . ."

"Please yourself. Only get on with it."

"All right. Listen. Just suppose that some of the governments of your world have been beavering away for, say, half a century, single-mindedly amassing more and more goodies to keep their people rich and happy, giving them, as you say is their function, 'an ever-increasing standard of living', and suppose that to do this they have had to vastly increase industrial production, destroying forests and polluting rivers and seas, burning fossil fuel and farting their exhaust gases into the atmosphere."

"Now you're just being vulgar!"

"Yes." continued the Devil, "And supposing the vulgarly enriched atmosphere of your green and lovely planet has been allowed to become so polluted that for decades it has been behaving like a sort of greenhouse, gradually warming the world up like one of those off-peak heat-storage units until the white ice has begun to melt away and it very gradually begins to cook in the heat of the sun. So that within a century or so your green and lovely world will be a desert. Tell me, dear Lord: what do you think your free people would do?"

God thought.

"Well I suppose the government would just have to explain the situation to its people, and tell them they can't have any more goodies."

"And get themselves booted out? Show themselves to have failed? There's always another political party waiting in the wings to take over. A government is nothing if it can't provide the goodies."

"But what if it were true?"

"Truth doesn't enter into it." said the Devil. "One of the liberties you gave to people was the freedom to believe as true whatever it pleases them to believe is true – or if necessary, they might seem to believe it, but only in an academic sort of way; so that global warming could be a subject on which to have an opinion, but not something that would actually happen to them. The government is their courier on the trip of life. The people know it will look after them."

"So what does a government do?"

"It lies." said the Devil.

"Now wait a minute! That's not respectful." said God severely.

"Sorry," said the Devil. "I beg their pardon. The government goes in for 'best-case thinking'".

"And what the hell is that?"

"Just one of the virtues. It's called "a commitment to continuity and optimism". It was once the rallying-cry of the lemmings, if you remember."

"Shut up or make sense!" snapped the Deity. "Say what happens!"

"Right. The government prepares an evaluation of the situation, a balance between the various imperatives of keeping the confidence of the electorate, safeguarding economic prosperity, and saving the planet."

"How?"

"It puts together what is called a 'narrative'. In this, by carefully selecting optimistic scientific conjectures, the situation is presented as being amenable to specific long-term adjustments. Then, in the light of these, proposals are made for small convenient actions to be taken and campaigns encouraged which will enable people to change their light-bulbs and feel that they are facing up to reality without seriously reducing their 'standard of living'".

"And that would be the intended consequence?" asked God.

"But of course!" replied the Devil. "It would deal with all the problems. It would keep the government safely in power, keep the electorate feeling happy and virtuous and it just might, eventually, reduce global warming".

"But if it didn't, and global warming were to get out of hand, their children and grandchildren would die!" cried God.

"Right!" said the Devil. "But that would be an unintended consequence."

Oliver Postgate    August 2007

Sorry - totally off topic but - what the hell! :)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Smokey.
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 07:14 PM

Well put, Don.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 07:02 PM

If it comes to the choice between the system we have, and a republic with an elected head of state, would one of you woud be republicans tell us just how you expect to elect a completely apolitical figurehead, with no power at all.

Who the hell will go for that job? The whole reason for standing for election is power and authority if you win.

The reason the monarchy has lasted for hundreds of years is that the poor sods don't get the choice. They inherit the job, and they are stuck with it.

It's called Noblesse Oblige, a sense of duty, which is something alien to your average elected politician.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 06:50 PM

My apologies Amos for the typo.

It should read ....which they, not you, chose to leave out.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 06:47 PM

""The Queen is given £15 million ($30.6 million) a year to run the palaces, a figure that was set in 1998 and is reviewed every three years.""


And has been frozen for more than ten years, while costs have have gone sky high.

Just thought I'd fill in that little unimportant detail, which you so carefully chose to leave out.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 06:40 PM

""I would suggest an apolitical figure (to avoid the Blairs of this world), a secular figure (to stop the inevitable strife a religious figure would bring to the role), and someone not in the pay of any private enterprise at all.""

Isn't that exactly what we have now?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 06:33 PM

""WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO REPLACE THEM WITH ????????""

The dickheads who want them gone aren't smart enough to have thought that far ahead John.

The answer is that

a) They haven't a clue

b) If they ever get their way, the choice they make will be an economic and political disaster.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Smokey.
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 05:40 PM

I've noticed..

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 05:36 PM

Some folk find it convenient to ignore the facts, as they get in the way of their prejudices :)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Smokey.
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 05:30 PM

"How many more times before the message gets home - THE CROWN ESTATE DOES NOT BELONG TO THE MONARCH. It belongs to the institution of monarchy, i.e the state (the Windsors' web site clearly states this). If the monarchy were to be abolished (and let's hope that it is - and soon) the crown estate would still belong to the state, who would enjoy the income from it and, no doubt, the employees would continue to be employed."

It isn't owned by the monarch or the state, it's owned by the Crown and run by the Crown Estate Commissioners who are appointed by the monarch. If the monarchy were to be abolished, there would be no Crown. The estate would doubtless be sold to the highest bidders, and they wouldn't be obliged to contribute all its profit to the treasury. It used to be owned by the monarch, but was exchanged for the Civil List sometime in the 18th century. Hence my offsetting one against the other.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 04:01 PM

Everyone can see how leveller enjoys throwing childish insults at every opportunity!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 03:11 PM

The Civil List has been trimmed by a large amount, and the Queen now pays the allowances for many who were once pensioners of the UK taxpayer.
The number of 'hangers on' is very short now compared to what it was mate.

In 1993 it was announced that only the Queen, Prince Philip and the Queen Mother would receive civil list payments in the future. At the same time it was also announced then that other members of the royal family stopped benefiting from the civil list. The Queen also agreed to pay taxes on income and capital gains from 1993.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: theleveller
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 03:06 PM

Give up Boko - you're simply disclosing more and more of what an impotent idiot you are with every statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: theleveller
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 03:03 PM

"Had you read the list I quoted Leveller"

Had you read your own list you would have seen that it said IMMEDIATE families, not an interminable list of over-privileged drones. Beatrice demanded police protection because someone snatched her handbag. My wife had her handbag snatched but has had ho police protection. Once again, you're idea of democraxcy is a trifle bizarre. If I were you, I'd stop pissing on my own chips, swallowing the Windsor PR machine crap hook, line and sinker and maybe look at the real arguments for abolishing the monarchy.


http://www.republic.org.uk/

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Stu
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 02:42 PM

"So that's that then, for the less than the cost of a pint of your hideous beer!!!"

That 62p would be much better spent put towards a decent pint of ale rather than going towards someone already obscenely rich.

Some people really do like to be ruled, which is a bizarre character trait in my opinion.

Baaaaaaaa!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 02:17 PM

The Queen and her extended family cost each British taxpayer 62 pence — or about $1.26 — in the past fiscal year

So that's that then, for the less than the cost of a pint of your hideous beer!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 02:01 PM

Had you read the list I quoted Leveller, you would note that families are included in there, as needing security protection.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 01:45 PM

CBC News reports:


The Queen and her extended family cost each British taxpayer 62 pence — or about $1.26 — in the past fiscal year, Buckingham Palace said Wednesday when it released its official accounts.

Alan Reid, Keeper of the Privy Purse, scoffed at critics who complain about the cost of keeping the Queen.



The Queen is given £15 million a year to run Buckingham Palace and her other homes.
(SAC Scott Robertson/Crown Copyright/Associated Press)
"Given this is a World Cup year, 62 pence would buy you a ticket for one minute of England's game against Portugal on Saturday," Reid told the Guardian newspaper.

The Queen pays taxes, but Reid did not say how much.

"We take a strong view that the Queen's private finances are, like any other individual, private, and she is entitled to have her privacy," he said.

The royal budget totalled £36.7 million ($76.77 million) in the past fiscal year, a sum that was 4.2 per cent higher than the previous year.

Part of the cost increase this year came from extra security. Buckingham Palace also had to bear the cost of freedom of information inquiries, and the cost of several major tours.

Prince Charles and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, visited the United States and the Queen went to Australia.

Palaces need maintenance

A significant part of the Queen's budget goes to pay the wages of the 310 staff. But the aging royal palaces also need expensive maintenance.

The roof leaks at Windsor Castle, where Charles and Camilla were married. That roof is made of lead and covers about two hectares. The mausoleum also needs restoration at a cost of about £2 million ($4.08 million).

"If we're going to maintain historic buildings that we're responsible for, we will need more money," Reid said. "We will be putting more pressure on the Department for Culture, Media and Sport."

The Queen is given £15 million ($30.6 million) a year to run the palaces, a figure that was set in 1998 and is reviewed every three years. Senior officials plan to request an extra £1 million this year, plus the cost of inflation.



Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/06/28/queen-wed.html#ixzz0uoNhqO55

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: GUEST,erbert
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 01:45 PM

hmmm... so how come a man equipped with 3 legs

still aint got a leg to stand on ???

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 01:28 PM

Leveller will twist any statement which is not in accordance with his quaint working class obsession. As said before I will not take part in a battle of wits with an unarmed man!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: theleveller
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 12:29 PM

"The sons & daughters of ordinary folk would never dream of going on in such a fashion."

They don't get police protection - quite rhe opposite. Is that you're idea of democracy?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 11:52 AM

"the arch-drone Beatrice and others tossers who need nannying while they puke up outside expensive night clubs."

Oh, yes, they are the only ones, aren't they? The sons & daughters of ordinary folk would never dream of going on in such a fashion. No problem of binge drinking in the populace at large, of course.

If the above charming formulation is an example of your 'democratic principle', Mr Leveller, then thanks but no thanks. I'll take vanilla.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: theleveller
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 11:08 AM

"We could be looking at similar costs,"

Doubt it. A President would not need protection for a huge extended family - like the arch-drone Beatrice and others tossers who need nannying while they puke up outside expensive night clubs.

In any case, the main reason for getting rid of the monarchy is not one of costs - it's one of democratic principle.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 10:34 AM

I agree, but who would you suggest?
Just as a matter of interest, on the matter of security. I looked up the sort of cover that the US president gets, and although I cannot find costings, they must be enormous when you read the amount they have to cover.

Here is a list culled from Wikipedia.

"Today, the Secret Service is authorized by law to protect:

    * The President, the Vice President, the President-elect and Vice President-elect
    * The immediate families of the above individuals
    * Former Presidents and their spouses for their lifetimes except when the spouse remarries. In 1997, legislation became effective limiting Secret Service protection to former Presidents for a period of not more than 10 years from the date the former President leaves office
    * Children of former Presidents until age 16 or 5 years after the presidency
    * Former Vice Presidents until 6 months after their term ends: (the Secretary of Homeland Security can extend the protection time.)
    * Families of former Vice Presidents until 6 months after term ends
    * Visiting heads of states or governments and their spouses traveling with them, other distinguished foreign visitors to the United States, and official representatives of the United States performing special missions abroad whom the president deems important enough for protection outside the Diplomatic Security Service
    * Major presidential and vice presidential candidates, and their spouses within 120 days of a general presidential election
    * Other individuals as designated per executive order of the President
    * National Special Security Events, when designated as such by the Secretary of Homeland Security

We could be looking at similar costs, which I can't see being less than what it costs to protect the present occupant of the British throne, already.

So no money saved there!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Stu
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 10:18 AM

"second time I got facetious crap answers."

Er, wasn't my answer quite to the point rather being facetious or crap? Perhaps if you'd phrased the question better you'd get the answers you were after.


"If we go the presidential route, then whether they are a politician or a statesman, they still need to be covered by security services. They will still think, like the present Queen, that everywhere they visit smells of fresh paint."

True, but we are going to need a head of state when the monarch is no longer so security and fresh paint will always be the order of the day for someone. I would suggest an apolitical figure (to avoid the Blairs of this world), a secular figure (to stop the inevitable strife a religious figure would bring to the role), and someone not in the pay of any private enterprise at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 10:13 AM

You already elect all your operational governors and representatives, ministers Primus and Secundus and everything else down to dog-catcher. If your system is not optimized to your requirements, it doesn't seem to me that the reason is not enough elected leaders.   From over here, it looks like the Queen acts, as I said, as a sort of damper against excessive oscillations, not a bad thing. Benevolent Bess trumps Galloping Gertie.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: theleveller
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 09:19 AM

Ah, but at least he/she would be an ELECTED one-eyed man/womsn

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 09:05 AM

I asked a sensible question, twice. First time I got no answer, second time I got facetious crap answers.
NOW seriously.
Do you want a politically allied leader of the country, or do you want an apolitical leader?
If we go the presidential route, then whether they are a politician or a statesman, they still need to be covered by security services. They will still think, like the present Queen, that everywhere they visit smells of fresh paint
Also they will still be the target of every malcontent who knows he/she can say what they like about people like that, because they cannot answer back.
Perhaps we ought to be looking for a one eyed man!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 08:53 AM

"dreamed up in his Croydon bedsit"

in your dreams pal

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: theleveller
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 06:49 AM

Oh dear. More Walter Mitty inventions from Boko, dreamed up in his Croydon bedsit. What a sad-o.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 06:39 AM

There were 25,000 folks at the Cartier International Polo Day yesterday who were only too pleased to have Prince Charles along. Leveller once again lives up to our low expectations!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: GUEST,erbert
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 06:36 AM

"WHAT IF ?????"



what if all royals and aristos were to 'unfortunately' die out
within one generation
due to some unforseen genetic disorder..

maybe.. perhaps... terminal infertility as a result of over-selective inbreeding ??

or some highly refined human equivalent of "Sudden Oak Death" disease ???


Bit of a bugger that'd be for abject fanboy royalists,

but daresay life would go on without much noticeable difference for all the rest of us....

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 06:25 AM

I am much of the opinion that all change is liable to be for the worse due to the inevitable intervention of The Law of Unforeseen Consequences. The phrase about 'ain't broke so don't fix it' is what comes most immediately to mind.

On personal note: I gave up the Indie, in many ways an excellent journal, because the self-righteous maunderings of that self-appointed spokesperson Y A-Brown got so insufferably on my tits. Can't think of another columnist with quite so unfailing a knack of being wrong about absolutely bloody everything!

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 06:14 AM

How ironic is this? Discussing cultural obsolescence on a folk music forum!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: theleveller
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 06:13 AM

"the Crown Estate contributes all its profit which is about £190m per year and employs hundreds of people."

How many more times before the message gets home - THE CROWN ESTATE DOES NOT BELONG TO THE MONARCH. It belongs to the institution of monarchy, i.e the state (the Windsors' web site clearly states this). If the monarchy were to be abolished (and let's hope that it is - and soon) the crown estate would still belong to the state, who would enjoy the income from it and, no doubt, the employees would continue to be employed.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 05:57 AM

>>are we not intelligent and rational citizens ?????? |<<

Only if we are not mudcatters!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: GUEST,erbert
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 05:20 AM

"WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO REPLACE THEM WITH ????????"


well..   errrrr...   "NOTHING !!!!!!!"


or.. errrrrrm...    "A CHIMPS TEA PARTY !!!!!!!"


..or to take such a shouty shrill question and accord it a modicum of polite respect...


hows about.. some kind of elected academy of pre-eminent representative citizens
from all areas of British Work & Social life ?????

details of which can be thrashed out by pub bores
until some semblance of a sensible structure and process of nomination & election
positively emerges..

YES THERE ARE CONSTRUCTIVE & BENEFICIAL ALTERNATIVES !!!!!!!!



of course there are..

are we not intelligent and rational citizens ??????

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Stu
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 04:54 AM

"We tried a republic a wee while back anyway; it didn't work then & I doubt it would work now."

It didn't work because the wrong man was in. Now, if John Lilburne had been made Lord Protector . . .


"WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO REPLACE THEM WITH ????????"

AN.ELECTED.PRESIDENT.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 04:41 AM

Yasmin Aliphai-Brown is just full of her own opinions and has attracted a lot of criticism as a result.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: GUEST,Doc John
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 04:20 AM

Well Caligula (reputably) made his horse consul, so there's an idea for a start.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 04:19 AM

The Royals are integral to the general spectacle which further reinforces the Cult o' Celebrity which none of us are entuirely immune to. WAV was asking me the other day when people started laying down floral tributes in commemoration of those killed in RTAs; no earlier than the untimely passing of Princess Diana whereupon the entire country became a floral tribute. In terms of spontaneous folkloric experience that has to take some beating.

We tried a republic a wee while back anyway; it didn't work then & I doubt it would work now.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 03:40 AM

WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO REPLACE THEM WITH ????????

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 02:37 AM

OK Amos. Just made my point and will step out of it now as I don't want to get dragged into a flaming war, which I suspect will happen at some point :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 10:09 PM

Arthur,

Whether it suits you or does not, I am an alive human sharing the earth, and have as much right to start a thread about English affairs as you have about American ones.   I have no dog in the fight but I think it is an interesting question which obviously has viewpoints of merit on both sides. So sorry I trod you toesies, though.

A