 sj |
||
|
||
BS: english republicans
|
|
|
|||||||
|
BS: english republicans |
Share Thread
|
||||||
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: DougR Date: 12 Apr 02 - 11:09 PM Linda darlin' you're rich? Want to get married? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: Fiolar Date: 13 Apr 02 - 05:54 AM Guest - A Thousand Years of Monarchy! Mmm - interesting. Looking back on history of the monarchy, I always assumed that many of the so called kings got where they were by either subterfuge, force of arms or good old fashioned murder. Take William the Conqueror; Henry I: Henry IV; Henry VII and William III. Some of the others got where they were by being fortunate at the right time. |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: brid widder Date: 13 Apr 02 - 06:46 AM If we could shrink the earth's population to a village of precisely 100 people, with all the existing human ratios remaining the same, it would look something like the following. There would be: 57 Asians 21 Europeans 14 from the Western Hemisphere, both north and south 8 Africans 52 would be female 48 would be male 70 would be non-white 30 would be white 70 would be non-Christian 30 would be Christian 89 would be heterosexual 11 would be homosexual 6 people would possess 59% of the entire world's wealth and all 6 would be from the United States. 80 would live in substandard housing 70 would be unable to read 50 would suffer from malnutrition 1 would be near death; 1 would be near birth 1 (yes, only 1) would have a college education 1 would own a computer When one considers our world from such a compressed perspective, the need for acceptance, understanding and education becomes glaringly apparent. The following is also something to ponder... If you woke up this morning with more health than illness…you are more blessed than the million who will not survive this week. If you have never experienced the danger of battle, the loneliness of imprisonment, the agony of torture, or the pangs of starvation…you are ahead of 500 million people in the world. If you have food in the refrigerator, clothes on your back, a roof overhead and a place to sleep...you are richer than 75% of this world. If you have money in the bank, in your wallet, and spare change in a dish someplace... you are among the top 8% of the world's wealthy. If you can read this message, you are more blessed than over two billion people in the world that cannot read at all. Oh yes ...we are rich....so no guest that's not what it's about |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: GUEST Date: 13 Apr 02 - 12:53 PM Well its nice to see someone who counts themselves rich responding. As to your point i'm not sure it makes much sense politically; but the fact remains the Commonwealth of nations and Prince Charles have been working more towards changing these unbalances than the United Nations....So the monarchy seems to work hard in this regard. |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: alanabit Date: 13 Apr 02 - 05:14 PM I would be interested to hear how you can justify that statement Guest. My own objections to the institution of monarchy are based on the fact that it represents a part of a system in which people owe their influence to an accident of birth rather than any concrete achievement, suitability, industry or talent. The fact that some of them are industrious, devoted and occasionally even able is neither here nor there. Nor is the actual monarchy itself the main problem. It is the unearned privilege of people to whom I am expected or even required to be deferential which really puts my back up. "Steal a little and they throw you in jail/Steal enough and they make you king". The class system is essentially the legitimisation of theft by dint of antiquity.
|
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Apr 02 - 07:01 PM Myself I think it's the "earned" privilege that is the real poison. In real terms most of it is totally undeserved - but even if it was "deserved" that wouldn't really make it better. It might even be worse, because the privilege and inequality would be more secure.
At least lottery winners know that they are just lucky, and birth is just one lottery among others.
Steal a lot and they lie down and worship you, that's true. But to be king you normally have to be a descendant of thieves rather than a thief yourself. And the real power lies with the thieves rather than the descendants of thieves.
Royalty are the decoration on the tree of privilege. If the tree gets brought down, the decoration comes down too - but taking down the decoration by itself is no help in bringing down the tree. |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: Gareth Date: 13 Apr 02 - 07:17 PM Forunately we WELSH acept these matters with long practise. Edward III presented us with a Prince, born in Wales, who spoke no english (his infant son).
Of the Two English Kings of Welsh Birth we have Gareth
'Tis the tramp of Saxon foemen, |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: Crane Driver Date: 13 Apr 02 - 11:36 PM Can someone please answer me one simple question - WHY have a Head of State at all? Do we really need to see a particular person acting as representative of the nation? Can't we conceive of a nation made up of all its people, without the need of a figurehead? And no Guest, we're not disloyal to our country, it's just that we can separate that from loyalty to one person or family, who will ultimately have to make way for someone else anyway. There is no perfect way of selecting a Head of State. So why have one? Just a thought. Andrew |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Apr 02 - 05:27 PM Now that makes more sense. What gets up my nose is the idea of some head of state whose been honed in a focus group, or earned Buggins Turn by being a good boy in the party, or buying his way in with advertising, in the American fashion.
Dispensing with having a head of state at all seems much preferable. Except that if you still had a head of government, in practice he or she would take on the role.
For purely ceremonial purposes it'd be possible to have a ritual head of state, like the the Straw Bear of Whittlesea. Once again, the folk world shows the way. I can quite imagine the Bear at a State opening of Parliament...All right for a couple of years people would think it was a bit odd, but it wouldn't take long and it'd be a much loved tradition, and no sillier than the other ones. (And "sillier" is not meant as an adverse criticism. The silly bits are the best bits.) |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: Paul from Hull Date: 14 Apr 02 - 05:41 PM Hell, Mr Mcgrath, it would make an even worse Minesweeper Captain than ol' Jug-Ears did, though! *G* Actually, I'm no Republican, so, in something like the words of 'the Fast Show' - "You didnt see me 'ere, right..." *G* |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: Dave the Gnome Date: 14 Apr 02 - 05:54 PM Read Pratchett for a refreshing view of monarchy. Lords and Ladies if I remember rightly. In Lancre the elected government refuse to decide on any important issues as that is the job of the King. The King has done it for thousands of years so why should he try to get ordinary people to accept some of his responsibility now? Rule a country? Not my job mate! Fits in with my view of Monarchy vs Democracy. Firstly we work on the basis that all politicians are completely barking mad. I mean, they must be. Who else would WANT that sort of responsibilty eh? Then we progress and say yes but to become politicians in a democracy they need to be elected. These madmen are, therefore, given the go ahead by us? Who is daftest??? So. The only sensible alternative is a dictatorship. The one we had for aeons was monarchistic and it seemed to work OK - Just look how much of the world we ruled! The only sensible and proven viable governmental model is a dictatorial monarchy. If it works - great - we all win. If it doesn't - well, at least it aint our fault...;-) Cheers
Dave the Gnome |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: Fiolar Date: 15 Apr 02 - 05:10 AM While perusing today's Guardian newpaper, I came across a little item which said that a niece by marriage of the Queen Mother had died last year. "Funny," I thought, "I didn't recall any press notices or processions or eulogies by the great and the good." Paying a bit more attention to the item, it stated that she had been reported to have been given a pauper's funeral when she is understood to have died in an old people's home in Surrey after spending 60 years in a mental hospital. I wonder how many of the royals were in attendance at that ceremony. |
|
Subject: RE: english republicans From: Crane Driver Date: 15 Apr 02 - 04:06 PM I was thinking of something along the lines of Tolkein's Minas Tirith (before the king came back) or indeed Pratchett's Ankh-Morpork, where there is a head of government, of sorts, who gets on with running the place, but the head of State, the centre of ritual and the giver of continuity, is an EMPTY CHAIR. Damn sight cheaper to run. And the tourists would flock in to see it. There should be a song in this, anyone? Harvey, you started this, you finish it! |