BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?

Subject: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 09:47 AM

MEandering through the UK on-line papers, as I occasionally do, I was intrigued by a spirited argument by Independent columnist Yasmin Aliphai-Brown, who argues for the end of royalism.

"The practice is wrong, the principle is wrong; it locks British people and institutions into dependency and voluntary subservience. The profligate, right-wing Queen Mother, the allegedly alcoholic and promiscuous Princess Margaret, the ghastly Prince Philip, the brace of kept princes, arrogant Princess Anne and the rest of the gang would not get a job on the buses with their skills and personalities. Their birthright props them up Ð only that. They exist so that we may cringe and defer, and vicariously delight in their unearned privilege. The great socialist journalist Mervyn Jones, who died this February, was absolutely right when he wrote: "No one who believes either in the claims of merit or the pursuit of equality can defend the system." The unshakeable pyramid would crack and fall unless the lower classes stay fixed and rapt and infantilised. Are we human or are we vassals?

Republicans always get panicked Britons asking incredulously if we really do think a president would be better than the Queen. She has taken the nation through the Empire and its aftermath and should carry on until the end. But after that, this obsolete institution must give way to democracy and modernity. Give the royals reasonable incomes and let them go. Let us elect our figureheads Ð David Attenborough, Camilla Batmanghelidjh, Joanna Lumley, even David Starkey would be better than this lot. And if they failed to impress, we could vote them out.

Incredibly, until 2003, when the Law Lords ruled otherwise, it was unlawful to argue publicly for a republic. It isn't easy even now. Today's more deranged monarchists would perhaps like republicans flogged for their views in Trafalgar Square, with the Queen's Household Cavalry standing to attention and a drummer (a bright idea to send to the listening coalition Government?) You'd think we were a greater menace to society than avaricious bankers and unrepressed "paedos". Next week the Republican movement holds its summer party. Thousands will not turn up Ð if only they did. But the cause is just and essential, and change will surely come. Not in my lifetime though Ð that much I know."

Full article here in the INdependent.

Is the republican sentiment growing in Olde Englande? After all these centuries of real and figure-head monarchs? Should Windsor be the last Royal House?

What are the sentiments of those who reside there?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Midchuck
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 09:58 AM

Speaking as one who doesn't reside there, I think it's a good idea.

You have a purely ceremonial Head of State who can handle all the ritual crap, so the working head of state can concentrate on business.

Peter.

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

Which they obviously do so very well...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Sandy Mc Lean
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 10:27 AM

As a Canadian I share the Monarchy with you folks in the UK. It is my feeling that The Queen is highly respected here but the Monarchy should perhaps end with her passing, at least as head of state in Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 10:39 AM

Yasmin Alibhai Brown is a bit of a rabble rouser, and has a tendency to 'flame' I don't think she's malicious, she just enjoys the attention it gets her.
No the monarchy is not obsolete in the UK. It is better to have someone above politics as head of state.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: GUEST,erbert
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 10:55 AM

..of course the monarchy is obsolete,
as are the traditionalist conservative attitudes, rationalisations,
and justifications
of those who benefit by association with it.
However, the wealth and power that supports the continued existence
of this archaic elite hollow edifice
is far from obsolete..

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Stu
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 10:55 AM

"What are the sentiments of those who reside there?"

Well, for a start he's taking about Britons and not just the English - this is rather important. I'd rather hope that republican sentiment might be growing here in the UK, but unfortunately the vast majority of the population seems to enjoy being ruled by a load of inbreds and spongers who know sod all about the people they 'rule'. In fact, I find it interesting that people wanting to live in the UK have to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen. Bollocks to that - I wouldn't give the old girl the steam off me piss (not personal to her, but to any king or queen). I certainly would pledge my allegiance, but never because someone tells me I have to, and never to people born into wealth and privilege earnt off the backs or ordinary people.


"Give the royals reasonable incomes and let them go."

Why? They're already massively rich and they should be able to subsist on their own. One thing they don't need is any more of our money. Just let them grow and grow up.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: GUEST,Lox
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 11:08 AM

So let me get this straight.

The evidence that Yasmin Alibhai Brown is a rabble rousing flamer is to be found in an article entitled:


"Is Yasmin Alibhai-Brown the stupidest woman in Britain?"


Yes indeed - whereas an article written under that headline is clearly a measured and balanced one with no attempt to exaggerate issues or assassinate anyones character.


Compared with the article you have provided John, Yasmin Browns article is as dry and unimpassioned as a nuns drawers.

I think you need to find better evidence than that before you discredit her article.

But before that, you might need to show that you are able to engage in intelligent conversation by actually responding to some of her points.

I suspect that you see any republican viewpoint as being inflammatory.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 12:59 PM

Who the F*** is Yasmin Alibhai-Brown and what the f*** has it got to do with her or him.

This is a thread intended to bring the very worst out of mudcatters as usual.

The question from Amos is What are the sentiments of those who reside there?

My sentiment Amos, is, mind your own ******* business.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: michaelr
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 01:21 PM

Way to encourage a reasonable discourse, Arthur.

The concept of monarchy is IMO indeed obsolete, not only in Britain but everywhere. It's a relic from the Middle (or even the Dark) Ages and should be scuttled ASAP.

Plus the fact that Britain has been "ruled" now by several generations of wee German lairdies - does that not bother the English?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 01:26 PM

We are NOT ruled by the queen, when will you republican warriors get that into your heads. She's a constitutional monarch!
Don't bother telling us what she costs the nation, an elected president wouldn't be any cheaper.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 01:40 PM

Haven't there been steam-dozen threads on this topic already?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: gnu
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 01:45 PM

Yes, Q. Consider this the next round. Protect yourself at all times and have a good clean fight. DING!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 01:46 PM

I recall the Bruce & Sheila country debating this recently and deciding to keep her.

Why?

Because the alternative is somebody who WANTS the job.

I like that way of thinking. She is a constitutional Monarch and her only power is ensuring governments don't wander from democracy. Mind you, if they did, I doubt she could really stop them.

So we are left with the pomp and pageantry. Sells UK PLC , so let's keep it. Old ladies from here in The UK, together with many foreign tourists love it and lap it up. Long may it continue.

I am not a Royalist. I think the media turn them into a convenient soap opera and they don't really know how to handle that. the younger ones are leaving the cocoon and seeing a bit more of life than their older relations and that hopefully makes them better at their eventual job.

I liked it when Prince Charles decided that when (if?) he gets to wear the crown, he will be the defender of faith rather than defender of the faith. Again, shows a slow but real evolution, keeping them about as relevant as they can get, which is not too far but like I said, they serve a purpose, and governing us isn't one of them.

So, is it obsolete? No. Especially compared to the alternatives. We already have the pathetic show of prospective Prime Ministers being treated as Presidential elections, mainly because the British media think we need to be more like Americans. The difference is the Americans DO vote for a President. We vote for a party and that party internally chooses a Prime Minister. (Or two, judging by the recent fudge.)

To say the system promotes old style values is rubbish. Just because we have a Monarch doesn't mean I feel I am in servitude to her. Doesn't mean we have a yearning to claim back an Empire and rape it of it's wealth.   

No, it just means we have a head of state system that is preferable to the alternative. and brings a few bob in in the meantime to offset the cost.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: GUEST,Doc John
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 02:08 PM

Of course an elected president would be cheaper: we wouldn't have to keep his, or her, mother, father, brothers, sisters, children, grandchildren...etc as well. And we wouldn't have to pay for all the ridiculous ceremonies - stating with a coronation - which are supposed to be so traditional and ancient but probably for the most part date back around a century; all contrived to make the monarch seem ever so majestic. And waste money training the males for a military career which they will never really enter.
I'm not quite sure what a constitutional monarch actually is...does it mean that her son can interfer with democratic planning processes? And pass oppinions on agriculture, alternative medicine and architecture - in which he has no training - which are taken seriously only because he is who he is?
The problem is we cut off the king's head about 100 years too soon and then didn't know quite what to do; most people - with a few exceptions - couldn't get their heads around the idea of a republic. We nearly got King Oliver and then we still had the ridiculous hereditary process which gave us Tumbled Down Dick. If only we'd had Protector Lambert. The French got their timing right.
Yes David Attenborough, Joanna Lumley, Richard Dawkins, Helena Kennedy, Lisa Jardine, Frank Bruno, A C Grayling, Claire Rayner would all make good candidates...and Martin Carthy.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Dead Horse
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 03:00 PM

I suggest you all look up the true meaning of "Tradition".
It counts for a hell of a lot - not least when your backs are to the wall.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: GUEST,Doc John
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 03:16 PM

Let's knock this Fid Def nonsense on the head right way. It was a title granted by the Pope - a foreign power - to Henry VIII for writing a book against Martin Luther so defending the Roman Catholic faith. Monarchs have kept it on their lists of titles ever since because it looks good and they love their titles. So the Queen, the head of the Church of England who still hasn't ordained a woman bishop, is the Fid Def of the Roman Catholic church, who think woman are second class anyway. All typical of the nonsense we have to tolerate.
Then their the Order of the British Empire...

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Bainbo
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 03:36 PM

Ah. Took just 14 posts before we got to the old favourite "It's good for tourism" post.

Always makes me smile, that one. That's really the best argument you can come up with - and it always comes up - for the way our whole system of government, our constitution, the very fabric of our nation, is organised? That it attracts tourists?

If that's really the only reason we have for keeping the monarchy, then just knock down Buck House and build a theme park. It would be just as effective and a damn sight more cost-efficient.

Mind, Midchuck's argument about having a head of state who's above all the day-to-day nitty-gritty of politics is interesting. I'll have to think about that one. You couldn't imagine Obama, for instance, getting involved in the weekly mud-slinging and flak-dodging of Prime Minister's Question Time.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 03:48 PM

>>You couldn't imagine Obama, for instance, getting involved in the weekly mud-slinging and flak-dodging of Prime Minister's Question Time.<<

That's becuase he isn't able to handle it. Obama wouldn't last 5 minutes over here.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 03:50 PM

Just come up with an alternative, and I'll listen to your argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Bainbo
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 04:00 PM

Well, let's see. The republican alternative would probably have to be ... oh, yes - a republic. I haven't noticed Irish people, say, or the French, having many problems with a head of state who, if they like, they can keep, and if they don't like, they can vote out.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Bainbo
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 04:08 PM

And you've got a better argument than: "It brings in tourism"? You're happy to live in a country run as a glorified Disneyland?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: gnu
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 04:18 PM

Ya know, Beth's got friends and relatives all over the globe. She and her lineage, among others, were the very first networkers. I'll bet she gets shit done on a daily basis faster and cleaner than any politician.

Oh, yeah, politicians... where's the next thread on those toady bastards? Or do we have enough of them already? They come and go like bad weather. Bee has been the queen of the hive(s) for a tad longer.

Long live the Queen.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Amos
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 04:40 PM

Arhtur:

I had no ida the subject would make anyone as bad-tempered as it seems to make you.
I thought the argument from the Independent had some merit, but it is clear she is overlooking a lot of dynamics -- sentimental and social -- that are less obvious. John's argument is interesting--if we had a Canus Ultimus who was not subject to the vagaries of politics, but who had only limited powers to influence rather than to decree, it would probably serve as a good flywheel against the brainless oscillations of our system, especially when it is as polarized a it has been since the advent of the Second Bush. It also serves as a damper on public perspectives if they get too wound up; despite turmoil in the streets, when the Queen speaks, most people listen. So perhaps it is a valuable adjunct to an otherwise republican form of government, if an expensive one.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 04:47 PM

Amos
They are not obsolete and some of them work very hard for the benifit of Britain.
I am not a royalist, but when somebody outside out country starts a thread like this, then I get annoyed.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 05:22 PM

The Royal Family are indeed becoming obsolete. It will take two or three generations yet though - anyone under fifty is likely to have little interest in them.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 05:27 PM

I aught to add that what support they do have, remains among the wildlife torturing toffs and the market loving least educated classes.

In other words those for whom the classic (gawd luv ya mrs V's oh what a quaint peasant!) class dichotomy still makes sense..

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 05:29 PM

They are so obsolete that Queen carried out 355 engagements during 2009 - are you all mad????? Prince Charles gave up his afternoon today to attend the Cartier International Polo Day in Windsor Great park - so did 25,000+ others. You missed a wonderful day!!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 05:33 PM

So what would you replace them with?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 05:35 PM

What a load of bollocks Crow Sister

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Bainbo
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 05:37 PM

<>

I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 05:45 PM

"What a load of bollocks Crow Sister"

Heh! What do yo claim to have a greater pulse on the attitood of the yooth of today than me? I'll have you know I've never yet been to Bingo!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 05:47 PM

>>You're happy to live in a country run as a glorified Disneyland<<

My answer to that Bainbo would get me banned from Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Cats
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 05:50 PM

I'm not a royalist but at least the Queen stopped us having President Thatcher or President Cameron!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 05:53 PM

I agree with you cats!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 05:55 PM

The old aristocrats and their fluffers don't hold their tempers easy.

Its been tough for them to watch the empire fall.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 06:11 PM

WTF are you on about GUEST LOX

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Smokey.
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 06:39 PM

The Civil List costs the British economy/treasury/taxpayer about £8m a year, the majority of which is paid out in wages, and in return the Crown Estate contributes all its profit which is about £190m per year and employs hundreds of people. The Royal family and all their employees also pay income tax. That is a massive contribution to the economy of this country.

Thanks to thirty or more years of political incompetence we have virtually no manufacturing industry left to create new wealth and the majority of the population is hugely in debt, owing money that can ultimately only be found by printing more and effectively devaluing everyone else's. A frightening number of those are employed in artificially created 'jobs' which simply use up resources and produce nothing.

In the current economic climate it would be insane to scrap the Royal family, they are far from obsolete.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: TheSnail
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 06:45 PM

My first reaction to this thread was "Who the blue blind blazes is Camilla Batmanghelidjh?"

a bit of Googling gave me this answer

And my second reaction (to "even David Starkey would be better than this lot") was

AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: GUEST,john
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 06:47 PM

Get rid of the lot of them, although we're probably stuck with Betty, 'til she pops her clogs.

At least there's hope that Charles will carry on being an interfering, opinionated intellectual butterfly if/when he takes over, and that should help knock the whole sorry charade on the head.

What we need most, in anticipation of the glorious day when all of the Saxe-Coburg-Windsors can shuffle off into well-deserved obscurity, is a change of national anthem.

Our present pathetic dirge is long overdue for the dustbin. Anyone for 'Land of Hope and Glory'? Or what about 'I Vow To Thee My Country'? Let's face it. What we've got now is abysmal, embarrassing crap.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: GUEST,Lox
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 06:49 PM

I remember living in Hong Kong when it was British.

The governor had a chicken on his head and drove a Jaguar.

Now Hong Kong is chinese, Jaguar is German and the chicken has come home to roost.

The Royals are on the way out, and it won't be because of any revolution, it will be because the throne will inevitably be handed on to Charles and then William and they will reform the current system.

Liz is the last relic of a bygone era, and her grandson, the new slimline modern prince, presiding over his modern slimline empire, appears to be his mothers son with his fathers support.

The whole thing really is very silly.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Smokey.
Date: 25 Jul 10 - 07:45 PM

Both 'Land of Hope and Glory'? and 'I Vow To Thee My Country' are grotesque misuses of otherwise beautiful music which their composers didn't deserve.

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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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 - 08:53 AM

"dreamed up in his Croydon bedsit"

in your dreams pal

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 05:40 PM

I've noticed..

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: 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 - 06:47 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 - 06:50 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 - 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: Smokey.
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 07:14 PM

Well put, Don.

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 - 07:57 PM

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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Smokey.
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 12:10 PM

Leveller, the only part of my post which isn't fact, is "The estate would doubtless be sold to the highest bidders". That is just my opinion. On a personal level I have no particular liking for the Royal family, my comments were made on a purely economic basis. I am neither a royalist nor a 'republican'. By all means call me prejudiced if it makes you feel better, but I maintain that says a lot more about you than it does about me.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Smokey.
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 12:36 PM

"By that time taxes had become the prime source of revenue for the United Kingdom and Parliament administered the country, so an agreement was reached that the Crown Lands would be managed on behalf of the Government and the surplus revenue would go to the Treasury. In return the King would receive a fixed annual payment - today known as the Civil List. This agreement has, at the beginning of each reign, been repeated by every succeeding Sovereign.

In 1955 a Government Committee under the Chairmanship of Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve recommended that to avoid confusion between Government property and Crown land, the latter should be renamed The Crown Estate and should be managed by an independent board. These recommendations were implemented by the Crown Estate Acts of 1956 and 1961."

http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/about_us/our_history.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 01:30 PM

"From The Official Website of the British Monarchy:

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.""

Oh, dear. When I'm researching, especially for authenticity, I lay quite a lot of weight on grammar, flow of text and the non-misuse of terms. .

Does that mean that using "principle" rather than "principal" is significant?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Smokey.
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 01:44 PM

Only to those who know the difference :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Smokey.
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 02:16 PM

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.

Fact.

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.

Opinion, bearing in mind: "This agreement has, at the beginning of each reign, been repeated by every succeeding Sovereign.".

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."

Opinion. And why should 'republicans' want to oust the monarchy, yet keep 'The Crown'?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: GUEST,Doc John
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 03:59 PM

Official ducuments were for years publised by 'Her Majesty's Stationery Office'; this faded away without a hitch and is now the 'Stationery Office'. The same thing would happen with the Crown Estates

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 07:21 PM

NO !!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Leadfingers
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 07:22 PM

100

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Smokey.
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 07:23 PM

We would have to know exactly what was in the agreement made by George III and his successors to know just what would happen to the Crown Estate in the event of having no new monarch to renew that agreement. I suspect it would revert to the monarch - they aren't stupid..

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: theleveller
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 03:29 AM

Very quickly:

"Opinion, bearing in mind: "This agreement has, at the beginning of each reign, been repeated by every succeeding Sovereign."."

That, of course, is in itself just your opinion. The statement from the website if totally fatuous - rather like saying that the sun agrees to rise in the east each morning. This agreement, like the Royal Assent, is a given and woe betide any monarchy who fails to give it.

The Crown Estate website also states that there is an 'assumption' of ownership. This is only on the sid eof the monarchy and is assumed becaause it has never been legally challenged. British history is a catalogue of conflict between the assumptions of the monarch and Parliament's determination to curb these. Charles l 'assumed' the divine right of kings but that did not stop Patliament condemning him as "tyrant, traitor, murderer and public enemy to the Commonwealth of England" and declaring that "the office of the king in this nation is unnecessary, burdensome and dangerous to the liberty, society and public interest of the people."

Moving quickly on:

"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."

Opinion. And why should 'republicans' want to oust the monarchy, yet keep 'The Crown'? "

I can't honestly believe you think that. How do you deduce that republicans want to keep The Crown? It's the 'Estate' part that is important. The Act of Parliament that abolished the monarchy would, i expect, clarify the situation and the Crown Estate would become the State Estate :).

"I suspect it would revert to the monarch - they aren't stupid.."

I would very much suspect otherwise. See above.

In the end, however, as I've said earlier, the finances are not the key issue - more important are the constitutional and democratic aspects.

Sorry to rush - have much work to do. Nice talking to you - have fun!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: TheSnail
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 05:34 AM

Smokey

We would have to know exactly what was in the agreement made by George III and his successors to know just what would happen to the Crown Estate in the event of having no new monarch to renew that agreement. I suspect it would revert to the monarch - they aren't stupid.

I don't know if George III was stupid but he was certainly mad.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: GUEST,Patsy Warren
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 05:53 AM

The monarchy could always be replaced by an Oliver Cromwell type figure I suppose....... N O O O O!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 05:05 PM

Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, talking in 1957. Her words of wisdom still hold true today, more than ever, for we have lost so many precious things since she made this speech.

The Christmas Speech of 1957

The Queen Mum's Wedding - 1923

The Queen talking about her life..


Sorry, but Her Maj sure beats the hell out of Posh and Becks..

The Monarchy is NOT obselete in the UK, yet...but I fear that one day soon it will be...and we will have lost something worth far more than all the Crown Jewels put together.....

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Smokey.
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 05:47 PM

Leveller, you claim that a direct quote from the Crown Estate website is "fatuous" and "just your (my) opinion". I'd have thought they might have better sources of information than that. I must write and thank them. It is certainly fact though, and if there was no need for the agreement to be renewed by each new monarch, I can't see why they'd bother doing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: GUEST,Allan C
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 06:58 PM

(Leveller, you claim that a direct quote from the Crown Estate website is "fatuous" and "just your (my) opinion".)

Mind you the monarchy's own official website gets things wrong too. It lists the KIngs of England and Scotland up to 1603 then claims that from that date a single monarch reigned in the 'United Kingdom'. James VI liked to style himself King of Great Britain but he wasn't. Apart from the short lived Cromwellian occupation Great Britain as a single united political entity didn't come about until 1707 a century later. He remained James VI of Scotland who just happened to also be James I of England.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 02:25 AM

I would say that if the agreement made between Parliament and the Monarchy re The Civil List and income from the Crown Estates ever did expire with the abolition of the Monarchy, some sort of deal would have to be made. Irrespective of that the incomes from the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster would definitely be split off as they do belong to the Prince of Wales aka Duke of Cornwall and Her Majesty the Queen aks Duke (Yes Duke) of Lancaster.

Unlike the vast majority of "Government" Run enterprises, you know the ones Leveller - those controlled and run by elected, self-seeking, self-agrandising, cheating, lying maggots commonly referred to as politicians, the Duchy of Cornwall is one of the most efficient and profitably run business concerns in the country.

As for security costs, what the current Royal Family costs us is nothing compared to what it would cost to provide security for any elected President. It should be remembered that the coverage detailed by John McKenzie is a constant.

As to being lazy, idle, work-shy - Most here "Levelling" that accustaion would not last one week attempting to fulfil the work load of members of the Royal Family and I would hazard the guess that none would put up with the restrictions and constraints of the job.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 02:51 AM

Is the thought of another republic obsolete in the UK??

No,because some folks revel in talking nonsence!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Smokey.
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 01:00 PM

Some just resent the rich on principle. Envy is never pretty and seldom productive.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 01:21 PM

Poem 225 of 230: AFTER PSALM 118:9 AND MATTHEW 4:8-10

The monarchies
    Now are blasphemies -
The only born-ruler
    Is a God-chosen Schooler.

(C) David Franks 2003
From http://blogs.myspace.com/walkaboutsverse (e-book)
Or http://walkaboutsverse.webs.com (e-scroll)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 01:32 PM

It seems to be a disease in the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 02:23 PM

Sorry, Bonzo ~~ WHAT does?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Howard Jones
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 02:41 PM

Allan C, although Great Britain did not become a political entity until the Act of Union in 1707, it existed as a geographical entity - it is the name for the largest of the British Isles. Since James I/VI was the king of both the political units on the island, he was correct in calling himself King of Great Britain, but in a geographical rather than political sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 03:44 PM

Isn't it nice to live in a country where you can advocate the abolition of the monarch/leader.
Try that in some of your republics!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 03:49 PM

Sorry, Bonzo ~~ WHAT does?

"Some just resent the rich on principle. Envy is never pretty and seldom productive"

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Amos
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 03:52 PM

wE DI IT IN OURS ALL TIME, jOHN!


a

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Smokey.
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 04:06 PM

It seems to be a disease in the UK.

I think it's just an ugly part of human nature, Bonzo. It's the way people sometimes try and justify it that I find irritating. If anything is obsolete in this country, it's the concept of polarised socialist/capitalist (Left v. Right) political thinking.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 04:43 PM

Not a popular pastime in Zimbabwe or Iran I believe, Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: TheSnail
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 04:31 AM

I don't think you would be wise to criticise the government in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 05:16 AM

Cheeky gits, the Yanks.

Just been reading this article from the BBC News

US Senate Lockerbie bomber inquiry 'may visit UK'

Quote
Also speaking on the programme, Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond said he was happy to offer a visiting US senator "the courtesy of a meeting".

But he said there was "no way on Earth" Scottish ministers would formally give evidence to a committee hearing of a foreign legislature, even if it was held in the UK.

"It's a point of principle that you're not responsible to the committee of another parliament," he said.

"I don't think there is a recorded case in history of a serving American secretary going to another jurisdiction to give evidence to a committee of another parliament. That applies to the Chilcot Committee, it applies to coroners' inquests in England, it applies to extraordinary rendition and all the other controversies the US has been involved in.

"You shouldn't ask other people to do things that your own government would never dream of," he said.
Unquote

Basically, who TF are you yanks to tell us what you are going to do.

Just keep out of our country.

I personally do not agree with the arse licking that our UK PM's and MP's seem to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Stu
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 06:40 AM

"Basically, who TF are you yanks to tell us what you are going to do."

This is the sort of small-minded, parochial, sweeping generalisation that serves no-one but reinforces ignorant prejudices. I agree Menendez is displaying the sort of hypocrisy beloved of all politicians the world over but don't suggest all Americans should be tarred with the same brush.

"If anything is obsolete in this country, it's the concept of polarised socialist/capitalist (Left v. Right) political thinking."

Why? Because we should all doff our caps to the established capitalist system and be good little consumers? Unlucky kiddo! Not going to happen as long as people live and breathe and give a shit about each other, our society, our diverse culture(s), our science and the planet we live on.

There's an alternative thread of history on these islands that eschews the injustices of the feudal system and shows we are a people capable of progressive thinking and compassionate, inclusive politics. Bollocks to the monarchy and it's acolytes in all it's forms; the real achievers in this country have been ordinary citizens who took it upon themselves to challenge the established order for the better of all: Wat Tyler, John Cade, John Lillburne, The Levellers, Winstanley and the Diggers, The Tolpuddle Martyrs, the Putney debates, Wolfe Tone, Henry Hunt, Darwin along with Wallace and Huxley (flying in the face of the Church), The Chartists, The Suffragettes, Connolly and the many others who suffered and died for ideals far beyond the shallow, elitist and exclusive concept that we should all be the loyal subjects of people whose only qualification to rule and represent us is the fact they born into privilege and wealth, ignorant of the real sufferings and issues faced by those not so lucky.

They have no place in a modern, progressive society and we should not be represented by them. By all means, they can still keep their titles and money but they manage by themselves and not be connected to the state in any way, shape or form. As a nation, we deserve better than to be called the subjects of anyone - I for one refute the idea I am subject of any Queen or future king. Sod that.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 06:50 AM

"I for one refute the idea I am subject of any Queen or future king. Sod that."

Do you have a valid will or do you sod that too?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 07:00 AM

>>This is the sort of small-minded, parochial, sweeping generalisation that serves no-one but reinforces ignorant prejudices. I agree Menendez is displaying the sort of hypocrisy beloved of all politicians the world over but don't suggest all Americans should be tarred with the same brush.
<<

SJ
Yanks was a generalisation. Of course there are good ens and bad ens. So apologies to teh good ens.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Stu
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 07:20 AM

"Do you have a valid will or do you sod that too?"

Sorry - that one went over my head. What's your point?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 07:54 AM

" and the many others who suffered and died for ideals far beyond the shallow, elitist and exclusive concept that we should all be the loyal subjects of people whose only qualification to rule and represent us is the fact they born into privilege and wealth, ignorant of the real sufferings and issues faced by those not so lucky"

So, perhaps we should all be loyal subjects of people who were not born into privilege and wealth? You know, people like a certain well-known and, thankfully, long-deceased ex-housepainter, or an ex-Rhodesian political prisoner of some current notoriety?

Be careful what you wish for!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Stu
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 08:29 AM

"Do you have a valid will or do you sod that too?"

Is this a threat?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: GUEST,Allan C
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 09:41 AM

"Allan C, although Great Britain did not become a political entity until the Act of Union in 1707, it existed as a geographical entity"

Of course it is also a geographic entity but that isn't the point. James claimed the use not as a geographic entity but as a political entity even drawing up the designs for flags etc. The Stuarts also claimed to be monarchs of France - so what Royals claim doesn't always equate with reality. Likewise the current website for the monarch is at best down right confusing for people. It gives the monarchs of England and Scotland up to 1603 then lists the rest as monarchs of the United Kingdom which is simply incorrect. On the said website only the English numberings are used. Hence James Stuart who became deposed is listed as James II of the United Kingdom when in fact he was James VII of Scotland and the James II of England. Likewise William of Orange is listed as William III of the UK when his titles were William III of England and William II of Scotland.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 11:48 AM

The current United Kingdom dates from 1603 with accession of James VI to the English throne. In the previous century there was a short-lived United Kingdom of France and Scotland under Mary and Francois, though some of the provisions lasted until the Entente Cordiale of 1905.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Smokey.
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 01:55 PM

Sugarfoot Jack, you seem to have misunderstood my comment, but illustrated my point very well indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Jul 10 - 03:03 AM

An explanation for you Sugarfoot:

"I for one refute the idea I am subject of any Queen or future king. Sod that." (Sugarfoot Jack)

Do you have a valid will or do you sod that too? (Bonzo3Legs)

If you have not made a valid will Sugarfoot and you die "Intestate" depending upon circumstances the proceeds of your estate could go to the Crown Estate, or if you live on land or property owned by the Duchy of Cornwall it would go to Prince Charles, or if you live on land or property owned by the Duchy of Lancaster it would go to the Queen.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: GUEST,Allan C
Date: 31 Jul 10 - 04:54 AM

"The current United Kingdom dates from 1603 with accession of James VI to the English throne"

Simply not true though! Betweeen 1603 and 1707 (Cromwellian interlude aside when they were temporarily united by the annexation of Scotland by the English Republic)the two seperate kingdoms of England and Scotland remained. They simply shared a monarch in a similar way to the modern UK, Austraila and Canada etc do. It was a personal regal union of two seperate kingdoms rather than the creation of a united kingdom. The United Kingdom of Great Britain was created by the 1707 Treaty of Union. Below is article 1 of the treaty as ratified by the Scottish parliament.


I.       THAT the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England shall upon the first day of May next ensuing the date hereof, and for ever after, be united into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN; And that the Ensigns Armorial of the said United Kingdom be such as Her Majesty shall appoint,, and the Crosses of St Andrew and St George be conjoined, in such manner as Her Majesty shall think fit, and used in all Flags, Banners, Standards and Ensigns, both at Sea and Land.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Fred McCormick
Date: 31 Jul 10 - 05:18 AM

Absolutely. The monarchy is a decayed relic which should have been swept away with the end of feudalism, and would have been except that it's a handy way of keeping the plebs in line. If we need a constitutional head of state, what's wrong with an elected president?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 31 Jul 10 - 05:23 AM

I suppose this president would be drawn from the ranks of the unemployed, and would live on Job Seekers allowance, and travel everywhere by bus would they?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 31 Jul 10 - 05:24 AM

"it's a handy way of keeping the plebs in line"

and they need to be!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Stu
Date: 31 Jul 10 - 07:14 AM

Ah-ha. Thanks for the explanation T, I understand about the will but didn't get the gist of the post so apologies to all concerned for my lack of erudition (it's been one of those weeks).

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 31 Jul 10 - 09:24 AM

" ... does it mean that her son [i.e. Prince Charles] can interfer with democratic planning processes?"

Just found this further up the thread. I would like to ask, "what democratic planning processes"? The planning processes in this country are in no way shape or form "democratic" - they are completely loaded in favour of property developers (and the grossly arrogant, elitist wankers who pass for 'architects'). Local residents can object to a set of plans ... once ... but it is highly likely that local planning departments and committees will ignore such objections and approve the plans anyway. On the rare occasions that developers' plans are rejected, they can appeal and appeal again and again until they get their own way; local residents have no right of appeal. This is not democratic! Someone has to interfere - and our elected politicians seem in no hurry to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 31 Jul 10 - 10:22 AM

The United Kingdom of Great Britain etc exists as a political entity from 1707. The United Kingdom of England and Scotland dates from 1603 despite the various hiccups.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Fred McCormick
Date: 31 Jul 10 - 12:40 PM

Jiohn McKenzie."I suppose this president would be drawn from the ranks of the unemployed, and would live on Job Seekers allowance, and travel everywhere by bus would they?"

I'm sorry, you've lost me. Do you know of any democratically elected head of state who lives on Jobseekers' Allowance?

Bonzo3legs "and they (the plebs) need to be!"

Why?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: GUEST,Allan C
Date: 31 Jul 10 - 01:12 PM

"The United Kingdom of Great Britain etc exists as a political entity from 1707. The United Kingdom of England and Scotland dates from 1603 despite the various hiccups."

Again though simply not the case. There was no entity called the United Kingdom of England and Scotland. England and Scotland remained two seperate kingdoms who shared a monarch in a personal regal union despite what James VI would have liked.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Jul 10 - 01:41 PM

>>two seperate kingdoms who shared a monarch<<

Hmmmmm

Monarch = King?
1 King = 1 Kingdom?

The separation of England and Scotland may be apparent to the Scots, maybe to the English as well, but having your own World cup Soccer does not make you separate countries in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: GUEST,Allan C
Date: 31 Jul 10 - 02:08 PM

"Monarch = King?
1 King = 1 Kingdom?"

That is just not true. In modern days the present Queen is also Queen in Canada, New Zealand and Australia plus various other places. The UK and Canada are not part of one single kingdom though!

---

"but having your own World cup Soccer does not make you separate countries in the eyes of the rest of the world."

I'm not sure what relevance that is to my point. I was talking about the status of Scotland and England between the years 1603 and 1707. That is when they were still two seperate kingdoms sharing a monarch. In 1707 they became a single kingdom called Great Britain. What has any of that got to do with the World Cup.

Many non-British people think of a 'country' as being synonomous with the idea of a nation state. That is not the only definition of country though as any good dictionary will show.

We get to compete seperately in the World Cup when normally entrants must be nation states for historical reasons. That is we (ie Scotland and England) invented the game at that level. You all wanted to join our club so to speak.

---

Allan C., I'm going to have to ask you to choose another user name and use it consistently, and I would suggest that you should register as a member. The name Allan C. is already taken, by somebody in the United States. "Allan C - UK" or something like that would be fine. I have been deleting your messages because your posts appear to be impersonation.
Thanks.
-Joe Offer, Forum Moderator-
[e-mail]

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Smokey.
Date: 31 Jul 10 - 03:43 PM

I'm sorry, you've lost me. Do you know of any democratically elected head of state who lives on Jobseekers' Allowance?

I thought they all did.. They just get more of it, and better jobs to seek.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 31 Jul 10 - 06:08 PM

So, Guest Allan C, you maintain that the Act of Union was in no way consequential upon the Union of Crowns in 1603.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Jul 10 - 06:25 PM

>>
That is just not true. In modern days the present Queen is also Queen in Canada, New Zealand and Australia plus various other places. The UK and Canada are not part of one single kingdom though!<<

I'm from Canada, I sang "God Save the Queen" in assembly in school every morning.

I am quite aware that Canada was never a Kingdom, so the 1 King 1 Kingdom rule certainly never applied. If you are not aware of it, for Canada, New Zealand and Australia it would be 1 Empire, 1 Queen followed by 1 Commonwealth, 3 countries, with 3 heads of state (Governor General in Canada) appointed by local Prime Ministers in the name of the Queen. The Monarch is that in name only in Canada and I presume the same in most of the Commonwealth.

I'm sure that you can find a dictionary supporting the belief that Scotland is a separate country but I can't help but think that that definition was probably written by a Scot.

As for the two kingdoms sharing a king point, it seems pretty silly. A distinction without a difference, perhaps a lie told to protect Scots' feelings.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: GUEST,Allan Con
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 03:57 AM

"So, Guest Allan C, you maintain that the Act of Union was in no way consequential upon the Union of Crowns in 1603."

No I don't maintain that and never meant to suggest that. What I am saying is that the 1603 Act in itself did not create a new kingdom. What it created was a close relationship between two existing and seperate kingdoms who from that date shared a monarch. From that date James did envisage the creation of a single kingdom but that didn't come about until a century later when both the Scottish and English kingdoms were wound up and the new kingdom called Great Britain was created. The Union of the Crowns was a major step towards the creation of Great Britain but it wasn't in itself the creation of Great Britain. Likewise in modern times the SNP's official aim is to revoke the 1707 Act of Union which created Great Britain but not the 1603 union.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: GUEST,Allan Con
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 04:16 AM

"I'm sure that you can find a dictionary supporting the belief that Scotland is a separate country but I can't help but think that that definition was probably written by a Scot."

I have already stated that many non-British people equate the word 'country' with the idea of a 'nation state' in other words a member if the UN etc. However the word is not restricted to that and yes looking at any decent dictionary will confirm that. When we are communicating with people all over the world then one has to concede that folk use words in different ways. English people regard England as a country in the same way that Scots regard Scotland as a country! It may not fit in with your use of the word over the water but there you go.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: GUEST,Allan Con
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 04:35 AM

"As for the two kingdoms sharing a king point, it seems pretty silly. A distinction without a difference,"

Of coure there is a difference. After 1707 Great Britain was a single united kingdom with one monarch and one government. Between 1603 and 1707 they were two seperate kingdoms with two seperate governments. As Head of State the monarch in those days wielded power so sometimes during the 17thC the Stuarts managed to dominate in Scotland from their base in London whilst at other times the Scottish Parliament asserted itself. I have already posted Article One of the said treaty which confirms the winding up of the two seperate kingdoms and the creation of the new united kingdom of Great Britain.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: TheSnail
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 06:00 AM

Acts of Union 1707

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 06:13 AM

Verified as from Bonzo3legs. -Joe Offer-

---

And does it really matter? I'm sure you wife could do with some help!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Howard Jones
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 07:14 AM

To this day Scotland still has its own legal system, different from that in England and Wales.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 03:44 PM

So, Allan, you agree with me, even if you hate to admit it.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: gnu
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 04:06 PM

Any chance that ye fellers could get rid of all the politicians that are sucking the life out of things, form ONE government based on population and have ONE government for all of Britain? Or would Herself simply laugh at the very thought that you could all get along for the common good?

After all, united we stand, and divided, the rich get richer. Seems odd that so many of youse choose to fall and go on about herself rather than persuing compromise and solidarity.

Then again, I am 3000 miles away so I really don't understand the situationS. Thank goodness.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: GUEST,Allan Con
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 07:17 PM

David I did not say that the Act of Union was in no way consequential upon the Union of Crowns in 1603. I would not say that as it obviously paved the way for it - though it was not in itself a full blown certainty. However that is not what you originally said or at least it is not what I read from your statement. Your exact quote was

"The United Kingdom of England and Scotland dates from 1603 despite the various hiccups"

I simply repeated there was no "United Kingdom of England and Scotland" in 1603. There were two seperate kingdoms who shared a monarch and the two kingdoms went on to become a United Kingdom a century later. I read it as you saying that the United Kingdom was in fact created in 1603 rather than that being a defining factor in its creation a century later. If I've misunderstood what you were saying then of course I apologise.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: GUEST,Allan C
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 07:28 PM

"form ONE government based on population and have ONE government for all of Britain? Or would Herself simply laugh at the very thought that you could all get along for the common good?"

We do generally all get along rather well. Prior to 1997 there was just one government in Great Britain. There still is in essance one government with ultimate authority but some matters, mostly which were dealt with by the Scottish Office, are now devolved to a directly elected parliament in Edinburgh. Likewise with Wales.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: TheSnail
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 07:41 PM

If you follow the link that I posted earlier, you will see that the two kingdoms shared a monarch from 1603 onwards (apart from a slight interuption from 1649 to 1660) but had separate parliaments until the Acts of Union in 1707

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: gnu
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 08:10 PM

Ummm... excuse me. I really don't know the history and my posts are irrelevant. My apologies.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 08:12 PM

Apology accepted Allan. My implication was that the future United Kingdom began to develop from 1603, and while there were various areas of common interest from then, and the term began to be used, if only by James VI, the full incorporating union dates from 1707.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: GUEST,Allan Con
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 02:52 AM

"If you follow the link that I posted earlier, you will see that the two kingdoms shared a monarch from 1603 onwards"

Yeagh thanks I did see the link which confirms what I was saying. I had myself already posted article one of the 1707 Act of Union myself too which confirms the creation of a new single united kingdom. I thought David was saying otherwise but had misread what he was saying.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: TheSnail
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 03:44 AM

I have no particular axe to grind, I just thought a look at the facts might be helpful. I was particularly prompted by Jack the Sailor's false logic of -

Monarch = King?
1 King = 1 Kingdom?

which ignored the fact that there were two parliaments.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Howard Jones
Date: 02 Aug 10 - 05:43 AM

Besides being Queen of the United Kingdom, she is also the Queen of 15 other distinct constitutional monarchies around the world, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand. Each of these roles is distinct and separate from the others.

The Queen and the Commonwealth

It is clearly possible for there to be separate kingdoms ruled by the same person.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Amos
Date: 04 Aug 10 - 10:29 AM

The interesting and feisty site "Spiked" (UK) has a collection of articles arguing for the abolition of monarchy in England.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: bubblyrat
Date: 05 Aug 10 - 08:10 AM

No,I don't think that the monarchy is obsolete. As humans,we all tend to need leaders,chieftains,lords,monarchs ; figureheads towards whom we can look for encouragement,understanding,and leadership.During the Second World War,for example,the people were greatly cheered and comforted by the example set by the Royal Family,who resolutely refused to be spirited away to some far-off sun-drenched haven, and remained in London,even during "The Blitz",the Queen moving amongst the people,the King visiting airfields,ships,and barracks to give praise & express his admiration for the efforts of our servicemen.
                The British,or at least the English,have long held their kings and queens in the same esteem of national identity as have the Americans, for example,and other countries,in their national flags ; a phenomenon,in my observation,often applicable to those nations who most emphatically do NOT have a monarchy !
          From 1966 to 1969 , I served aboard a British aircraft -carrier.In that time,I probably saw the Captain twice ; he was a very remote figure,even for many of his officers,living alone in his own quarters,and not even able to enter the "wardroom" (officers'mess) unless invited ! However,I /we knew that he must be a very clever & capable man to have reached such heights (next stop for carrier Captains was always Rear Admiral), and therefore we all felt comforted & reassured by his very presence amongst us,knowing that ,rightly or wrongly,he would make decisions and issue orders that we would all obey.Yes,some of us might have thought they were bollocks,but we'd still obey them ; not to do so would have been unthinkable.
             Raise that mindset to a national level, and you might begin to get the idea of why many of us still feel the same way about our monarchy. If a British "President" asked me to re-join the navy in a time of national emergency,I'd probably think "Fuck that,I'm 63 !",but if Her Majesty The Queen asked, I'd be packing my old kit-bag in a flash !! Yes, of course I would assume that Her Majesty's Cabinet had advised her in this direction,but even so,a Royal Command would be hard to deny ! I feel sorry for the Republicans and the Abolitionists,floundering in their self-pitying morass of indignation and resentment.I freely admit that the number of castles,palaces and other Royal Residences available to the current Royal Family is a bit excessive (and very insensitive,Your Majesty !!), but abolish the Monarchy ?? Never !!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Aug 10 - 01:53 PM

One morning in 1940, when I was 8, I set out as usual for Garden Suburb School, ¼-mile from my home at the other end of Ashbourne Avenue. When I got there, I was turned home again: a landmine dropped during the previous night's air-raid had damaged it too badly to be used for some weeks. But that afternoon, I was back there again, with my mother and sister, as the word had gone around that the King and Queen were coming to inspect the damage. As they walked past, a woman behind me called out "Good luck"; the King immediately turned towards her and replied "Thank you" with the utmost politeness. Then a big girl [about 12-13, I would guess] ran up behind them and slapped the King quite hard between the shoulders. He looked a bit startled but walked calmly on, while the Headmaster and the Mayor of Hendon turned on the hapless child and soon had her in tears with their none-too-gentle enquiries as to what she thought she was doing. "I only wanted to be able to tell people I had touched the King," she sobbed. They gave her another stern look, then turned away half-smiling; they obviously understood where [as we would say nowadays] she was coming from.

Not sure why I have adduced these long-remembered anecdotes here. Just felt right.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Aug 10 - 02:01 PM

A sweet story, Michael. Nowadays, of course, they would have her on the ground, handcuffed behind her back, before she even got within arm's length. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Aug 10 - 02:24 PM

Yes, indeed, Ebbie. It was wartime and horrible, but at least we felt no need for the sort of security which would be absolutely axiomatic nowadays, as you say. Glad you liked my story.

〠 ~Michael~ 〠

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Aug 10 - 12:19 PM

"As humans,we all tend to need leaders,chieftains,lords,monarchs ; figureheads towards whom we can look for encouragement,understanding,and leadership."

Regretably, I have a feeling that that may be true. Unfortunately, I also suspect that, in recent centuries, as populations have got larger and larger, and leaders more remote from those that they are supposed to lead, they have had more and more of a tendency to turn into parasites. I think that that applies to politicians and business leaders too. In the case of the Royal Family their 'right to rule' doesn't stand up, for a moment, to any rational scrutiny (unless you have actual proof that God appointed them). But these things aren't really rational, are they?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Stu
Date: 06 Aug 10 - 01:01 PM

"I feel sorry for the Republicans and the Abolitionists,floundering in their self-pitying morass of indignation and resentment."

Don't waste your energy bubblyrat, I would suggest most republicans don't want your pity or any other forms of condescension you might wish to send in our direction. Some people are simply waiting to be told what to do, others think for themselves, no matter. As for floundering in a morass if indignation and resentment you've got the wrong idea. We don't need the Monarchy to preside over the state, Royal prerogative is a dangerous anachronism and a joke in a society that claims to value equality and the very idea of Royal assent is an affront to democracy and the ability of a nation's people to determine their own destiny, however flawed the system they use to do that.

The truth is the feudal system and the Monarchy are a 1000 year-old system which deserves neither loyalty or support; it would be nice to think we can progress beyond this rather unimaginative state of affairs and start to realise our potential on our own terms.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Smokey.
Date: 06 Aug 10 - 01:50 PM

the ability of a nation's people to determine their own destiny

You need to get out more, Jack..

Much as I applaud socialist principles and a system of democracy, such as it is, the need for a counterbalance is glaringly obvious.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: TheSnail
Date: 06 Aug 10 - 07:34 PM

bubblyrat

From 1966 to 1969 , I served aboard a British aircraft -carrier.In that time,I probably saw the Captain twice ; he was a very remote figure,even for many of his officers,living alone in his own quarters,and not even able to enter the "wardroom" (officers'mess) unless invited ! However,I /we knew that he must be a very clever & capable man to have reached such heights (next stop for carrier Captains was always Rear Admiral), and therefore we all felt comforted & reassured by his very presence amongst us,knowing that ,rightly or wrongly,he would make decisions and issue orders that we would all obey.

Did he inherit the captaincy from his father?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Smokey.
Date: 06 Aug 10 - 09:49 PM

Only the Lord High Admiral's job is hereditary, and if it wasn't for the Royal Navy we probably wouldn't have a country to complain about, never mind the right to complain about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: theleveller
Date: 07 Aug 10 - 05:15 AM

From some of the comments here, I suspect that it's not just the monarchy that's obsolete, but the monarchists. They may be happy to kow-tow to their 'betters' but I have more self-respect.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: TheSnail
Date: 07 Aug 10 - 05:59 AM

Just so Smokey. bubblyrat was making a comparison between the mnarchy and his aircraft carrier captain who "must be a very clever & capable man to have reached such heights". Would he have felt so "comforted & reassured by his very presence amongst us" if the man had inherited the job fromh is father?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Howard Jones
Date: 07 Aug 10 - 06:57 AM

Sugarfoot Jack says "We don't need the Monarchy to preside over the state, Royal prerogative is a dangerous anachronism and a joke in a society that claims to value equality and the very idea of Royal assent is an affront to democracy and the ability of a nation's people to determine their own destiny, however flawed the system they use to do that."

You're overlooking the fact that what you describe as a 1000 year old system has evolved into a constitutional monarchy in which the Royal Prerogative is effectively exercised by the elected government. Likewise the Royal Assent is a formality, and if it were ever to be refused it would result in a constitutional crisis which the monarchy would surely lose.

The point you are missing is that all these powers have to be exercised by someone. If you look at the Irish constitution, for example, where the government closely resembles the British model but with a President as head of state, the President has similar powers and responsibilities such as convening and disolving the Dail, and signing bills into law.

The question therefore is, is it better for this position to be filled by a politician or by someone who is separate from the political process? You are entitled to your view on this, but don't think it makes any difference to "the ability of a nation's people to determine their own destiny". Personally, I think the present system has served us well - when we have a monarch, such as the present Queen, who shows judgement and wisdom in exercising her powers she can make a positive contribution, and those who do not show the same talents can at least do little damage. Could the same be said about a politician?

The other alternative would be a US-style presidency, but that would mean a total upheaval of our entire governmental and political system, which I don't believe is either necessary or desirable.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: theleveller
Date: 07 Aug 10 - 07:36 AM

"The point you are missing is that all these powers have to be exercised by someone.....The question therefore is, is it better for this position to be filled by a politician or by someone who is separate from the political process? "

Personally, I think the question is: is it better to have this position filled by someone who has merely inherited it whether they are fit for the position or not, or an elected person, with a fixed term, who can re-elected or kicked out depending on whether they have been judged to have done a good job or not?

In other words, do you believe in democracy or not?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Aug 10 - 11:29 AM

Leveller ~~ your final question is tendentious and sophistical and malapropos. It is perfectly possible to have a 'best of both worlds' situation. The present one here is in no way inimical to a democratic process ~~ which they have also in Iran, you know; which for some reason doesn't seem to save people from being stoned to death or given 99 lashes for 'crimes' which are not even offences in most other 'democratic' states, does it?

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Aug 10 - 11:53 AM

Question: If the monarchy were to be removed, why would the entire system have to be revamped? Your political system appears to work quite well- would removing the titular head of state and the House of Lords create a crisis? Your Prime Minister is an elected official- if that position were the highest in the land...?

(I don't mind to a 'dumb American' appellation attached to me as an individual. I just object to it as a class)

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: GUEST,Allan Con
Date: 07 Aug 10 - 12:05 PM

"Question: If the monarchy were to be removed, why would the entire system have to be revamped?"

Not really the mostly symbolic roles carried out by the monarch could also be done by an elected president and an elected president's role could be limited to that. Whether most people would want that or not is a different question.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Stu
Date: 07 Aug 10 - 12:30 PM

"You're overlooking the fact that what you describe as a 1000 year old system has evolved into a constitutional monarchy in which the Royal Prerogative is effectively exercised by the elected government. Likewise the Royal Assent is a formality, and if it were ever to be refused it would result in a constitutional crisis which the monarchy would surely lose."

As good an argument as any for actually getting rid of the monarchy. If their role is purely formal then it's time we and the representatives we elect took on the burden of these decisions ourselves rather than some distant figurehead who is utterly irrelevant to virtually the entire population, as well as ignorant of the problems and concerns her 'subjects' suffer on a daily basis.

". . . when we have a monarch, such as the present Queen, who shows judgement and wisdom in exercising her powers she can make a positive contribution, and those who do not show the same talents can at least do little damage. Could the same be said about a politician?"

Possibly not, but that's not really the point - the point is accountability. We get the politicians we deserve and it's quite within our power to rid ourselves of them if we wish. Unfortunately the same can't be said of the monarch or her ilk, whose sole qualification for the job is the fact she was born to it. She is the symbol of an unequal, class-based society, and really should be consigned to the role of curiosity for American and Japanese tourists (at her own expense).

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 07 Aug 10 - 12:48 PM

"She is the symbol of an unequal, class-based society, and really should be consigned to the role of curiosity for American and Japanese tourists (at her own expense)".

So, you believe that replacing the Monarchy with a Presidential-type figure would provide us with a society in which everyone is equal, and which is not class-based?

Do you genuinely believe that everyone is 'equal' and there are no 'class-distinctions' in the USA or japan, or for that matter Russia, or France, or Iran, or China, or any other country on Earth?

Two words - "Get Real".

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Howard Jones
Date: 07 Aug 10 - 01:45 PM

"If their role is purely formal then it's time we and the representatives we elect took on the burden of these decisions ourselves"

But how would "the people" do this? One of the monarch's most important constitutional roles is after an election when she has to decide who to invite to form the next government. In most cases the results of the election are clear and the decision is obvious, but the last election shows that this is not always the case. Such a role has to be carried out by someone, and the elected representatives aren't in a position to do it.

Accountability in this role isn't really the issue - we do elect the people who hold the real power.

It really comes down to whether you think the role is best filled by someone who has had a lifelong training and is outside the political system, or by a politician. I can understand why Jack objects to the former, but I have an equally strong distrust of politicians. In fact, I wonder why anyone would want to be elected to such a role - they have no power to change things, which is the politician's usual motive, which leaves me to suspect they'd be driven by money, ego and the thought of making a packet after they leave office, none of which I find attractive. I prefer to have it filled by someone for whom it is a duty rather than an opportunity.

Either way, the role isn't obsolete, you're just changing the label.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Smokey.
Date: 07 Aug 10 - 02:06 PM

"Just so Smokey. bubblyrat was making a comparison between the mnarchy and his aircraft carrier captain who "must be a very clever & capable man to have reached such heights". Would he have felt so "comforted & reassured by his very presence amongst us" if the man had inherited the job fromh is father?" (TheSnail)

I didn't think he was making that comparison at all; I understood Bubblyrat's point to be that some kind of a figurehead was psychologically desirable for the majority of people. He was simply making that point in terms of circumstances of which he'd had personal experience.

To answer (ish) your question, I don't think there would necessarily be anything wrong with a hereditary ship's captain if that person had been trained rigorously from birth to do exactly that job and had decades of experience to show they could. However, it's really a nonsensical comparison. My point was that the Queen is the head of the Royal Navy, and yet Bubblyrat still felt comforted and reassured - because he trusted that his Captain was capable.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 07 Aug 10 - 04:18 PM

You're far too conciliatory and generous, Smokey. A ship's captain has a job that can be measured in numbers of deceased passengers, still-floating ships, unsplintered beams of wood on dockside walls, hurricanes avoided or ridden out, and ports successfully reached. A "queen" on the other hand, can only be rated against other "queens", as there isn't a job description or any set task that they need to do. They are a bit like Richard Dawkins' genes (not his own set, I mean the ones he writes about), which only exist to keep themselves existing. Any achievements on the way (Buddha, Darwin, Einstein, Leonardo, Mother Theresa for genes; melding pirates into a fighting force, being in charge when her general prevented a French takeover of Europe, making being Scottish socially acceptable, presenting an alternative slightly less unappealing than a Tony Blair presidency for "queens") are a mere bonus.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Smokey.
Date: 07 Aug 10 - 04:31 PM

You're far too conciliatory and generous, Smokey.

Puh... just don't get me started on Mother Theresa..

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: theleveller
Date: 07 Aug 10 - 05:18 PM

"Leveller ~~ your final question is tendentious and sophistical and malapropos."

If I'm correct in translating your semantical inexactitudes, the answer would be 'not so' as a glance into Hobbes or Pufendorf would confirm.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Smokey.
Date: 07 Aug 10 - 05:30 PM

"It is perfectly possible to have a 'best of both worlds' situation. The present one here is in no way inimical to a democratic process"

I agree with that, which was the point of the comment.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: theleveller
Date: 08 Aug 10 - 11:43 AM

"It is perfectly possible to have a 'best of both worlds' situation. "

That is totally disingenuous as it presupposes that there is a cogent argument for retaining the monarchy in the first place. So far none has been put forward that holds water - so back to the beginning.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 08 Aug 10 - 11:54 AM

"That is totally disingenuous as it presupposes that there is a cogent argument for retaining the monarchy in the first place. So far none has been put forward that holds water - so back to the beginning."

Likewise, no "cogent" argument has been put forward for replacing the monarchy - nor is ever likely to be. I'd wager that at the next coronation there will be a couple of million people lining the streets of London who don't agree with the half dozen or so here!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Smokey.
Date: 08 Aug 10 - 12:04 PM

"it presupposes that there is a cogent argument for retaining the monarchy in the first place"

No it doesn't, it presupposes that we already have one.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Smokey.
Date: 08 Aug 10 - 02:17 PM

Since we already have an established monarchy which neither interferes with the current democratic process nor actually costs us anything, (the treasury makes a large profit from them, as I think I've demonstrated, despite the protests) I don't see why an argument for retaining them is needed, and I've yet to see a coherent argument for getting rid of them other than plain envy masquerading as 'socialism' or 'republicanism'.

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: theleveller
Date: 08 Aug 10 - 03:41 PM

"the treasury makes a large profit from them, as I think I've demonstrated, despite the protests)"

No, as I think I've demonstrated, it doesn't. Get your facts straight.

"plain envy masquerading as 'socialism' or 'republicanism'. "

Wrong again - not your day, is it? Care to try for a hat-trick?

Subject: RE: BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
From: Smokey.
Date: 08 Aug 10 - 03:53 PM

Whatever, Leveller - agreement isn't compulsory and you're entitled to your opinion.