BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?

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.

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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: TheSnail
Date: 01 Aug 10 - 06:00 AM

Acts of Union 1707

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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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.