 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Is Monarchy Obsolete in the UK?
|
|
|
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.
Thanks. -Joe Offer, Forum Moderator- joe@mudcat.org |
|
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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: MGM·Lion Date: 29 Jul 10 - 02:23 PM Sorry, Bonzo ~~ WHAT does? |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Leadfingers Date: 27 Jul 10 - 07:22 PM 100 |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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. |
