The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #241  
Old 06-22-2011, 10:52 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,983
Quote:
And how long did it took for the US to end slavery, segregation or give equal rights to all its citizens?
And how long did it take for the word 'sorry' to be spoken? That indigenous communities remain some of the most underveloped in this country, that there was a white Australia policy enacted from c 1890 to 1960, or that indigenous Australian's cannot access or benefit from the same health care services due to their socio economic cirtcumstances, thus deplorable health inequality continues. And what of the recognition of Indigenous Australian's in our very own Constitution?

I have trouble understanding why you found it pertinent to make mention of another country's dirty laundry, to prove a point of sorts, when we ourselves, within this great constitutional monarchy of ours, are still faced with such issues.

And issues like these do not descriminate between forms of government.
__________________

__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
Reply With Quote
  #242  
Old 06-22-2011, 11:15 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 187

I pointed out the fact that many of the most inegalitarian societies and worst human rights abusers are not monarchies, which I always feel is something lost on those who criticise it. It wasn't even long ago that some Latin American countries were doing the sort of things that we'd rather not describe here, to their own people.

If people want to talk about money, how much does it really cost for someone to run for office? How much do people spend on their election campaign? In some countries it's a huge amount, overall more than is spent on a royal wedding for instance.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #243  
Old 06-22-2011, 11:50 AM
KittyAtlanta's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KittyLand Junction, United States
Posts: 2,824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emperor of America View Post
...I really think the United States would do well under an elective monarchy.
Utterly ridiculuous. We do this already; they're called senators and representatives. They'd all be taking turns as monarch and no common citizen would EVER be appointed or voted in. Why, you ask? Because our elected officials would be in charge of who was emperor, and it would take a Constitutional amendment. The politicians would be adamant that anyone serving as emperor would have first had to have been a member of Congress. They're selfish that way.

*******************************
Quote:
Originally Posted by fearghas View Post

I find it interestin that in a country that prides itself on its democracy, and can probably call itself the oldest democracy still extant, that these two very important issues can not be changed, even by majority decision.
It's not that they CANNOT be changed. Anything can be changed by amendment, but none of our Congress is going to do that. If a state would leave the union, one of our two major political parties would lose adherents.

The United States of America is NOT a democracy; it is a representative republic.
******************************
Quote:
Originally Posted by wedmonds View Post
...I hate the way the U.S. government is formed. I am actually making plans to relocate to another country because of it.
Did you learn any Civics in school? If so, you must have fortten what you learned. The U. S. Congress was based on the British Parliament. Whereas, the British have the House of Lords and the House of Commons, we have the Senate and the House of Representatives.

***************************************
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
Nothing in Latin America took after the United States, whose traditions were English and stable...
Take a look at Argentina's Constitution; it was originally taken, almost ver batim, from the U.S. Constitution. The latest amendments were 1954 (I think) and reformed in 1994.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #244  
Old 06-22-2011, 01:55 PM
Jacknch's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Grundisburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,761
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Your 60 pence covers things like State Visits such as the recent one of the President of the US. That would still happen whether or not it was the Queen, President Blair or simply PM Cameron who was hosting the event - no saving there.

Other expenses from that 60 p is the cost of the salaries of the offiical office staff - all of whom would have to be employed elsewhere or put on benefits so again no saving there.
Exactly, Iluvbertie!

The problem with identifying the abolition of the monarchy as a way of saving money is that it could just as easily be done with abolishing the president.

It is quite clear that abolishing the presidency of Ireland or the United States or France would save those countries alot of money too. Yet the suggestion is just as unacceptable as abolishing education, the NHS, defence, the government and indeed the monarch!
__________________
J
Reply With Quote
  #245  
Old 06-22-2011, 02:05 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,469
I don't think anyone should change their countries governing system, unless the people who "live there" want to. And, if said system, is harmful to its people. I don't think anyone has the right to tell someone else how to live. If people are happy with a queen or a monachy, that's what they should have. If Austrailia, in the future, votes to be a republic, that's their business.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #246  
Old 06-22-2011, 02:06 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,187
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
I don't think anyone should change their countries governing system, unless the people who "live there" want to. And, if said system, is harmful to its people. I don't think anyone has the right to tell someone else how to live. If people are happy with a queen or a monachy, that's what they should have. If Austrailia, in the future, votes to be a republic, that's their business.
I totally agree. There are definite positives and negatives associated with all forms of government and basically they all (with the exception of a few) operate at the will of the people.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #247  
Old 06-22-2011, 11:53 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 187
The base question is who you would prefer to represent your country- a monarch who isn't part of a political or interest group, or someone you elect that represents a political party or interest group? In many countries there are people who simply don't take part in politics because they're disgusted with the political elites' corruption and selfishness. For some people, politics is just another way to make money.

So how would abolishing existing monarchies make any difference to the well-being or fairness of the population? It wouldn't make a difference at all and in many ways would make things worse. Even in countries with "democratic" systems today you will find rampant corruption, poverty and ignorance, largely the fault of the selfish elite groups in power. Monarchies are not the cause of that.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #248  
Old 06-23-2011, 02:01 PM
NotHRH's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gonzales, Louisiana, United States
Posts: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by David V
NotHRH, you haven't been able to refute the arguments in favour of monarchy, or come up with what difference would it make if there weren't any. Why then have some of the more successful countries been monarchies, and many countries countries which are not are in fact very problematic?

DavidV,
Everyone thinks differently, and I have chosen to reason that monarch or sovereign is simply redundant with regard to a national government. Why have a monarch and Prime Minister or the equivalent? To economize, why not eliminate a monarchy and leave government business to the national government. Simply excising the monarch and his/her spouse's 'salary,' no matter the word used, is very economical.
David, I have introduced valid points to eliminate a monarch and his/her royal family unit. People will often ignore the validity of another person's opinion which is contrary to their own opinion. I have assessed, not ignored, other's beliefs on this particular topic. 'Sentimental value' should not be used as a basis to keep a monarch/royal family as part of a government. IMO, there is no reason to have two heads of state in one country. One hundred years ago, RF's were not used as marketing ploy - but today they are? How's that for 'heritage?'
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #249  
Old 06-23-2011, 02:10 PM
Muhler's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 5,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotHRH View Post
'Sentimental value' should not be used as a basis to keep a monarch/royal family as part of a government. IMO, there is no reason to have two heads of state in one country. One hundred years ago, RF's were not used as marketing ploy - but today they are? How's that for 'heritage?'
You mean as in promoting the national interests of their countries? Diplomatic as well as commercial.
The royals all did that a hundred years ago. They did that 500 years ago for that matter.
They did so by pulling strings, Through personal contacts, in person and so on. In all cases using their status as royals.

And again you tend to dismiss national sentiments as "sentimental values". Well, that's an opinion, which I certainly do not share. Such values are important, for good or for bad.

ADDED: A head of state, royal or not, ought to have a constitutional role of some sort. Partly to avoid having to too much power and influence in the executive branch, but also to counter the government. To have a head of state who has no power whatsoever is in my opinion meaningless. You will reduce that person to an empty suit. And that's why I believe it's sound that most royals (in Europe at least) play a constitutional role.

Combining the head of state with the head of government may be economically beneficial, I don't know, perhaps. But I think it's a good idea to keep these two roles seperate.
We have a head of state, I haven't voted for and whose politics I find..., well, I strongly disgree with and who may have made some bad choices. And that person should represent me and my country abroad? Become a rallying point in a national emergency? - Not for me. I would feel very little loyalty towards such a person and I would feel what he said was not credible at all.
No, I'd prefer a politically, at least in theory, neutral figure. Even better, one who is not involved in politics at all. Such persons don't grow on trees. That's where royals come in handy.
__________________
I love work, it absolutely fascinates me. I can sit for hours looking at people working.
Reply With Quote
  #250  
Old 06-23-2011, 04:57 PM
Sternchen's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: xxx, Germany
Posts: 1,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotHRH View Post
...IMO, there is no reason to have two heads of state in one country. One hundred years ago, RF's were not used as marketing ploy - but today they are? How's that for 'heritage?'
The Prime Minister is not the head of state. So there is no two heads of state situation.
__________________
Soccer is a game for 22 people that run around, play the ball, and one referee who makes a slew of mistakes, and in the end Germany always wins.
Gary Lineker
Reply With Quote
  #251  
Old 06-23-2011, 10:23 PM
NotHRH's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gonzales, Louisiana, United States
Posts: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sternchen

The Prime Minister is not the head of state. So there is no two heads of state situation.

Again, simple technicalities of word usage. I know I have stated a valid argument against 'firing' a RF. When a respondent chooses to ignore many of my words stated in a post, they usually have no rebuttal.
A PM of the UK is a head of state governmentally. If this is not the case, why is it the PM who meets the US President on various international 'military' actions, and not the queen?

The impression given to a monarch's public is one of political neutrality. In all actuality, the monarch's political views do exist and to believe otherwise is naivety. Unless one simply lives in shell, or just does not really care, they do have a political viewpoint. So is why a monarch's viewpoint said officially, to be 'neutral?' Simply, why is a RF afraid to delve into politics? Is a RF scared their subjects will attempt an overthrow if their citizens take an alternate viewpoint? What is there for a RF to fear (if their lives are not in danger)?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #252  
Old 06-23-2011, 10:31 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
The costs of running the office of president / Head of State and re-electing one every 4-5 years will exceed covering the costs of the Queen.
True. In 2008, Americans spent almost a billion dollars to elect the president. Complete waste of money that could be put to better uses- I give to political candidates and spent a few hundred for one Presidential candidate and spent a few days volunteering for the campaign, and I would otherwise have given that money to charity and spent the time working for my regular job.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #253  
Old 06-24-2011, 09:52 AM
Sternchen's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: xxx, Germany
Posts: 1,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotHRH View Post
When a respondent chooses to ignore many of my words stated in a post, they usually have no rebuttal.
As you have ignored a lot of the arguments that have been presented in this thread, this is certainly true for you

And as your main argument in this particular post is already flawed, as there is no president in a kingdom, so there are no two highest representatives at the same time, I see no use in taking care of the rest of your arguments, either.
__________________
Soccer is a game for 22 people that run around, play the ball, and one referee who makes a slew of mistakes, and in the end Germany always wins.
Gary Lineker
Reply With Quote
  #254  
Old 06-24-2011, 07:17 PM
NotHRH's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gonzales, Louisiana, United States
Posts: 264
Again, you have changed the subject. I do not think I spoke of a President in a monarchy, only asking why did ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair meet with President G.W. Bush a few years back. Why did the PM discuss war efforts with US President - why did not HM instead meet with Bush?

I have not ignored opposing opinions to my opinion. I just simply do not agree with the opposing opinions. I do respect your thoughts and beliefs on this topic, but again I do not agree.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #255  
Old 06-24-2011, 09:29 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 187
You argue that it would be "beneficial" to get rid of the monarchy by "economising", yet many countries have such a system as you propose that do no benefit to their people at all. Are you so oblivious to the facts of past and present? Do I have to list such countries here?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #256  
Old 06-24-2011, 09:43 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotHRH View Post
Again, you have changed the subject. I do not think I spoke of a President in a monarchy, only asking why did ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair meet with President G.W. Bush a few years back. Why did the PM discuss war efforts with US President - why did not HM instead meet with Bush?

I have not ignored opposing opinions to my opinion. I just simply do not agree with the opposing opinions. I do respect your thoughts and beliefs on this topic, but again I do not agree.

Because the idea of going to war was political and thus had to be discussed by politicians. At the time the other side of politics (now in office) weren't supportive of the war so to have an apolitical Head of State discuss the nitty gritty of the war would be unconstitutional.

You started saying that it would save taxpayers money to abolish monarchies and you have been asked to give evidence to support that point of view - and have failed to do so - so you have now changed the topic.

In the US the Head of State is also the Head of Government - immediately making the Head of State not representative of a large portion of the population. In Britain the monarch isn't the Head of Government and thus can discuss the views of all Britons with the PM without upsetting parties.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #257  
Old 06-24-2011, 10:04 PM
NotHRH's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gonzales, Louisiana, United States
Posts: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by David V

You argue that it would be "beneficial" to get rid of the monarchy by "economising", yet many countries have such a system as you propose that do no benefit to their people at all. Are you so oblivious to the facts of past and present? Do I have to list such countries here?

DavidV,
I do respect your thoughts and beliefs on this topic, and for that matter, any other topic. I however, do not agree with your opinion.
I have explained my opinion within this particular thread on this particular subject. My explanations have fallen on deaf ears. I have been repeating many of my words over and over. The fact some posters have ignored my key points and keep changing the subject, has me only asking why.
I did present my opinion at beginning, not to change anyone's else opinion, but to only give food for thought - to encourage conversation. It is only my point on this topic. Again, I respect all opinions, although I may not agree with them.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #258  
Old 06-24-2011, 10:15 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,442
You argue that people ignored your explanations but that accusation can be levelled at you very easily.

You argued that abolishing monarchies would save taxpayers money but haven't been able to provide any evidence - because there isn't any of course.

You argue that being non-political isn't good ignoring the fact that having a non-political Head of State gives the country a unifying Head of State.

Your arguments have been repeated because you haven't actually addressed any of the arguments raised against you - you repeat and repeat but when asked for evidence or challenged you simply repeat again - totally ignoring the issues put to you.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #259  
Old 06-24-2011, 10:25 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,320
Democracies are finding out they have many of the same problems as monarchies have: corruption, incompetence, greed, being power crazy. The form of government doesn't matter as much as how the leaders do their jobs.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #260  
Old 06-24-2011, 10:28 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotHRH View Post
DavidV,
I do respect your thoughts and beliefs on this topic, and for that matter, any other topic. I however, do not agree with your opinion.
I have explained my opinion within this particular thread on this particular subject. My explanations have fallen on deaf ears. I have been repeating many of my words over and over. The fact some posters have ignored my key points and keep changing the subject, has me only asking why.
I did present my opinion at beginning, not to change anyone's else opinion, but to only give food for thought - to encourage conversation. It is only my point on this topic. Again, I respect all opinions, although I may not agree with them.
You're the one quite keen on pushing a point of view without being able to discuss or refute countering arguments.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Which country is likely to become a monarchy (again), and why? Lox General Royal Discussion 316 08-06-2014 01:08 PM
Future of the Spanish Monarchy TODOI Royal Family of Spain 882 06-22-2014 07:19 PM
The Mechanics of Abdication and of Succession to the Throne Ellie2 British Royals 147 06-15-2013 07:14 PM
The Monarchy after Elizabeth II ysbel British Royals 311 12-29-2012 04:36 PM
Summer 2006 Newsletter: Featuring Queen Elizabeth II & The Duchess of Cornwall GrandDuchess Picture of the Month, Special Features, Blogs & Articles 56 07-25-2006 09:46 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events duchess of cambridge fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games ottoman poland pom president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit wedding william winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:54 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]