The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #261  
Old 06-24-2011, 10:50 PM
NotHRH's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gonzales, Louisiana, United States
Posts: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie
Because the idea of going to war was political and thus had to be discussed by politicians...
The monarch is not the head of the UK national government, which is a point I have expressed a few times.
Whether anyone agrees or not, politics rules the entire world. The international world exists because of politics. Obviously, there is no perfect government or perfect form of government - pros and cons exists for both. 'Upsetting?' This word has no place in politics. Those in politics have chosen to be in the position they are now.
If a monarch has no place in politics, as you have stated and I have agreed to, you have given my reason for abolishing a royal monarch and family. Ceremonial heads of state are really not necessary anymore. As these cHoS do not fit anywhere in this world of international politics, they are IMO, not very economical.
Yes, the recent wedding of TRH the Duke/Duchess of Cambridge did increase revenue to UK - but it simply filled in
all of the nonexistent funds for things such as extra security on the streets of London. Only my opinion.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #262  
Old 06-24-2011, 11:15 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,685
So now you are saying that Heads of State should be part of the political process. That would mean not just abolishing some monarchies (not the autocratic ones in the Mid-East of course as they are the political power within their countries) but also many presidents - who are ceremonial Heads of State only as well.

Why do you think that a number of countries have chosen to have a non-political Head of State? e.g. The Republic of Ireland's president has even less of a role in the political process of the UK but you aren't advocting abolishing that position or are you? The President of German likewise is ceremonial and not political but again are you advocating abolishing that position as well?

Why do you think that a major reason why Australia voted against a republic in 1999 was the fact that the recommended model was for the politicians to appoint the President? The polls indicated that the public wanted to elect a non-politician to that role.

That says to me that the people want the Head of State to be someone who can unite the population and not divide the nation - a political Head of State is necessarily a divisive position.

In Britain, regardless of whether or not you are Labour or Conservative you can cheer the monarch and know that the monarch will represent you.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #263  
Old 06-25-2011, 12:53 AM
NotHRH's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gonzales, Louisiana, United States
Posts: 264
You and a few other posters, have simply twisted and contorted my words in my posts in the this thread to 'tell' me what I am really saying! I have many valid points, and these points were simply lost in translation - IOW, they were ignored on purpose.
I am using my common sense to bow out of this topic gracefully - quite frankly, I have many things to do. Yes, you will say you are right - believe whatever you want, it really does not matter to me. :-D
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #264  
Old 06-25-2011, 01:03 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,983
I agree with pretty much everything Iluvbertie has said (which surprises me somewhat ) throughout this discussion, and those who have provided a thorough and logical argument that actually makes sense and isn't layden with counterproductive prejudices.

It's been an interesting read, thanks
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
Reply With Quote
  #265  
Old 06-25-2011, 01:51 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotHRH View Post
You and a few other posters, have simply twisted and contorted my words in my posts in the this thread to 'tell' me what I am really saying! I have many valid points, and these points were simply lost in translation - IOW, they were ignored on purpose.
I am using my common sense to bow out of this topic gracefully - quite frankly, I have many things to do. Yes, you will say you are right - believe whatever you want, it really does not matter to me. :-D

I haven't twisted anything - I have re-iterated your own comments and countered them.

You whole basis was that monarchies should be abolished because

1. they cost taxpayers too much money -
2. they aren't involved in the political process -


These are the only two arguments you have made.

Your first post on this topic
Quote:
We should all really think of the practical reasons to keep funding their salary, travel, and up-keep. For practical reasons, a RF is simply a waste of money in a world that is very strapped for cash.
goes with my #1 above

Your second post on this topic
Quote:
As the crown does not want to be affiliated with political party, it would be more advantageous for GB to simply have a PM, if the PM gets less pay than the monarch.
goes with #2

Your third post
Quote:
Any monarchy is simply a waste of taxpayers' money!!! I do respect others' opinions about retaining their royal family - I just do not agree.
is back to point #1.

Your fourth post
Quote:
Seems like most countries are on an economic low and need a way to cut programs/services to the general public. Why not abolish the monarchy? Simply put, if the major reason to keep a monarchy is to increase travel and tourism into the country - again the main reason - then the purpose to retain a monarchy is for naught. Royals are independently wealthy anyway. Heaven forbid they should attain the status of 'commoner' - they could not live in the real world anyway. I will end my post at this point. So many other points to address, but I will not ignore TRF's rules and regulations.
is again on point #1 - abolish monarchies because of their cost.

Your fifth post
Quote:
I will assert my opinion again as we apparently do not understand each other's point of view on this particular topic.
tells us that what you have been saying we don't understand but doesn't tell us in what way we don't understand.

Your sixth post is again back to abolish the monarchy to save money but now also relates to the lack of a political role - so both #1 and #2 from my list of what your arguments have been
Quote:
If a monarchy exists simply to encourage travel and tourism to that country, the monarchy is for naught. There other cost-effective measures to ensue to help provide services/programs to a country's citizens. The increased funds to socialized programs, education, medical care and the like would only help the public in general.
In most monarchies, there exists a law-making, legislative branch of government already. The Prime Minister or person in a like position, can become more in control of the government and can gradually take over the monarch's roles in government. No 'side' is cut and clean; all forms of government have differing pros and cons, and the pros and cons also differ from country to country.
Your #7 post is again on about the same two points I listed - save money by abolishing the monarchy and having a politcian do the job
Quote:
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.
Your post #8 in this thread is again about the political side of the monarch's role - or rather lack thereof - my #2 point
Quote:
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)?
Your next post refers again back to my point #2 - having a politician as Head of State - or not in this case
Quote:
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?

In your second last post - your accuse us of ignoring your arguments but your have raised only two - as I have shown repeatedly here and they have been repeatedly countered but you have just said the same thing over and over again - no discusssion - just an 'I am right' attitude with no argument and when asked to supply evidence accuse us of ignoring or twisting your posts.
Quote:
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 have made claims but when asked to support that claim with evidence simply re-stated the same thing or changed the topic.

If you have any valid arguments to make to support your ideas that countries would save money not having a monarchy or would be better off with a political Head of State it would be good to hear them but if not the I too think I will bow out of this thread as it is boring having to read the same thing over and over again.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #266  
Old 06-28-2011, 06:39 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,324
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob2008 View Post
The monarch is representative symbol of the subjective right of the nation (Hegel). Paine ignores the role of the monarch as tribal fellow/ colleague.
How succinct and marvelous a statement that was, Rob.

As an anthropologist who studies various forms of social structure over the long term, I think bringing in Hegel - and your paraphrase of Hegel is appropriate.

Great Britain, it seems to me, has a fine system - a parliamentary, representative system and a functioning but non-absolute (relatively weak) monarchy, which stands for kinship, tribal leadership, etc. It's a great blend. It's not perfect by any means, any form of government has problems.

Now, I don't agree that Salic law, male primogeniture, excluding illegitimate children from succession, etc., is all fair and good, not by a long shot. Nor does history show that everyone thinks those things are important; a nation needs the monarch to have a certain amount of power and charisma. Much of the charisma is created by pomp, training and protocol, it's true, but it's still essential to human leadership to have those things.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #267  
Old 06-28-2011, 07:09 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,533
Thomas Paine was a very erudite man, who saw things way before their times. It was he and others in the "colonies" that had the vision of freedom and an unnecessary monarchy.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #268  
Old 06-30-2011, 10:48 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,366
I remember reading Thomas Paine in college, but i don't recall what the heck it was about. As an American I am against monarchy in certain instances. I think the British monarchy is a waste of money and archaic (even though I did watch the wedding); but there are other monarchies that are tyrannical and should be done a way with. But it is up to that country and its citizens to do the work.
__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
Reply With Quote
  #269  
Old 06-30-2011, 11:24 PM
genegirl99's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Somewhere in a hole in the wall town in Wisconsin, United States
Posts: 130
Read Paine in college. I responded in my paper that monarchy was a sin when the Jewish people wanted a king (You know the meaning of Kish, Saul's fathers name. Kish means bait.) because God wanted to be their King. I concluded that a monarchy went against God's design.

Pst Harvey Kaye was my professor. And you think that would have entitled his students to a discount on his book!
__________________
Self Described Genealogy Freak
Proud Percy Descendant ('cause Percy's rule the world!)
Writer on fanficnation.net
Genealogist: shrinking the world one person at a time.
Reply With Quote
  #270  
Old 06-30-2011, 11:49 PM
lucien's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 6,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi View Post
I remember reading Thomas Paine in college, but i don't recall what the heck it was about. As an American I am against monarchy in certain instances. I think the British monarchy is a waste of money and archaic (even though I did watch the wedding); but there are other monarchies that are tyrannical and should be done a way with. But it is up to that country and its citizens to do the work.
Really,it would be better you know something instead of this nonsense post,dear..There are republics I don't give a flying whatever for...starting with?...Yeah...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #271  
Old 07-01-2011, 07:18 AM
MARG's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,330
thomaspaine, SMART and XeniaCasaraghi, you all really do seem to have your knickers in a knot about Monarchies. So much so that you managed to write a lot and say nothing of depth or importance. If fact you make no sense whatsoever. You lost me in the rambling rhetoric (none of it original).

XeniaCasaraghi, as a monarchist I find the american "democratic' system as flawed as any other. More than some, less than others. It's your country, your choice, but whatever you feel about it, don't you dare to tell me that I don't get to have my country and my choice.

But tell me, can any of you give me a living example of democractic republican freedom that doesn't come with Money! Power! and let's not forget good old Connections?

I think the first and probably last poor President was Nelson Mandela.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #272  
Old 07-01-2011, 07:27 AM
rubies's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: daytona beach, United States
Posts: 2,265
Well said Marg! If you don't like or agree with monarchies.....why are you on the royal forums? We have fun here and its our little escape so don't rain on our parade!!!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #273  
Old 07-01-2011, 08:02 AM
Catherine J's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Halifax, Canada
Posts: 218
Neener Neener Boo Boo

Much like there will be a cell phone user in every theater, someone with a sub woofer in their trunk at every stop light and someone who wants to pay by cheque in every grocery store line up ...there will be someone at every monarchist gathering who feels compelled to trot out the tired and misinformed arguments we've all heard a thousand times.

The one that makes me laugh the hardest is the old rube "costs too much". Anyone with even a basic understanding of mathematics and politics can make proper mincemeat out of such a notion.

I suspect most anti monarchists believe themselves to be fighting for the cause of social equality - classlessness.

What everyone should know by now, and if they don't I suggest a good rereading the The Rise and Fall ... followed by any current (responsible) news coverage of the American government, is that classlessness is an idea, like communism - that has no real ability to exist in practice.

Fact is, any system is as flawed as the next.

I like the Monarchy. I like that we have people who, from birth, learn the rules of public service. It feels to me a little like a social safe guard and it makes me feel more safe and protected, as an individual, than some cowboy politician with his finger on the trigger (until his term is up, that is).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #274  
Old 07-01-2011, 08:33 AM
Lenora's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Riga, Latvia
Posts: 2,090
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucien View Post
Really,it would be better you know something instead of this nonsense post,dear..There are republics I don't give a flying whatever for...starting with?...Yeah...
I agree,without any actually living monarchies(constitutional ones and not only) we would have many historical aspects and traditions dying in museums,in a better case
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #275  
Old 07-01-2011, 10:16 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Suffolk, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,072
I still do not understand what is undemocratic about having a monarch in the same way as I do not understand what makes an elected head of state democratic when the choice of almost half the population of a country will be worthless.
I am already in the position where the only element of democracy that comes my way is once every five years I am allowed to vote (which takes all of two minutes....such power in my hands!) and even if I'm lucky enough to see my choice win the election/referendum, he or she will go off and do completely the opposite of what I thought they would do. Some democracy I must say!

I can see no difference in the level of democracy in the UK, Denmark, Norway etc than I do in the US, France and Germany. Are not the peoples of these countries living good and free lives in equal measure despite their different forms of head of state?
__________________
JACK
Reply With Quote
  #276  
Old 07-01-2011, 12:37 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,533
You are all right as to you have the right to enjoy your own form of government. But, in a pure standpoint of Thomas Paine, things were different then. Kings had too much power and colonists had almost none. So, the argument is really all people should enjoy a government that they feel serves them, whatever it is. As for those of us on this site that would not support a monarchy, that doesn't mean we don't like to look at all the wonderful clothes, jewels and palaces these people often flaunt. Like the zoo, you love to look at the tigers and lions and elephants, but you wouldn't want to have them on your property.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #277  
Old 07-01-2011, 12:47 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,367
For the most part people who live in a democratic society (those with elected officials, constitutional monarchies and elected officials) pretty much live the same.

I have not read the original book/idea/concept from Thomas Paine but remember it from school...you have to remember that it was written during a time when the colonies were seeking their independence from Great Britain and a lot of books/articles came out supporting the idea of becoming an independent nation. This was an article that tried to drum up support for independence. Not a lot of colonist supported the idea of becoming independent. Some of them went back to England or settled in Canada.

What is so interesting is that people (mostly Americans go figure) are still arguing the case against monarchies for other countries. The American ideology (not saying its better but this is the jest of it) is that all people are created equal and no one should get preferential treatment because of birth or social class. Before you ask.....Is it perfect, has it always worked....well our history shows otherwise. Even today we have wealthy people who appear to have their own set of rules. And I am not bashing my country (especially on this beautiful Fourth of July holiday weekend)....I am proud to be an American just as people are proud to be an Englishman/woman, Australians, Russians, etc.

I think some of the disconnect is that the people who are still arguing against monarchies are that 1) most of them don't live in monarchies they only know what they read and see and have no true concept on how constitutional monarchies work 2) they are arguing against something that doesn't directly impact them 3) there are worst types of governments that we all should be worried about and 4) what gives me (as someone not living in a particular country) the right to tell them what type of government they should have.

Just a few thoughts so you can see where some people are coming from.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #278  
Old 07-01-2011, 04:33 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
thomaspaine, SMART and XeniaCasaraghi, you all really do seem to have your knickers in a knot about Monarchies. So much so that you managed to write a lot and say nothing of depth or importance. If fact you make no sense whatsoever. You lost me in the rambling rhetoric (none of it original).

XeniaCasaraghi, as a monarchist I find the american "democratic' system as flawed as any other. More than some, less than others. It's your country, your choice, but whatever you feel about it, don't you dare to tell me that I don't get to have my country and my choice.

But tell me, can any of you give me a living example of democractic republican freedom that doesn't come with Money! Power! and let's not forget good old Connections?

I think the first and probably last poor President was Nelson Mandela.
You might want to re-read my post because I NEVER SAID YOU HAD TO FOLLOW MY THINKING OR HAVE MY COUNTRIES FORM OF GOVERNMENT! If you are going to insult someone and try to debate them about political beliefs you should probably start off by actually knowing what said person is talking about.
"I" think monarchies are pointless in "some" countries, and yes I think England is one of those countries. "I" also think they abuse their power in other countries (in case you need that spelled out also, that is countries other than England). Each country has a right to decide what form of government it wants and England has decided it wants a constitutional monarchy and it works for them, that is their decision and I am not saying it is a wrong or right decision. I don't see how you can call me anti-monarchist when I support some and do not support others. I do live in a country with an elected head of state and elected representatives; yet I am fully aware that there are countries where that system has been just as corrupt as the middle ages monarchies. Every country around the world does not need to have the same form of government.
I would greatly appreciate people not assume things about me or that I belong in some form of group whether it is for or against something.
__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
Reply With Quote
  #279  
Old 07-03-2011, 10:23 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,324
Xenia, it's impossible to read someone without assuming a few things about them. Reading (and writing) involve some form of shared ideas or assumptions. You seem really attached to your viewpoints, but so are many other people here.

There's a big difference between Marg being unable to follow what you mean (as am I) and you requiring us to follow your thinking - no one here believes in "following someone's thinking," but when we read, we do try to follow their (his or her) meaning.

Like Marg, I do see your basic point (you just restated it yet again), but I don't see why you keep reiterating it - we get it!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #280  
Old 07-03-2011, 10:49 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,366
Quote:
Like Marg, I do see your basic point (you just restated it yet again), but I don't see why you keep reiterating it - we get it!
From MARG: It's your country, your choice, but whatever you feel about it, don't you dare to tell me that I don't get to have my country and my choice.

XeniaCasaraghi, you all really do seem to have your knickers in a knot about Monarchies. So much so that you managed to write a lot and say nothing of depth or importance. If fact you make no sense whatsoever. You lost me in the rambling rhetoric (none of it original).

That is why I "restated it yet again" Because clearly people aren't getting what I am trying to say; and are accusing me of things that aren't true.

@COUNTESS That is how I feel about Americans watching royal weddings and funerals etc. It's just like a temporary movie that you don't have to pay $10 to see. Then when its over you go back to your life. This must be why The Bachelor and The Bacherlorette are still on tv when 99% of the relationships fail.
__________________

__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
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
Future of the Spanish Monarchy TODOI Royal Family of Spain 884 11-02-2014 06:11 PM
Which country is likely to become a monarchy (again), and why? Lox General Royal Discussion 316 08-06-2014 01:08 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




Popular Tags
belgium brussels carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy germany grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jordan king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympics ottoman pieter van vollenhoven poland president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince daniel prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary queen fabiola queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:06 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]