The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #281  
Old 12-10-2007, 05:04 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenMaharet View Post
How would you go about electing someone that is not involved in politics?
Very very easily. There's those who have specialised in British cultural studies, those who have been in the military or in diplomacy.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #282  
Old 12-10-2007, 05:07 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skydragon View Post
No, No, Noooooo. These two sections (above) puzzle me.

Would you seriously put another non military man/woman in charge of our armed forces? The one we have is bad enough although he does appear to be an accomplished liar, IMO. Apart from anything else being only an elected non political official, he/she is open to corruption. At least the US is able to remove their president, how would we?
The Queen isn't a military woman. She changed a few car engines in the ATS, that doesn't make her Nelson. As to corruption, there's corruption in any state and I think it's a little naive to suggest monarchs haven't taken back handers or approved the giving of back handers to get the British end up.

Quote:
If you are doing away with the monarchy, why bother with honours and awards?
Even republics have state awards. It's vital to keep up the morale of the people, reward those who have done a great service to the country and encourage others to do likewise. Get rid of the price tags and that ridiculous Empire Order and we're almost there on that front.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #283  
Old 12-10-2007, 09:12 PM
jcbcode99's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Richmond Area, United States
Posts: 1,980
BeatrixFan, I applaud the way you have thought this out and come up with a plausible plan of action, but what is your reasoning for wanting to do away with the British Monarchy, and do you think your idea of a repubic is achievable in a country where a major portion of its identity is in the Monarchy itself?
__________________
Janet

"We make a living by what we do; we make a life by what we give" Winston Churchill
Reply With Quote
  #284  
Old 12-10-2007, 09:31 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,318
For all those Americans who find this country so unpalatable, why not uproot and start somewhere else. Or, perhaps, you might learn a bit about politics and get involved. Learn some history. Perhaps, vote. Work for betterment. This president is a disaster, but soon we will get another. As for the British way of life, how do you see that as better? Just the same muck in many ways, with an elderly lady who waves and cuts ribbons. Not that she isn't nice and, I believe, smart in her own way, but she can't tell anyone what she thinks. Her whole family, also trots around cutting ribbons and opening meat markets. Her replacement is an opinionated, unimpressive and like, Mr. Clinton, adulterer. Wow!!! And they hang around a lifetime. Now, as Beatrix Fan has stated, the British should be able to put together any government they want. There is plenty of graft in Britain, too, as everywhere. If you want things better. Make them better. Beatrix Fan seems to want to do just that and I admire him for that.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #285  
Old 12-11-2007, 12:54 AM
jcbcode99's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Richmond Area, United States
Posts: 1,980
I'm not really sure that this is the proper forum for us to be throwing political opinions; but I will say that I am quite involved with not only the politics of my town, but my district, state, and country, I am well versed in history, and enjoy watching CSPAN (if that tells you how easily entertained I am!). I do want to say that it never ceases to amaze me how many people refer to President Bush as a disaster, or aim other deregatory comments at him, yet he won the last election with a fairly strong victory and has done exactly what he said he would do and was re-elected based on his agenda. This is not the place for a political discussion about American Politics; the topic is "Is the Monarchy worth keeping?" well, I don't know. I know I'd like to see it stay around because I love the history behind it, but I'm not British and my opinion really has no relevance--but I do love the Queen, even if all she is good for is to "wave and cut ribbons" (which I have to say is the understatement of the year--but funny!)
__________________
Janet

"We make a living by what we do; we make a life by what we give" Winston Churchill
Reply With Quote
  #286  
Old 12-11-2007, 02:57 AM
KingCharles's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 31
I think that saying Her Majesty only cuts ribbons and opens hospital wings is totally disrespectful and well un-informed.
The Queen plays such an important role in the life of the British people and of the other countries of which she is head of state.
BeatrixFan, your beloved Latvian president visited our Most Gracious Queen earlier in the year and admitted in an interview that if the Queen had not been born a monarch, she would have made a brilliant politician and won a lot of elections. Latvia's president also stated that The Queen plays an important role and realises the advantages of having a monarchy and why other countries such as Canada and Australia, even though she is not native, are lucky to have her as there sovereign.
The Queen does wonders for the foreign negotiations of our British government, which is why I think she is an integral part of British and international diplomacy. There is nothing more rewarding than having a monarchy which has a unifying role in the country which is dignified and substantial to the United Kingdom as a whole.
Even when The Queen does the State Opening of Parliament, everybody knows there place and that is of constitutional importance. Even the House of Commons who symbolically shun The Queen's messengers, know that this woman is of great importance and have the utmost respect.
Prime Minister's need the Queen and so does the UK.

The abolition of monarchy in Great Britain, is a notion for those of the minority. It would never stand, and wouldn't even be debated.
There is a law which states that the government serve the Queen and the people, as in the term, 'Her Majesty's Government', and that talk of abolishing the monarchy or defacing the Queen on official material such as coins, notes etc is high treason. Now even though it would be barbaric to put this law into effect in this day and age, and would probably not even be enacted, the basis of the law still remains in this country and I feel that with or without that law, such talk would be rubbished with regards to a republic.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #287  
Old 12-11-2007, 03:01 AM
KingCharles's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
Very very easily. There's those who have specialised in British cultural studies, those who have been in the military or in diplomacy.
When I stated earlier in this topic that a politician of some sort would most likely be elected to uphold the role of head of state in a constitutional presidency, you said that this role could be reprised by somebody who has no political background. Yet, with this comment you are contradicting yourself by stating cultural studies as an advantage which I have no quarms with but you mention someone who has been in the military (which is always political), and diplomacy suggests at least minimal political experience.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #288  
Old 12-11-2007, 09:14 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
For all those Americans who find this country so unpalatable, why not uproot and start somewhere else.
Not all Americans who are critical of the U.S. find living here so unpalatable and even if some do want to leave here, they can't just up and move to a new country with stricter immigration laws everywhere. People cannot shop for a new country and new citizenship like they shop for new clothes and its very well that they cannot. Your country is your identity whether you like all parts of it or not. Yes, some people can move and change citizenships but for most we make a life in the country we know best. There is no conflict in saying that the US system has its problems and is not suited for Britain and saying that the US system is still the best for the US. The U.S. can't have a hereditary monarchy; it would be even too silly to try. But Britain can and does.

Perhaps since BeatrixFan is wanting to follow the Latvian model rather than the American model, we should be comparing Britain and Latvia and not Britain and the U.S.
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
Reply With Quote
  #289  
Old 12-11-2007, 09:16 AM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingCharles View Post
When I stated earlier in this topic that a politician of some sort would most likely be elected to uphold the role of head of state in a constitutional presidency, you said that this role could be reprised by somebody who has no political background. Yet, with this comment you are contradicting yourself by stating cultural studies as an advantage which I have no quarms with but you mention someone who has been in the military (which is always political), and diplomacy suggests at least minimal political experience.
My initial thought on reading this was that unless you're the Queen who has been trained from birth not to divulge her political views, everyone develops and shares their political views especially in a democracy.
__________________
"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."
-- Deepak Chopra
Reply With Quote
  #290  
Old 12-11-2007, 02:10 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,318
I have never disagreed that the American model will not work in other places. Lord knows, that every group should endeavor to have a nation that is satisfactory for the many. Britain is a fine country. I, personally, have no objection to the monarchy, if it works for the majority. I, do, object to people, banally stating it is better, because they wear tiaras and have some glitz. How foolish. And, yes, Bush won and yet he is being recognized for what he is, at this point. Unfortunately, I believe, the pandering to fear brought about his re-election. And, I appologize for straying from the topic.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #291  
Old 12-11-2007, 03:17 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingCharles View Post
I think that saying Her Majesty only cuts ribbons and opens hospital wings is totally disrespectful and well un-informed.
The Queen plays such an important role in the life of the British people and of the other countries of which she is head of state..
Respect has nothing to do with common sense. If you can tell me what the Queen does that affects our every day lives, as politicians do, I shall become a monarchist once more.

Quote:
BeatrixFan, your beloved Latvian president visited our Most Gracious Queen earlier in the year and admitted in an interview that if the Queen had not been born a monarch, she would have made a brilliant politician and won a lot of elections. Latvia's president also stated that The Queen plays an important role and realises the advantages of having a monarchy and why other countries such as Canada and Australia, even though she is not native, are lucky to have her as there sovereign..
Not quite. Her Excellency did indeed say that she believed the Queen could have won elections but she also stated that whilst residing in Canada during the Soviet occupation of Lativa, she felt it strange that a country should have a monarch that didn't reside in that country. Yes, she spoke of the advantages of monarchy but in other interviews, the former President has spoken of the importance of democracy and elections. Maybe if Britain had been a territory under the USSR we would have a different view of what real democracy is.

Quote:
The Queen does wonders for the foreign negotiations of our British government, which is why I think she is an integral part of British and international diplomacy. There is nothing more rewarding than having a monarchy which has a unifying role in the country which is dignified and substantial to the United Kingdom as a whole.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office do wonders for foreign policy, not the Queen. She may shake hands with the guests but it's the Government who invite them and deal with the real business behind the pomp and circumstance. If you look at Iraq, the decisions were made by the Government and not the Queen. Those decisions she did have to make were made for her by politicians acting in her name - so why not cut out the middle man and let the politicians do it in their own names?

Quote:
Even when The Queen does the State Opening of Parliament, everybody knows there place and that is of constitutional importance. Even the House of Commons who symbolically shun The Queen's messengers, know that this woman is of great importance and have the utmost respect.
Prime Minister's need the Queen and so does the UK.
I suggest you have a chat with the Beast of Bolsover sometime. Or for that matter, the nearly 30 MPs who annnually refuse to attend the Sovereign's address in the House of Lords. Whilst you're at it, you may want to go through the many soundbites accredited to various key figures who have all said they are republicans. Look at John Prescott - a raging republican who didn't symbolically shun Black Rod; he meant it! Prime Ministers do not need the Queen. Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Italy and so many others have a Prime Ministers who are second to a President - Prime Ministers don't need a crowned head to tell them what to do, that's the public's job.

Quote:
The abolition of monarchy in Great Britain, is a notion for those of the minority. It would never stand, and wouldn't even be debated.
There is a law which states that the government serve the Queen and the people, as in the term, 'Her Majesty's Government', and that talk of abolishing the monarchy or defacing the Queen on official material such as coins, notes etc is high treason. Now even though it would be barbaric to put this law into effect in this day and age, and would probably not even be enacted, the basis of the law still remains in this country and I feel that with or without that law, such talk would be rubbished with regards to a republic.
I disagree. As the House of Windsor falls apart at the seams, it's becoming more and more usual to hear people openly questioning the role of the Royal Family. Even if they don't call for a republic, the automatic idea that there's no other option is gone now. People know there's a choice and it's a choice we'll make in the future. To rubbish the very idea of those choices is actually at odds with the so-called constitutional monarchy you seem to be so proud of because if we can't even discuss the possibility of a republic, surely we're living under a kind of absolutism?

I don't think anyone is naive enough to believe in the concept of "Her Majesty's Government" - it's our government. We elect it, it's answerable to us and so it should be. The Queen doesn't vote, therefore it's nothing to do with her. She's just a rubber stamp in a house dress. The issue of monarchy and republic is debated in Britain regularly - we're debating now. It's an issue of our time and soon enough, the debate will lead to a choice.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #292  
Old 12-11-2007, 03:47 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,318
Ah, Beatrix Fan, you are perfect. Your logic and facts hit the nail on the head. Thank you for your assessment.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #293  
Old 12-11-2007, 05:42 PM
KingCharles's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 31
You are quite right. WE are debating this issue but we are not elected officials who have a real say in the matter. The only time a republican stand will take place will be in the House of Commons and will in turn be denied by the House of Lords before it even reaches constitutional change.
I think that the fact you are so determined to end an institution in an effort to start another with exactly the same values. A president = figurehead. A monarch = figurehead.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #294  
Old 12-12-2007, 05:17 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Plymouth, United States
Posts: 1,307
Unfortunately, I disagree w King Charles in saying the cry for the end to the monarchy is in the minority. I think as people brought up never to question the monarchy age and die off, the younger generations replacing them are less tolerable or mystified of their monarchy than their parents and grandparents had been before them. Attitudes towards the monarchy are def. changing. I don't think it will be entirely ousted in the next few years, but who's to say where it'll be in 50 or 100 years?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #295  
Old 12-12-2007, 06:26 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingCharles View Post
You are quite right. WE are debating this issue but we are not elected officials who have a real say in the matter. The only time a republican stand will take place will be in the House of Commons and will in turn be denied by the House of Lords before it even reaches constitutional change.
I think that the fact you are so determined to end an institution in an effort to start another with exactly the same values. A president = figurehead. A monarch = figurehead.
Firstly, you've answered your own question. As you say, the House of Lords can deny leglisation - well, as the Queen's Lords Temporal, Spiritual and leeching, what gives them that right? We haven't elected them so why can they overturn decisions made by our elected representatives? This is sure to end in the next decade so the next logical step is to get rid of all hereditary un-elected bodies and I think you've missed my point entirely when you say that swapping monarchy for a president is pointless because they have the same values. They don't - a president = an elected figurehead, a monarch = a hereditary figurehead. In the 21st century where people want their voice to be heard, how can the latter be justified?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #296  
Old 12-12-2007, 08:58 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,318
You can't and you are alway right, Beatrix Fan.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #297  
Old 12-12-2007, 11:09 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
They don't - a president = an elected figurehead, a monarch = a hereditary figurehead. In the 21st century where people want their voice to be heard, how can the latter be justified?
How would an admittedly powerless figurehead help the people to have their voice heard? The voice of the people is pointless where it can do nothing to help them.

If you want a "democratic" president, at least give them power to execute the peoples' will. If they can't do that, why does it matter how they get the job?

The latter is justified because the monarch is a figurehead. An elected figurehead, to me, is more of an injustice to the people. They give the illusion of assisting and aiding the peoples' will when in reality they cannot do anything.

I would never accept a completely powerless democratically-elected person being on the state payroll. If someone is going to be full enough of themselves to think that they deserve my vote, they'd better have a pretty good amount of power to make my day better. Unfortunately, they'd never use it for that, but the potential had better be there.

I want elections to have real meaning, not just be stupid shows of pretend power. That's what an elected figurehead provides, an expensive lie for the people. The Queen may be expensive (I wouldn't really say so, though), but she is not a lie.

The only good thing to come out of a UK republic would be that the Queen and her family could move into Rideau Hall and become a resident Canadian monarchy.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #298  
Old 12-13-2007, 03:00 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,899
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
There's much more to it than being politically correct. Electing your representatives isn't political correctness, it's a right borne of a desire for democracy rather than being someone's subject.
Robert Mugabe is an elected president. I don't think Zimbabwe is exactly a beacon of freedom, democracy, and meritocracy. In Britian, representatives are elected, and there are a large number of MPs compared with congressmen and senators in the USA.

Quote:
The Queen hasn't done anything, she won't do anything and neither will Charles. They know that the moment they do, they've over stepped the mark and they're out. A ceremonial President such as the Latvian model could be just the replacement we need, enabling an elected Head of State and a figurehead to represent us as well as keeping governments in check.
That's a contradiction in terms. Either a head of state is a figurehead or s/he can have genuine influence over the government, but you can't have it both ways. A figurehead doesn't have executive powers. Once you put a politician in the position of Head of State, you don't have someone who represents the entire country. Britain isn't Latvia; we aren't going to elect philosophers and surgeons to the position of Head of State because academics aren't important in Britain. You'd have Richard Branson running against Ken Livingstone, and it would just be another case of someone who's bought and paid for by special interests.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #299  
Old 12-13-2007, 06:34 AM
Quinto's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Wales, United Kingdom
Posts: 23
Royal Treasure in the Tower of London

The Royal Treasure in the Tower of London is worth in excess of £50 billion so I think the Royal family of Great Britain could be considered to be very rich indeed. I should think the interest on that sum which is probably controlled by the Bank of England (controlled by the British Government since 1949), is a princely sum.

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #300  
Old 12-13-2007, 07:58 AM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
Robert Mugabe is an elected president. I don't think Zimbabwe is exactly a beacon of freedom, democracy, and meritocracy. In Britian, representatives are elected, and there are a large number of MPs compared with congressmen and senators in the USA.



That's a contradiction in terms. Either a head of state is a figurehead or s/he can have genuine influence over the government, but you can't have it both ways. A figurehead doesn't have executive powers. Once you put a politician in the position of Head of State, you don't have someone who represents the entire country. Britain isn't Latvia; we aren't going to elect philosophers and surgeons to the position of Head of State because academics aren't important in Britain. You'd have Richard Branson running against Ken Livingstone, and it would just be another case of someone who's bought and paid for by special interests.
Then just have a Prime Minister but I think it's practical to have a President and a Prime Minister. As I stated before, my ideal role for a President would give them considerable influence and a real presence in our country. I think if we followed the Latvian model where the House of Representatives (the replacement for the Commons) nominated candidates, then we would avoid the likes of Amy Winehouse taking the top job. I agree with you on the Mugabe front but let's not forget that his elections have hardly been free and democratic, therefore one cannot expect a free and democratic Presidency.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
finances, monarchy versus republic


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
A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words Alexandria Royal Chit Chat 24 05-10-2006 05:01 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth birthday bourbon-parma camilla chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria danish royals engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri habsburg hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume hohenzollern infanta elena king abdullah king abdullah ii king albert ii king carl xvi gustav king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander norway palace picture thread pom pregnancy prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince frederik prince henrik prince joachim prince laurent princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess annette princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess haya princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess marie princess marilene princess mary princess maxima queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sheikh state visit wedding willem-alexander william


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:16 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]