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
 
  #321  
Old 12-16-2007, 02:43 PM
KingCharles's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
Whats that got to do with the price of fish? Thats a government matter, not a matter for a President unless you go the American way which I said I'd prefer not to see.
This is beyond pathetic. You are taking what I am saying completely out of context. The rest of the sentence you 'half' quoted' was that why not focus on important things rather than persecuting family who do nothing but good for the land.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #322  
Old 12-16-2007, 02:46 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
With respect, I used your entire quote. Nothing was half quoted.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #323  
Old 12-16-2007, 02:50 PM
KingCharles's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post



We elected the Labour administration - we didn't elect one person. There's been scandals in every party and both Tories and Labour have signed EU treaties without asking the people first so if the Queen wants Brown out over cash for honours and Lisbon, she'd have to show Cameron the door over cash for honours and Maastricht. You can't tell me the Queen wasn't aware that the gongs she was pinning on had a price tag, she isn't a fool and it's been going on for years. This lot are the ones who have been caught. Simple as. If you're so sure of the Queen getting public support, then let her stand as an MP and see how far she gets.
First of all as a constitutional monarch, the Sovereign cannot stand for election and it defeats the object of being politically neutral.
Also, you are once again taking what I am saying out of context to further your own views on a British republic. The Queen can sack the PM and the Cabinet if she saw this to be fit and was confident on public backing, of course.
BeatrixFan you are not stupid. You appear to be very intelligent so with regards to replying to my posts, could you please keep things in context.
This would of course spark constitutional crisis, but, if there was just cause then why wouldn't she be allowed to do it?
I think this argument could go on forever. However, I can understand the principles of a republic and a presidency, but I will still stand by my views as a monarchist because the system works. I think the basis of this parliamentary monarchy is true because it has been this way for over 300 years. I'm sure republicans over the years have come up with the same views as you, but I think constitutional monarchy has stood the test of time to be sustained in the future.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #324  
Old 12-16-2007, 03:06 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Well, thats the point of this discussion - it's about the future. I honestly can't see a King William V. He's been a huge disappointment to the majority of the British people and I can't see the monarchy standing the test of time under him.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #325  
Old 12-16-2007, 03:08 PM
Quinto's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Wales, United Kingdom
Posts: 23
Talking No Member of the Royal Family is allowed to stand for a Polital Party

Quote:
Originally Posted by KingCharles View Post
First of all as a constitutional monarch, the Sovereign cannot stand for election and it defeats the object of being politically neutral.
Also, you are once again taking what I am saying out of context to further your own views on a British republic. The Queen can sack the PM and the Cabinet if she saw this to be fit and was confident on public backing, of course.
BeatrixFan you are not stupid. You appear to be very intelligent so with regards to replying to my posts, could you please keep things in context.
This would of course spark constitutional crisis, but, if there was just cause then why wouldn't she be allowed to do it?
I think this argument could go on forever. However, I can understand the principles of a republic and a presidency, but I will still stand by my views as a monarchist because the system works. I think the basis of this parliamentary monarchy is true because it has been this way for over 300 years. I'm sure republicans over the years have come up with the same views as you, but I think constitutional monarchy has stood the test of time to be sustained in the future.

It is not possible for a member of the Royal family to stand for election to a Political party in the United Kingdom. The Queen acts merely as a figurehead to represent the state. In the days of King Charles I (who was beheaded by Oliver Cromwell) the King opened Parliament and stood up for the rights of his people in his own Kingdom. When Cromwell was beheaded, King Charles II lost certain powers over his own kingdom. No Royal is allowed to represent a political party.

GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT BEFORE BLEATING ON ABOUT WHAT THE QUEEN SHOULD AND SHOULD NOT DO. Grrrrr!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #326  
Old 12-16-2007, 03:17 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quinto View Post
Eh - Blah, Blah, Blah ... National heritage insomuch as history belongs to its nation ... but that does not mean that Joe Bloggs owns Anne Boleyn's rings and necklaces does it?

No-one, including me, said the Royal Treasure belonged to the National Trust. The Tower of London is run by the National Trust of Great Britain. I said the Queen does not receive the income from National Trust properties.
You can blah blah all you like; it doesn't alter the fact that the Tower of London is not run by the National Trust.

Nor does it alter the fact that in post 299 you said "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." If you weren't saying that the royal family owns the Royal Treasure (do you mean the Crown Regalia?), you might want to explain what you were saying.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #327  
Old 12-16-2007, 03:20 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
William is not an ordinary young man though. But thats for another thread which has been raging for months.

I honestly don't know whether it's still classed as treason to plot, but I'm not plotting. I'm simply discussing. If you'd like to phone 999 and report me, I'd be more than happy to go to court over it. Would be quite a giggle actually. The Queen vs a Queen - hilarious stuff.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #328  
Old 12-16-2007, 03:26 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: somwhere in the middle, United States
Posts: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakshmi View Post
I think monarchy is worth keeping. In some countries it is just sign of continuity and tradition. In the mcdonaldization era it might be even more important to keep it in order not to forget roots. I'm pro democratic of course, but constitutional monarchy is OK. I would not want to eliminate monarchy if I were living in monarchic country. And of course if there were no royals, there would be no our forum.
I agree. I think Belgian royals are needed in their country more than ever before. As for British Royals, I don't know much because I don't live in U.K.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #329  
Old 12-16-2007, 04:21 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,516
You are incredibly wonderful, Beatrix Fan. What utter bilge was said a few posts earlier. True libel and slander is quite hard to prove and in this case such utter nonsense. "Plotting the downfall of the monarchy" by saying you don't agree with it and dislike this, that and the other thing. Some people really don't get "Freedom of Speech" or whatever you call it in Britain. I know you have it, too. Certain posters, please forgive, would have loved Nazi Germany's look on communication.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #330  
Old 12-16-2007, 04:24 PM
Avalon's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,905
Now, that's enough. Don't make us close this thread, it's already crying to be cleaned (which will be done).

Post your opinion, discuss the question of the topic, but don't turn this thread into Me vs Monarchy or Me - The Saviour of the Monarchy sort of discussion. No one is going to be hung for treason for merely doubting the need of Monarchy.

And stay out of personal comments, if you have issues with members, discuss them via PMs or contact Moderators.

Consider this a warning: further posts that will be deemed personal, or will be too far out of the topic of the discussion, will be deleted without notification.
__________________
Queen Elizabeth: "I cannot lead you into battle, I do not give you laws or administer justice but I can do something else, I can give you my heart and my devotion to these old islands and to all the peoples of our brotherhood of nations." God, Save The Queen!
Reply With Quote
  #331  
Old 12-17-2007, 10:28 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
I'm away for five minutes getting legless on gin and dancing with a student nurse and the thread explodes. Where to begin? Firstly, I'd like to point out that I'm neither; naive, stupid, thoughtless, ridiculous etc etc. Secondly, I should like to invoke dear Eliza;

"They can still rule the land without you,
Windsor Castle will stand without you,
And without much ado, we can all muddle through without you".

And this is the knub of my point. We can do without the monarchy.
Of course we can. Any country anywhere can do without the form of government it currently has and can make do with another one. The point in Britain is whether the people wish to have a different sort of government, and at the moment they don't.

However much you champion countries like Latvia as a model, the reality is that when most British people hear the word "President," they think of an executive-type presidency like the United States, and on the whole they prefer to keep the Queen. And the reality of a British presidency is much more likely to be like the USA than like Latvia because Britain is more like the USA than like Latvia.

Quote:
The Queen supposedly has the right to dismiss a Prime Minister but she won't because she knows, I know, we all know, that it's totally undemocratic for her to do so.
You might want to check with our Australian members about how the Queen has never dismissed a Prime Minister.

Quote:
I've suggested giving that right to a President but there's a difference. A Queen with that right hasn't been given that right by the people.
She has. A constitutional monarch lasts as long as the people want her to last. That's partly why Diana's "I want to be queen in people's hearts" declaration was so dangerous. In a constitutional monarchy, the Queen has to be Queen in people's hearts, because if she isn't, there's really not much point in having a monarchy. As several ex-monarchs in other countries have found to their cost.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #332  
Old 12-17-2007, 10:38 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
Well, thats the point of this discussion - it's about the future. I honestly can't see a King William V. He's been a huge disappointment to the majority of the British people and I can't see the monarchy standing the test of time under him.
We'll have to wait and see. The monarchy has survived some purely awful individual monarchs over the centuries, just as some republics have survived some deeply worthless presidents. Although you're carrying on at great length about the unfairness of the system and the unpalatability of the fact that the royal family is wealthy, your actual problem seems to be your dissatisfaction with the younger royals. That's not a very sound basis to ditch the whole system at this stage. As KingCharles said, it's worked well for us for a very long time.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #333  
Old 12-17-2007, 10:46 AM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Carrying on? My dear, I have never carried on in my life. I hear what you're saying and it's probably a reality but I think basically, we've outgrown the monarchy. We need a regime change and I'm pretty sure that in time we will see one. People in the past were more likely to put up with crap Kings because they had to - now we know there's an alternative and it's a possibility, so can the RF be sure that they can afford a bad successor?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #334  
Old 12-17-2007, 12:12 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
So what happened to the monarch being appointed by God or whatever it was you were claiming last year?

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...tml#post475060
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #335  
Old 12-17-2007, 12:17 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Am I not allowed to change my opinions? Alot changes in a year you know. Anyway, I'm grateful to you for posting that link. It now leaves me open to claims of hypocrisy so I'll state here and now that my opinions have changed and I don't see there's much wrong with that. It could be a change in circumstance, it could be that I'm a drunk or it could be that I started paying tax. Who knows?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #336  
Old 12-17-2007, 12:40 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Plymouth, United States
Posts: 1,307
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
I don't see any evidence of the French people as a whole regretting having done away with the monarchy.



And the people don't seem to want the monarchy back in France or in Russia, so they'll be waiting a long time.

{deleted insult in original post - Elspeth}
I totally agree, Elspeth. The French and Russian people I know personally could care less about monarchy. They live in the present and are more concerned w world affairs that effect the people of their countries NOW. Actually, a close Russian friend of my parents once commented that they didn't get rid of enough of the Russian nobility during the revolution. I don't think kings or queens will be returning to either country any time soon. That goes for Greece as well.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #337  
Old 12-17-2007, 12:46 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
Am I not allowed to change my opinions? Alot changes in a year you know. Anyway, I'm grateful to you for posting that link. It now leaves me open to claims of hypocrisy so I'll state here and now that my opinions have changed and I don't see there's much wrong with that. It could be a change in circumstance, it could be that I'm a drunk or it could be that I started paying tax. Who knows?

Of course you're allowed to change your opinions. The point here is that, as you yourself have said in threads and in your article, you've changed your opinions for various reasons - some of which have to do with the less than encouraging personality traits of the younger royals, and some of which have to do with your feelings about democracy. Changing one's mind based on changes in external facts is a very mature and healthy thing to do and a lot better than the "never mind the facts, I know how I feel" attitude of zealots and other extremists. However, the notion that monarchs reign because of God's will is a notion which you embraced back in your days as a monarchist, and I for one would be interested to know how you're fitting that into your new outlook.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #338  
Old 12-17-2007, 02:04 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Well, it's a mixture of a change in views on God, government and my place in the entire system I suppose. Somehow I can't honestly buy into the idea that God has put one woman on earth to reign over us in vast luxury when there's so many who struggle through. Surely that goes against the idea of equality under the eyes of God. But we're getting into serious theological stuff now which I don't want to unless provoked by an admin so I don't get into trouble for talking religion.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #339  
Old 12-17-2007, 03:18 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
BeatrixFan, before you know it, you will be shouting 'Long Live King Charles' and telling everyone you had your doubts about his son, William when he was a boy, but look how well he has turned out!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #340  
Old 12-17-2007, 03:54 PM
milla Ca's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hannover, Germany
Posts: 1,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
I know you have it, too. Certain posters, please forgive, would have loved Nazi Germany's look on communication.
To compare posters (or someone else) with supporters of Nazi Germany ,without having a true reason, can i never tolerate. The Nazi regime in Germany from 1933-45 was the worst possible dictatorship. Millions of people died because of it. Everybody should think about it, or be informed about it, before using these kind of comparison.

Sorry. i know i´m out of topic and one of the moderators will delete my post.
But i had to say it!
__________________

__________________
´We will all have to account for our actions to our children and grand-children, and if we don´t get this right, how will they ever forgive us?´
Prince Charles in a speech, 6th December 2006
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
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 engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern 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 nobility official visit olympic games ottoman pom president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess mabel princess margriet princess mary princess mary fashion queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:04 AM.

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]