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
 
  #81  
Old 10-25-2007, 08:02 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dallas Fort Worth, United States
Posts: 211
To answer some questions put to me;

The economy of the UK is primarily based on it's service industry, not it's manufacturing base. It imports 30% to 40% of it's total food consumed on an annual basis and that percentage is increasing. It is projected to import 40% of it's oil by 2010 and up that to 90% by 2020. It has a small military and most assuredly could not defend itself against a large scale attack by a major power. All these circumstances make it's economy very vulnerable to outside sources. The GBP is at an all time high rate of exchange because of inflation and the trend is expected to continue, if that proves to be the case there is no doubt the British economy and the overall standard of living will fall further.

As to how the US contributes to the UK, like most of the rest of the Western world, we have provided the actual military defense, let's get honest here, the UK did not allow Pershing II and Cruise Missiles during the 80s on it's territory out of the goodness of it's heart.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 10-25-2007, 08:06 PM
Russophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Portland, United States
Posts: 4,077
Diamond, in defense of the UK, the US has also turned into a highly service industry.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 10-25-2007, 08:08 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russophile View Post
I think it's a grand piece of history and I surely enjoy watching the pomp and circumstance and always will!
You can still have pomp and circumstance with a President you know.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 10-25-2007, 08:19 PM
ysbel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 5,390
With a President you wouldn't have history.
__________________
"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
  #85  
Old 10-25-2007, 08:23 PM
Russophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Portland, United States
Posts: 4,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
You can still have pomp and circumstance with a President you know.
It's not the same. I have been to Washington and it's crawling with sleazy politicians and bureaucracy. There's some cool history there, but it's not the same.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 10-25-2007, 08:23 PM
Russophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Portland, United States
Posts: 4,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel View Post
With a President you wouldn't have history.
This is true. The jewels of HM alone all tell a fascinating tale.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 10-25-2007, 08:32 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
The First Lady could wear the jewels. Presidents dont have to be political, they can be totally ceremonially.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 10-25-2007, 09:28 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dallas Fort Worth, United States
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russophile View Post
Diamond, in defense of the UK, the US has also turned into a highly service industry.
My original point was that the UK is not currently in a position to VOLUNTARILY SURRENDER one of it's cornerstones of it's civilization. EVERYONE of Beatrixfan's concerns can be addressed through the political process and the Monarchy remain intact. During World War II it was NOT Winston Churchill that the British public ralied around, it was the King and upon his death Queen Elizabeth.

I did not create the British mentality, but it is ludicrous to attempt to discard it based on political ideology.

While some of the British public may decry the Monarchy, class structure, "honors" and titles, they sure seem to jockey for them.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 10-25-2007, 09:50 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: .a, United States
Posts: 3,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondBrg View Post
During World War II it was NOT Winston Churchill that the British public ralied around...

Um, yeah, are you sure about that? Objective British historians, scholarly not popular, including royal historian David Cannadine, would disagree with you.

The overall answer would be about an even support. Of course after the war, his political career was in crisis.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 10-25-2007, 10:05 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dallas Fort Worth, United States
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by GlitteringTiaras View Post
Um, yeah, are you sure about that? Objective British historians, scholarly not popular, including royal historian David Cannadine, would disagree with you.

The overall answer would be about an even support. Of course after the war, his political career was in crisis.
Yes, I am positive about that and scholarly vs popular, based on what criteria? The majority of historians most assuredly assert that it was the Monarchy that provided the moral support for the British public during WWII.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 10-25-2007, 10:25 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
I think you'll find that it's fact that the Queen Mother was actually booed on her early walk abouts in the East End. There she was saying, "We've been bombed too" but unlike her subjects who had been V2ed, she had another 6 or 7 palaces to live in. It was seen as condescending, patronising and many Eastenders found it a bit tough to deal with. The King and Queen did nothing during the war other than look pretty. It was Churchill who did the majority of the work.

As to your comment about honours, title and the class system, the majority of British people are in no doubt that these things have to be phased out. Now, you can't get rid of a class system until you get rid of the monarchy and every peer and his or her heirs. Even then, you'll only end up with a celebrity upper class and a working man working class. Honours aren't rejected, the ones we have at the moment are. The Order of the British Empire? What Empire?! We had reports, commissions, investigations and along the way the British realised two things - 1) for years people have bought their way into the Lords and have paid a fortune for medals and 2) the honours system is archaic and needs reforming. Every country in the world has an honours system but ours is so silly and so political that it needs reforming. If it can't be brought upto modern standards then people want rid of it. Titles are rarely given these days if at all, the abolishment of hereditary peers put a stop to all that but I'd like to draw your attention to something. The Duchess of York was an embarrasment who had titles and tiaras coming out of her armpits but she still didn't make as great an impact on our world than Marie Curie who had no titles. Titles don't make someone great or worthy of adoration, titles simply make your name longer. Titles were glamorous and meant something in the past, they don't now and we no longer need them.

As for throwing the monarchy away based on political idealogy, what do you think got us the monarchy in the first place? It's a political idealogy, it's a way of government - every nation in the world has political idealogy, that's what shapes nations and what changes nations. It only stops when people stop thinking and thats a long way off.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 10-25-2007, 10:34 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dallas Fort Worth, United States
Posts: 211
To accomplish the kind of radical and I am not using that term in a negative way but with it's actual meaning, the kind of radical change that you are proposing, do you think that groups of people will quietly gather and discuss things and then petition their government for a change?

The kind of overhaul you are suggesting will take nothing less than total all out bloody revolution and while it may sound romantic, it is nasty, ugly and violent. Lots of people die and the government envisioned rarely turns out to be the one instituted, a great example of that is the Russian revolution of 1917.

You are proposing changing the very fabric of your society, from the ground up, it will not be nice and tidy, to say the least.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 10-25-2007, 10:55 PM
Al_bina's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: City, Kazakhstan
Posts: 5,217
Dear diamondBrg,
I do not mean to offend you, but you should be more careful and aviod throwing the revolution of 1917 in Russia in this context. The current situational context in the United Kingdom could hardly be compared to the Russia’s situation at that time. Additionally, the mentality of people is different.
Let us not forget about the French revolution that led to the public execution of King and Queen.
__________________
"To watch the sun sink behind a flower clad hill.
To wander on in a huge forest without thought of return. To stand upon the shore and gaze after a boat that disappears behind distant islands. To contemplate the flight of wild geese seen and lost among the clouds.
And, subtle shadows of bamboo on bamboo." Zeami Motokiyo
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 10-25-2007, 11:00 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dallas Fort Worth, United States
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al_bina View Post
Dear diamondBrg,
I do not mean to offend you, but you should be more careful and aviod throwing the revolution of 1917 in Russia in this context. The current situational context in the United Kingdom could hardly be compared to the Russia’s situation at that time. Additionally, the mentality of people is different.
Let us not forget about the French revolution that led to the public execution of King and Queen.
I have a minor in Soviet history, I feel very comfortable in my assertion and yes I agree the French Revolution would be another excellent example.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 10-26-2007, 12:10 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: .a, United States
Posts: 3,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondBrg View Post
Yes, I am positive about that and scholarly vs popular, based on what criteria? The majority of historians most assuredly assert that it was the Monarchy that provided the moral support for the British public during WWII.

Yes, but I said that many scholars, including my current mentor, would state that the support was even (meaning between Winston Churchill and the King.)

This debate regarding who had the most support during the war has been discussed before. Scholars who have written about WWII, specifically, Winston Chruchill, and the King agree that the support was even between the two.

Furthermore, I trust them based on their years of study and reputation than someone who does not have their access to sources as well as vast knowledge on the subject.

No offense.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 10-26-2007, 12:18 AM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondBrg View Post
To accomplish the kind of radical and I am not using that term in a negative way but with it's actual meaning, the kind of radical change that you are proposing, do you think that groups of people will quietly gather and discuss things and then petition their government for a change?

The kind of overhaul you are suggesting will take nothing less than total all out bloody revolution and while it may sound romantic, it is nasty, ugly and violent. Lots of people die and the government envisioned rarely turns out to be the one instituted, a great example of that is the Russian revolution of 1917.

You are proposing changing the very fabric of your society, from the ground up, it will not be nice and tidy, to say the least.
Revolutions these days are not bloody. Look at the Orange revolution in the Ukraine - radical reforms and not a drop of blood spilt. It wasn't nice and tidy but it changed things and brought new life to a country deeply divided. Britain needs that because we're in the natural pattern of a broken civilisation. This has happened with every Empire, it's great, it's mighty and then it falls leaving division and an inevitable form of revolution to bring in a new order. It doesn't have to be bloody, it doesn't have to be violent and people don't have to die. They did in 1917 in Russia, they did in France but as Al Bina rightly says, Britain cannot be compared to those countries as culturally, socially, historically and politically we are poles apart. I don't think radical reform will take place in polite committees but there's no reason why we shouldn't see a centrist reformist party take control and modernise Britain.

As for the monarchy being important because of history, history doesn't go away. It's always there whether you have a King or a President but the future is open to change and what worked in the past doesn't always work in the present. In this case, the monarchy worked in the past, it doesn't really make sense now and so why not have a republican future?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 10-26-2007, 01:17 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysbel View Post
With a President you wouldn't have history.
Sorry, but we have plenty of history and with presidents. Many far more noble and intelligent than the likes of Henry VIII, William IV, George IV, etc. Queen Anne was a dolt. I'll pit Washington, Lincoln, Adams, Jefferson and Roosevelt, both Teddy and Franklin against that lot any day. Americans have a long history, obviously not as long as English history. As far as Washington D.C., look around at the marvelous buildings, not the politicians, London has plenty of sleazy politcians, too. Our real history is in New England and Virginia and the like. Every nation has history, good and bad. The monachy as history goes has a checkered past. It is interesting and sometimes dazzling, but no better than ours.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 10-26-2007, 01:27 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,899
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
And you live in a Republic so you get the best of both worlds.
I don't think living in a republic with an executive presidency is the best of anything, to be honest. Not that a monarchy would work in this country, but I think there's a lot to be said for separating the position of Head of State from party politics.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 10-26-2007, 01:32 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,899
Quote:
Originally Posted by diamondBrg View Post
My original point was that the UK is not currently in a position to VOLUNTARILY SURRENDER one of it's cornerstones of it's civilization.
Sure it is, if it wants to. Much better to surrender it voluntarily than have it removed forcibly.


Quote:
EVERYONE of Beatrixfan's concerns can be addressed through the political process and the Monarchy remain intact. During World War II it was NOT Winston Churchill that the British public ralied around, it was the King and upon his death Queen Elizabeth.
This is one of the advantages of a constitutional monarchy regardless of the strength of the economy of the country in question. You have a national focus that stands apart from party politics, so it can represent the whole nation, not just the bits of the nation that happened to vote for it. As long as the monarch truly is in touch with enough of the population to act as a genuine focus, a constitutional monarchy is a strong system. Once the monarch loses that connection, the monarchy ceases to have much meaning. The thing I found so damaging about Diana was that she was trying to insert herself between the Queen and the people with her "I want to be Queen in people's hearts" appeal. If the Queen isn't Queen in people's hearts, there's not much point in her being Queen at all.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 10-26-2007, 02:32 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Dallas Fort Worth, United States
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
Revolutions these days are not bloody. Look at the Orange revolution in the Ukraine - radical reforms and not a drop of blood spilt. It wasn't nice and tidy but it changed things and brought new life to a country deeply divided. Britain needs that because we're in the natural pattern of a broken civilisation. This has happened with every Empire, it's great, it's mighty and then it falls leaving division and an inevitable form of revolution to bring in a new order. It doesn't have to be bloody, it doesn't have to be violent and people don't have to die. They did in 1917 in Russia, they did in France but as Al Bina rightly says, Britain cannot be compared to those countries as culturally, socially, historically and politically we are poles apart. I don't think radical reform will take place in polite committees but there's no reason why we shouldn't see a centrist reformist party take control and modernise Britain.

As for the monarchy being important because of history, history doesn't go away. It's always there whether you have a King or a President but the future is open to change and what worked in the past doesn't always work in the present. In this case, the monarchy worked in the past, it doesn't really make sense now and so why not have a republican future?
And you think those that currently are in power, that currently have priviledge and position, that currently are economically and socially benefiting from the status quo are just going to smile and gallantly hand it over to you and yours because??

Edited to add: My ancestors here in the US shared the same aspirations as you, we preferred NOT to have a Monarchy and to be totally independent. There was this little thing called the American Revolution and it was bloody and nasty and sordid and it was the UK that was involved I believe?
__________________

__________________
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 02:46 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]