Dieu et mon droit:

[Aurele Archer]

Hello,

My name is Sam Aurèle Thomas Archer, from Chester, Cheshire. As mentioned on my User CP, I'm Agnostic. A Constitutionalist, Royalist, Regionalist / Localist, English Parliament advocate. I'm most interested in Royal history, as opposed to the present Monarchy of the United Kingdom, whom I consider completely incompetent. (Que debate)... From a personal point-of-view and certainly not from a professional perspective, my Royal of choice is Charles II.

See you on the forum!

-

S. A. T. Archer
Satarcher@hushmail.com

 

[Jacknch]

Could you clarify what you mean when you say that the present monarchy is incompetent? Do you mean the present form of monarchy (i.e constitutional monarchy) renders the institution of monarchy incompetent) or the present monarch is incompetent?

 

[Aurele Archer]

Could you clarify what you mean when you say that the present monarchy is incompetent? Do you mean the present form of monarchy (i.e constitutional monarchy) renders the institution of monarchy incompetent) or the present monarch is incompetent?

Hello Jacknch,

"I'm most interested in Royal history, as opposed to the present Monarchy of the United Kingdom, whom I consider completely incompetent."

I see the United Kingdom as flawed; that, though, is a modern phenomenon. We've surrendered much of our sovereignty to the EU and our Parliament is corrupt, completely out-of-touch and needs reforming. The Queen has stood by and said squat-all. More accurately, she seems to have missed or ignored the fact that there's even a problem!

Monarchists and Monarchies today seem generally to be inept and ignorant to the fact that England, Scotland, Northern Ireland (Ireland) and Wales are in-need of true leadership; gusto and grandeur hand-in-hand... This pomp and circumstance nonsense of our celebrity Queen is intolerable.

In brief: the British Constitution should apply and the Monarchy should be reformed, restored and given real power.

I'm naively hoping that Charles shall be an improvement, supposing he survives long enough.

-

S. A. T. Archer
Satarcher@hushmail.com

 

[Iluvbertie]

History is against you are the English fought a war in the 1640s to take power away from the king and give it to the people - and many more died both before and after to ensure that parliament and not the monarch ruled the land.

 

[Aurele Archer]

History is against you are the English fought a war in the 1640s to take power away from the king and give it to the people - and many more died both before and after to ensure that parliament and not the monarch ruled the land.

Hello Iluvbertie,

I'm not an advocate of Absolute Monarchy, but Constitutional Monarchy. Thus, the rights and restrictions of people and power are determined by law. The people should rule the land and a King/Queen the people. Parliament is merely an extension of the people and proposing that they represent us, they clearly should have less (or equal to) not more than us.
The Monarch, though, represents our country and creed; however, I'm Agnostic, so Monarchs must merit their power and not reply on Divine Right. England expects.

How would you propose the Queen earns her existence as Monarch? The EU are running rampant in our economical affairs!

-

S. A. T. Archer
Satarcher@hushmail.com

 

[Iluvbertie]

You already have a constitutional monarchy where the monarch is subjected to the demands of the parliament - the elected representatives of the people - as a result the people do have the power.

I see nothing wrong with the British system as it is now.

The British people voted to join the EEC and then the representatives of the people gave away more power - nothing to do with the monarch who is a servant of the people and is controlled by the people's representatives - the parliament.

 

[NGalitzine]

If the British truly wanted out of the EU they would vote in a party and a government with that platform which has not happened.
If the monarch had actual political power, as opposed to influence, they would have to exercise those powers and make tough decisions that impact on peoples daily lives. People who make tough decisions become unpopular. That is what we have elected politicians for, to exercise political power and make tough decisions and when they become unpopular we vote them out of office. It is how democracy in a constitutional monarchy works.

 

[Aurele Archer]

You already have a constitutional monarchy where the monarch is subjected to the demands of the parliament - the elected representatives of the people - as a result the people do have the power.

I see nothing wrong with the British system as it is now.

The British people voted to join the EEC and then the representatives of the people gave away more power - nothing to do with the monarch who is a servant of the people and is controlled by the people's representatives - the parliament.

Iluvbertie,

I suppose you're correct to say that our system is successful, my concern, though, is that our Monarch (having power?) hasn't acted to prevent our Parliament from taking advantage of the people; and our Monarch (not having power?) perhaps in unable to act... I.E. why would the Parliament do -A-, -B- or -C- (such as a veto or vote in the EU Parliament) and why wouldn't our Monarch support (or not) the Parliament; why doesn't she stand-up for England / the people?

We needn't argue about the pros / cons of the EU Parliament. Perhaps I'm not being clear enough?

"...nothing to do with the monarch who is a servant of the people and is controlled by the people's representatives - the parliament."
​

The Monarch should serve the country and us, the Monarch. The Parliament should serve us: "Parliament is merely an extension of the people and proposing that they represent us, they clearly should have less (or equal to) not more than us."

If the British truly wanted out of the EU they would vote in a party and a government with that platform which has not happened.
If the monarch had actual political power, as opposed to influence, they would have to exercise those powers and make tough decisions that impact on peoples daily lives. People who make tough decisions become unpopular. That is what we have elected politicians for, to exercise political power and make tough decisions and when they become unpopular we vote them out of office. It is how democracy in a constitutional monarchy works.

Hello NGalitzine,

"If the British truly wanted out of the EU they would vote in a party and a government with that platform which has not happened."
​

UKIP (UK Independence Party) are becoming increasingly popular and proposing that the Conservatives are re-elected, they'll hold a referendum in 2016. Remember, though, David Cameron's last promise of a referendum in 2008; a broken promise. The people and polls both demand a say; and they both say no.

"If the monarch had actual political power, as opposed to influence, they would have to exercise those powers and make tough decisions that impact on peoples daily lives. People who make tough decisions become unpopular. That is what we have elected politicians for, to exercise political power and make tough decisions and when they become unpopular we vote them out of office. It is how democracy in a constitutional monarchy works."
​

I wish we (the people) could stop playing the blame game. Surely you desire what I want; a more powerful Monarch and a society that stands beside the chosen King/Queen?

"That is what we have elected politicians for, to exercise political power and make tough decisions and when they become unpopular we vote them out of office."
​

As representatives, that's not a problem. Parliament shouldn't 'govern' us, we should 'govern' them... I.E. we should make demands that they should take to our Monarch for approval or non-approval. In history, that is how our system successfully worked. In modern times, the Monarch seems only to make recommendation and responses to Parliament; she's loosing her influence and has lost her power.

-

S. A. T. Archer
Satarcher@hushmail.com

 

[vkrish]

You seem very confused, or atleast you confuse me regarding what you want.
On one hand you want constitutional monarchy.
On the other hand you call the monarch incompetent because she doesnt interfere with the Parliament.
Get a monarch who refuses to sign the bills and see what happens to constitutional monarchy..
And you seem to have problem only with EU and celebrity/grandeur of Queen.
Except for these two issues, you seem to agree that everything is going really well in UK..
But why dont you understand, as already pointed out by ILuvBertie and NGalitzine, that PEOPLE=PARLIAMENT=Law.
Parliament is people, sent by people, for the people.
These MPs didnt fall from sky, or claim right by some 1000 year lineage. They are ordinary Joe-next-door, who by their leadership, got chosen by the common man to represent him and run the country on his behalf, albeit in the Queen's name.
And regarding corruption, it is a universal phenomenon, generally proportional to the general characdter and level of flaws in a society.
If people find their MP corrupt, they can always elect someone else next time.If they are OK with it, then OK..
If UK joined EEU, it was with the "implied approval" of the British people.
Different parties (u mentioned one) with diverse views on every issue exist, and until they reach majority in Parliament to force their view ahead, they are not presumed to reflect the wish of the people..
And finally, Presidential/Parliamentary/Absolutism..nothing is totally perfect..
But history has proved that people's rule (not "influential/powerful" monarch, as you want) is the best.