The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #281  
Old 10-16-2011, 03:53 AM
thomaspaine's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: new york, United States
Posts: 12
Hmm my topic has been merged.

One more thing.How many of you know that after the australian double dissolution which was ordered by the queen Both the Pm's of australia were the original force behind the republic referendum of 1999 and the monarch says that she has no authority to remove.The governor generals are the agents of the queen.
The queen is visiting Australia as to see if her puppet gillard can push the carbon tax.It is the queen who is pushing for carbon tax.If gillard failed then she would have been removed.

The house of hanover learned from thier mistakes of george the III.Now its done via stealth and all blame is taken by the governor general.

Another Article by D.M
Sayonara #6 - Royal Incubators

Presently, Elizabeth II remains the Queen of 16 countries. She is still involved with all 54 Commonwealth nations. It is claimed that she is only a figurehead, but is that true? If she were only a figurehead, then all the extravagance, pomp and ceremony surrounding the British monarchy would only be fanciful play acting, similar to that involved in Medieval reality games. The monarchy is supposed to be symbolic. If that be the case, the world has been drawn into a mass delusion that the royals are the mascots of many nations. Further, the whole world is facilitating the monarch's fantasy in a grand hallucination. All those who participate and support such a royal fantasy are giving licence and approval to the idea that class distinction and aristocracy are important and necessary to uphold. If the monarchy is just an arrogant, costly, pompous lark being acted out as an enormous fantasy game, it is nothing short of mass insanity. But, it would only be insanity if the Queen were just a figurehead.
The royal presence creates an artificial atmosphere of awe amongst the commoners, who will push and shove just to get a glimpse of a member of the royal family. The award ceremonies, gala events and seasonal garden parties for selected public guests result in more accolades for the Queen, and more support for the royals, because those involved have developed vested interests in expanding the prestige of their constitutional monarchy. How can Britain criticise and condemn other nations for not being democratic when they themselves support and maintain a monarchy that rules by succession, and has power to dictate to other countries, regardless of what the latter's people want or decide?
In reality, the Queen is no figurehead, and the monarchy is not symbolic. It wields power. All British soldiers swear allegiance to the Queen. Trooping the Colours shows the close bond between the Sovereign and the armed forces. There is a Royal Army, a Royal Navy, a Royal Air Force, Royal Guards, a Royal Train and what not. The Queen has governor-generals to represent her directly in all realms where she is Queen. She can negate legislation and effect the removal of prime ministers and dissolve parliaments. She also has the power to lead certain Commonwealth armies and navies. Contrary to the claim that she avoids politics, she is intently involved in world affairs, and has a strong agenda to pursue and implement emissions trading schemes and towards placing a price on carbon, amongst other global matters she addresses.
Every year the Queen gives out numerous awards and titles. If she were only a symbolic figure, every one of these awards and titles would be laughable and worthless, yet, the recipients of such awards and titles are not only respected, but admired. The sundry titles reinforce commoners' inferiority to the royals and aristocrats. If America had not banned titles within its government, one can just imagine newly-appointed lords and ladies parading around the White House and appearing in the media. Certainly, many of the Presidents would have been knighted, as would many Members of Congress and Supreme Court Justices. Before long, people would believe that America is actually led by the Queen.
Many in Britain claim that the monarchy is a way of holding onto 500-year-old traditions, and is therefore important to keep in place. If the five-centuries-old traditions are so vital, then they must be proud of their last 500 years. Public floggings, slavery and placing people in stocks were also part of that tradition. Does that mean that these things should also be preserved? The last five centuries are full of bloodshed, savagery, conquests, betrayals and plunder. The British monarchy was striving for world conquest and established a huge empire, which they are still earnestly pursing, although far more subtly than they did in the nineteenth century.
In the eighteenth century, Thomas Paine was a severe critic of the British monarchy. If the 500-year-old traditions are so important to observe and keep, then Paine's comments warning the world against monarchies in general, and the British monarchy in particular, are still pertinent. Paine observed that royals have a propensity to engage in wars that engulf the world. In The Crisis, he said: “Britain, for centuries past, has been nearly fifty years out of every hundred at war with some power or other.” He stated in Common Sense that: “In short, monarchy and succession have laid (not this or that kingdom only) but the world in blood and ashes.” Also in the same pamphlet was a severe warning against arrogant aristocrats: “For all men being originally equals, no one by birth could have a right to set up his own family in perpetual preference to all others for ever.” If the royals maintained a semblance of decency, they would be too embarrassed to allow other human beings to bow down to them or to be addressed as, “Your Royal Highness” or “Your Majesty.”
The monarchs have long held contempt for Americans. As Paine said in The Crisis: “It was the determination of the British court to have nothing to do with America but to conquer her fully and absolutely.” When King George III failed to conquer by force, he set many plans in motion that were followed by his successors. Paine also warned about George III, stating: “He may accomplish by craft and subtilty in the long run, what he cannot do by force and violence in the short one.” The situation today is reminiscent of Paine's time. Through cunningness and subtleties, the Queen and her ancestors have persuaded the United States to fight many wars for them.
Presently, there are many wars; many soldiers have fallen. Their families are told the soldiers have not died in vain, that they have died for their country, for freedom, and for democracy. They are told that the price of freedom is dear. Are these just cheap words? How many rulers really care? These days, most soldiers do not die for freedom; they die for conquest, and they leave a void in their families. Many of the surviving soldiers of the wars are maimed or otherwise permanently scarred. Who takes care of them and their families?
Those who promote and love wars should be on the front lines and also send their own children to the front lines. Since the monarchy has a long and bloody history of engaging and promoting wars, the world's princes should be on the front lines, not for show, but for the duration of the battles, to be real leaders and soldiers on the battlefield. If all the world's monarchs' children were on the front lines for the duration of the wars, including Prince William and Prince Harry, you can be assured that wars would be shorter and less frequent.
Since the ruling elite have invested so much into the monarchies, they are assisting them in carrying out their agendas. Regardless of their appearances, the royals are not innocuous. In this day and age, to have such an anachronism as monarchies indicates that humankind is still sadly enslaved to the master-slave mentality. All monarchies, especially those with a succession of heirs, whether East, West, North or South, are plain wrong, and indecent affronts to humanity.
__________________

__________________
In a monarchy the king is the law,in a republic the law is the king-Thomas Paine.
Reply With Quote
  #282  
Old 10-16-2011, 04:31 AM
Emperor Roku XIV's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Somewhere, Canada
Posts: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
This has been touched on in other topics but as there isn't one set topic for a discussion I decided to start one and at this point I'll add a little request from Elspeth that there be no politics or swipes at foreign leaders!

I'm a monarchist. I like living under a monarchy and I have always been brought up to believe that the Queen is there because God put her there and you not only respect her and show due deference to her, you respect her family and the institution of monarchy. I've always thought the grand titles, medals and sashes, the idea of things belonging to the Queen and the whole Royal thing to be beneficial and I think it's an important part of the British character and heritage. But recently I read the biography of the President of Latvia and wondered whether some countries are naturally suited to being a republic and what would happen if the monarchies we talk about here were suddenly replaced and if they were, what with?

Personally I wouldn't like to see Britain become a republic but if it did, I always assumed it would become America Mark II. I assumed that the House of Commons would become the House of Representatives and the House of Lords would become a Senate. We'd have a President and a First Lady and everything would change. I actually don't think that's what we'd have were Britain to become a Republic. Being a firm pro-European, I think that if we did have to have a Republic, the best form would be a Latvian or French model. I'd be extremely sad to see the Queen and her family go but what do you think would stay or go? Would we keep the Order of the Garter or invent a new Order of the British Republic? Would we have an a-political President and a political Prime Minister?

And what about other countries? Do Monarchies work because some countries are simply suited to them and vice-versa where Republics are concerned? What would you rather live under - a monarchy or a republic and why?
I always want to live in a monarchy, and if Canada were ever to split off from the monarchy, I would still consider the royal family to be the head of state for me. God save the Queen.
__________________

__________________
- Supreme Lord and Emperor of the Flood
Reply With Quote
  #283  
Old 10-31-2011, 10:11 AM
thomaspaine's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: new york, United States
Posts: 12
Monarchists how do you debunk this
Prince Charles has been offered a veto over 12 government bills since 2005 | UK news | The Guardian
Ministers have been forced to seek permission from Prince Charles to pass at least a dozen government bills, according to a Guardian investigation into a secretive constitutional loophole that gives him the right to veto legislation that might impact his private interests.
Since 2005, ministers from six departments have sought the Prince of Wales' consent to draft bills on everything from road safety to gambling and the London Olympics, in an arrangement described by constitutional lawyers as a royal "nuclear deterrent" over public policy. Unlike royal assent to bills, which is exercised by the Queen as a matter of constitutional law, the prince's power applies when a new bill might affect his own interests, in particular the Duchy of Cornwall, a private £700m property empire that last year provided him with an £18m income.


I will paraphare thomas paine again.Read my sign.
Its high time the British people say that they have had enough and replace this medieval pomp with a President.
__________________
In a monarchy the king is the law,in a republic the law is the king-Thomas Paine.
Reply With Quote
  #284  
Old 10-31-2011, 10:22 AM
Muhler's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 13,952

ThomasPaine,

No one cares, because you never listen to the arguments put up against you.
Reply With Quote
  #285  
Old 10-31-2011, 10:58 AM
Fürstin Taxis's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Jupiter, Germany
Posts: 1,294
Charles is digging his own grave.
My problem with him is that he wants more power than he is allowed to.
__________________

To be a legend, you've either got to be dead or excessively old!
Christopher Lee
Reply With Quote
  #286  
Old 10-31-2011, 12:47 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fürstin Taxis View Post
Charles is digging his own grave.
My problem with him is that he wants more power than he is allowed to.
The review of legislation that may impact on the Duchy of Cornwall is not a power grab by Prince Charles, it is part of the ancient rights of the Dukes of Cornwall. The DM is making a story out of nothing. Must have been a slow news day.

Its not much different than the laws of the UK not necessarily being applicable to the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man which still retain tradition and ancient rights in their islands or for that matter the right of the Queen to advise and consent and HM signing legislation to make it legal.
Reply With Quote
  #287  
Old 10-31-2011, 10:22 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,936
Back in the deep distant past the Duke's of Cornwall were given certain rights. Charles still has those rights but that doesn't mean that he has ever excercised them. The fact that he has the right to veto certain laws doesn't mean that he actually would do so - and if he did then there would be a right royal beat up about it.

This tradition is no different to the one that gives the monarch the power not to sign legislation - hasn't happened in over 300 years but she still can refuse to sign it.

It is merely a tradition now.

It isn't something to get hot under the collar about.
Reply With Quote
  #288  
Old 10-31-2011, 10:24 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 3,010
Ancient rights, are like the "goold old days". They were a right secured by power and fear. Charles will do what it takes to keep and put in his pocket, but that is not new and not just Charles.
Reply With Quote
  #289  
Old 10-31-2011, 10:38 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,861
Thank God that Charles has this power. I don't think there should be any opposition to another level of advice on changes to British life. It should be welcomed and I'm glad to see that the government have no intention of getting rid of it.
__________________
Kaye aka BeatrixFan
Reply With Quote
  #290  
Old 10-31-2011, 10:43 PM
lauren grace's Avatar
Newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Hemet, United States
Posts: 5
Monarchy forever.

Sir I heartly disagree with you. I live in America and I am a royalist all the way.My adopted Abba was a retainer to the Shah of Iran, as was his father before him. My British Uncle and American Aunt raised me until I was nearly 5. So I say God save the Queen!!! Royalty is either in your blood or your soul. The Royal family is indeed important to their people,as is any Monarchy. Symbolism is a powerful thing, used properly it can uplift it's people. A republic does not have that at all. We have the President of course but it is not the same as a reigning Monarch providing the Monarch is of good character and heart. No sir I disagree with you, there is a reason for Monarchies in the world.It was once said the that there would some day be only 5 kings left in the world:King of Diamonds-Spades-Clubs-Hearts and the King of England. I will always hold to that!! God save the Queen.
Reply With Quote
  #291  
Old 11-01-2011, 01:14 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 187
The royals these days, as I've said, have far more in common with us than the politicians and businessmen who make the real decisions and run our lives, in fact the corporate and political class has grown more aloof from the people than ever before. Not only has history shown that worse regimes replace monarchies, but also that inequities have not been abolished by abolishing monarchies or having more "democracy"- they are in many ways getting worse.

Let's not kid ourselves here. Governments today have more power over us than absolute kinds of over 200 years ago ever did. The US presidency is seen by many as having more power than Wilhelm II, Nicholas II, etc did in their day, which Congress and the courts seem loathe to do anything about really.

Never mind that what came out of the fall of monarchies in the 20th century, Communism and Nazism, also constituted a rejection of traditional values and morality which led to bestial crimes being committed in a never seen before scale and hopefully never again. Or that Eastern Europe was imprisoned by Communism for 40 years. And what about Latin American republics like Argentina, Chile, Guatemala, El Salvador, etc that tortured and killed thousands of their own people? And still have dreadful inequality and corruption today?

Class, wealth and status should not be seen as bad things. After all, every achievement in art, culture, science, technology and sport relies on elevating some above the rest- the opposite of today's "equality". And the modern ideas of "democracy" and "equality" have come to mean dumbing down everything, which is why our "culture" and "entertainments" are so banal and vulgar these days- isn't it ironic that people actually get rich out of doing that?
Reply With Quote
  #292  
Old 04-03-2012, 09:12 AM
Benedict XVI's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: North East Somewhere, United States
Posts: 119
Misconceptions of a monarchy

I would like to find out what non-monarchists find wrong with a monarchy and what are some of the benefits?
Reply With Quote
  #293  
Old 04-03-2012, 09:51 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne & Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,978
An interesting topic, but one which has a tendancy to become politically motivated rather quickly, as I have before witnessed under similar initiatives.

To ask only those who oppose monarchy is all but secularising the topic and will create little more than a prejudiced bandwagon. To suggest there should also be something positive to add in defense of the institution they either detest or reject (for whatever reason) is really quite unlikely for the most part.
__________________

"Dressing is a way of life" - Monsieur Saint Laurent
Reply With Quote
  #294  
Old 06-01-2012, 09:34 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 319
Anti-Monarchy Left, Monarchy Right?

There was an interesting article this week in the New York Times about the emergence of historians studying the British Royal Family. The article stated that the BRF hasn't been extensively studied in part because historians on the political right view the monarchy as something that should of course exist (so why debate it?), while those on the left view having a monarchy as absurd (and so why debate or study it?).

If it's true that republicanism (small R, meaning anti-monarchy movements) is supported largely on the political left, to the extent that we know European monarchs' political views, do they generally favor the political right?

With Prince Charles refusing to invite a few Labour leaders to the recent royal wedding, I'd say he's perhaps a Tory, but do we know?
Reply With Quote
  #295  
Old 06-01-2012, 09:49 AM
Marengo's Avatar
Administrator
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 22,199
I think that all reigning families in Europe (save Liechtenstein) know that they can not be too open about being more or less in favor of one or the other party. Their role is to be above party politics and be a unifying symbol. In that light they will always oppositionparties to a state event. If there would have been a Labour government I am sure that some of them would have been there. But it seems that the RF wanted to stress that the wedding was not a state- but a private event.

As for royals themselves, they will never tell us. But Queen Elisabeth of the Belgians was known as the 'Red Queen' and Beatrix was labelled as 'red' too (by the CIA I think even). In the circles like of extreme-right wing politican Geert Wilders, she is regarded as somebody who 'embraced the left wing multi cultural ideals'. Note that in many countries left wing parties dropped the abolition of the monarchy from their party programme.

But in general I would think that most European reigning monarchs are christian democrats/conservatives indeed, though they will never say so openly.
__________________
TRF Rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #296  
Old 06-01-2012, 10:03 AM
Royal_Affair's Avatar
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Odense, Denmark
Posts: 6
I doubt we'll find out what the royals actually support. They most likely support the side who supports them (which is the right side mostly). It would be foolish for the royals to support the side that plan to abolish the RF.
However, they have to be neutral about it and support (publicly at least) the current government.
I hadn't heard about Charles refusing to invite Labour Leaders. Wasn't that a problem?
Reply With Quote
  #297  
Old 06-01-2012, 11:26 AM
KittyAtlanta's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KittyLand Junction, United States
Posts: 3,145
I hadn't heard that Charles had done that, either. I think Charles is more of a conservative centrist, in that he is rabidly "green," but his "style" leans to more conservatism when it comes to architecture, music, etc. I think Charles and I think along the same lines -- that's why I like him so much.
Reply With Quote
  #298  
Old 06-01-2012, 11:41 AM
lucien's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 7,059
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marengo View Post
I think that all reigning families in Europe (save Liechtenstein) know that they can not be too open about being more or less in favor of one or the other party. Their role is to be above party politics and be a unifying symbol. In that light they will always oppositionparties to a state event. If there would have been a Labour government I am sure that some of them would have been there. But it seems that the RF wanted to stress that the wedding was not a state- but a private event.

As for royals themselves, they will never tell us. But Queen Elisabeth of the Belgians was known as the 'Red Queen' and Beatrix was labelled as 'red' too (by the CIA I think even). In the circles like of extreme-right wing politican Geert Wilders, she is regarded as somebody who 'embraced the left wing multi cultural ideals'. Note that in many countries left wing parties dropped the abolition of the monarchy from their party programme.

But in general I would think that most European reigning monarchs are christian democrats/conservatives indeed, though they will never say so openly.
Not all favor "right" all the time...and don't forget who's asking,someone from a different political system where left and right have a totally different and off the planet meaning then we have here.That's one.Two is that it's not the right wing parties that save or saved Monarchies and upcoming problems within,but the socialists...at least here in The Netherlands.The "left" always turned out to be way less "leftists" when matters concerning the Royal House came into view.And that still is the case.That ofcourse also has to do a great deal with the respect a Royal House generates.Hugely important,and we are in a grand position in that field as well.Reps here are of no consequence and no more importance then they claim they have themselves and consist of a elite little troop of puffed up boarding school style old farts with nothing else on their hands then talking themselves out of total oblivion from time to timeThey'll never get a serious view here,and do not deserve one...they are alien to us.
Btw,where is that so-called piece in the NY Times?Or is it just to get an answer by any shot here?If one really wants to know one sees to it they collect enough info before asking a question on the details...we don't do free articles for others to fly with...I know that happens too.


On EII,HM is known to have had a more then workable relation with Labour PM Harold Wilson while she privately might have thought of some Tory PM's as puffed up amateur pricks......is that how it's called,or should I say Cameron..?..
Reply With Quote
  #299  
Old 06-02-2012, 03:24 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 319
Here's one of the articles about Labour PMs not being invited to the Royal wedding:

Royal wedding: Tony Blair, Gordon Brown not invited

Edited to add: Here is another:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13211696

No space in Westminster Abbey, with over 1,000 guests? Whatever. "Not a state event"? Whatever.
Reply With Quote
  #300  
Old 06-02-2012, 03:33 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Middlewich, United Kingdom
Posts: 21,345
As far as I know, Tony and Gordon weren't invited because they weren't Knights of The Garter whereas the two conservative PMs invited (Thatcher and Major), both are.
__________________

__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
queen elizabeth ii, republican, royal


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
Hello, here I am. My interest is the future of monarchies. Mr. Midgard Member Introductions 1 06-29-2008 09:26 PM
Queen Elizabeth & Prince Philip: State Visits to Baltic Republics - Oct 16-20, 2006 Skydragon Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh 87 10-23-2006 03:13 PM




Popular Tags
abdication anastasia anastasia once upon a time baby names baptism bridal gown british royal family british royals buckingham palace carolin countess of snowdon cpr dna dresses dubai duchess of sussex duke of sussex facts fantasy movie gradenigo history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs imperial household intro italian royal family jacobite japan jewellery king willem-alexander list of rulers luxembourg mary: crown princess of denmark monarchy mountbatten names nepalese royal jewels northern ireland pless prince charles of luxembourg prince constantijn prince dimitri prince harry princess ariane princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn walailak princess eugenie princess ribha queen elizabeth ii queen louise queen mathilde queen maxima random facts resusci anne royal court royal dress-ups royal jewels royal marriage royal re-enactments. royalty of taiwan royal wedding royal wedding gown serbian royal family snowdon thai royal family tips uae customs united states of america wittelsbach


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:31 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×