The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #441  
Old 10-13-2016, 11:41 PM
Fürstin Taxis's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Jupiter, Germany
Posts: 1,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
King Edward VIII and the present Queen both had shots fired at them during the Trooping of the Colour ceremony. The fact that they were situations involving blanks and the perpetrators were arrested immediately doesn't make any similar situation less serious. Other members of the BRF, Charles and Anne, for example also had people wishing to harm them.
Who can forget the attempted kidnapping of Anne?

The Bloody Attempt to Kidnap a British Princess | History | Smithsonian

“Open, or I’ll shoot!” he yelled.

In response to one of Ball’s pleas, Princess Anne retorted, “Bloody likely.”

'If the man had succeeded in abducting Anne, she would have given him a hell of a time in captivity.'
Prince Philip
__________________

__________________

To be a legend, you've either got to be dead or excessively old!
Christopher Lee
Reply With Quote
  #442  
Old 10-14-2016, 08:35 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 319
US presidents do NOT pay the costs of their vacations.

Air Force One costs $210,000 per hour of flight. If the president paid for that, 2 hours of flying time would consume the president's entire annual salary.

Plus the Secret Service and a whole entourage of people travel with the first family, and the hotel rooms and travel costs for all of them are paid by taxpayers.

Presidential vacations cost the taxpayers millions of dollars--and that applies to both Republican and Democratic presidents.

The British Royal Family flies commercially; I find that odd, but they even sometimes fly coach (likely just for show). I'm sure that they usually travel in paid first class and also have an expensive entourage of people, but it likely is cheaper than Air Force One.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #443  
Old 10-14-2016, 10:54 AM
Lee-Z's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Heerlen, Netherlands
Posts: 3,102
With all the trashtalking in the US presidential election show, i wish that there were an option for Michelle Obama to be a regent after Barack Obama stops reigning

I know it won't happen and that it's not the US way, but how can either of these candidates be taken seriously after all is said and done in this season's election-show...

__________________
Wisdom begins in wonder - Socrates
Reply With Quote
  #444  
Old 10-14-2016, 11:45 AM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 10,260


I think Michelle Obama is a wonder. The dignity with which she has conducted herself while receiving the kind of denigration and abuse I have NEVER in my lifetime seen directed toward a FLOTUS is admirable.

Barack Obama struck gold when he got her to agree to marry him.

But she has made it crystal clear that unlike former First Lady Hillary Clinton she harbors no political ambitions for herself whatsoever. Her main goal in life right now is guiding her lovely young daughters on the path to successful adulthood. In other words, motherhood trumps ambition for this woman.

Good for her, unfortunate for us.

I agree with you about the two candidates we have to choose from. Whomever is elected in a few weeks, I get the feeling that I am going to be echoing the words of one of the cardinals in conclave after the election of Borgia pope Alexander VI:

"Flee, for we are in the hands of a wolf!"
__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice". Martin Luther King Jr. 1929-1968
Reply With Quote
  #445  
Old 10-14-2016, 08:33 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 3,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
The vacations that the President takes may be paid for by the President himself for himself and his family but we need to remember too that wherever the President goes, so does the Office of the President of the United States of America. One thing the President never completely does is get a vacation away from his job. Staff, Secret Service and security checks of the venue and many more things are very necessary when the President travels and these people need their salaries paid and their accommodations paid for and the President doesn't cover that out of his own pocket. Some of these kind of people remain with a President even after he is out of office.

Its basically the same thing with a monarch. No matter where he/she goes, there is still the staff and security and such to put into consideration. High profile people are high profile risks no matter where they are.

Its a price we pay no matter what kind of a head of state a nation has.
Yes, all the extras go with them, True enough. But they work for it for 4 years at a stretch, many hours a day, all the days they are in office. Bad or good they never leave office looking good. It takes it's toll. They are responsible for everything, the buck stops here. No waving and State Dinners as their sum. And the plane and many other perks are not a lifetime achievement. Constitutional monarchies are fine, for what they are in the places they have been for centuries. But, remember, those people were just born to it. They never work a day in their lives, BRF. Some of the Dutch princes, work at real jobs. And you have people such as the Greek Royal Family, who helped themselves to plenty and do nothing, including waving and state dinners.
Reply With Quote
  #446  
Old 10-14-2016, 08:46 PM
cepe's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,333
It seems that some posts are comparing chalk and cheese.

There is no comparison between the POTUS and a Constitutional Monarch.

The Monarch works with the Head of Government (elected in the Uk on a 5 yr cycle). Unelected, it has the benefits of continuity and being there as the representative of everyone, not just those who voted for them.

this has turned into a discussion of the American Presidency which is one form of Republic vs Uk Monarchy. There is more out there.

The Monarch has a unify role - King Felipe of Spain has a role unifying Spain as the country struggles to form a Government. That would be difficult if there was President elected on a political basis.

THere are different models - Germany and Ireland have Gov and selected Presidency

FRance has a model of Political Presidency and a Prime Minister.

EDIT there are also absolute monarchs, ie some Arab States. And then there are pseudo democratic Presidents - possibly Russia but that is a matter of opinion.

It would be great if the discussion was on a broader basis
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #447  
Old 10-14-2016, 09:15 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,790
I agree with you, Cepe. To focus on one model of a republic with an elected president (usually the USA) vs. one constitutional monarchy (usually the UK) is really limiting models that other countries are using successfully or unsuccessfully depending how one looks at it. There are even defunct models of both kinds.

What is good about them? What is bad about them and what could we come up with that would astound the global population and get us members on TRF on the list for next year's Nobel Peace Prize? Heck, some may even argue the fact that the only real solution and way to go towards a governmental system that would really, really work would be a New World Order even. Or a total egalitarian world order where we all live happily together and drink milk and cookies and take afternoon naps.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #448  
Old 10-15-2016, 05:44 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 319
Yes, Cepe, the US president (or a president in a presidential systems) is certainly not the same as a constitutional monarch in Western Europe/the UK.

I think that the US presidential system should adopt more aspects of a constitutional monarchy or semi-presidential or parliamentary system--mainly a ceremonial "president", not elected as in the US model, and representative of everyone (or at least more than just one political party).

I may be wrong, but I believe that the US presidential office was originally designed to be like the UK monarch's position in the 1780s. Just as the latter position has changed significantly, so should the US presidential position.

I don't believe that the founding fathers of the US foresaw deep partisan division in the US, with the popularly-elected and powerful president heaping scorn on members of other political parties and otherwise creating division among Americans. Perhaps they would have established the presidency in a different way had they saw that coming.
Reply With Quote
  #449  
Old 10-15-2016, 09:26 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 3,010
They saw the partisan division. They themselves disliked one another and distrusted one another. The New Englanders, did not like the southerners and hated slavery. A ceremonial position is nonsense. We have not had a president that "heaped scorn" on other4s. W. Bush got his way, but he was a decent man, not bright, but decent. Cheney was the problem. Too much money for someone who has no power and no real input. The Monarchies in Europe, which are long standing and have worked well within that system, seem fine. But a waste of money. England who seems to always have financial troubles, spend a great deal on ceremonies . They make money freom tourists from this. But their vast wealth has be purloined by getting tax free status for numerous years and stealing land and venues that filled their pockets. Look at the queen's jewels. They are beautiful, but what a waste. "Granny chips" could build 20 hospitals.
Reply With Quote
  #450  
Old 10-16-2016, 10:14 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 319
By "partisan", I mean "political party" partisan. There were no political parties when the US was first organized. George Washington was nonpartisan and was picked with overwhelming support.

I'd think that Democrats would say that George W. Bush scorned them. Republicans certainly think that Obama scorned them, calling them "enemies" and people who "cling" to guns and religion and whatever. Hillary called a large part of the electorate "deplorables". Those are all nasty remarks and both sides are culpable.

I'd doubt that the UK spends more per capita on ceremonies and the monarchy than the US spends on ceremonies and the presidency.
Reply With Quote
  #451  
Old 08-14-2017, 06:32 AM
Feologild's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Agder, Norway
Posts: 23
I think a Unitary parliamentary constitutional monarchy is a fine system.
Reply With Quote
  #452  
Old 11-24-2017, 10:48 PM
M. Payton's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 1,850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frozen Royalist View Post
Wow, did I scare people away with my rants, sorry guys.

-Frozen Royalist

P.S. IMO I think support is probably returning to normal levels since the whole "paradise papers" thing is now mainly focused on the other elite rather than the Her Majesty, honestly though would it hurt for people to do proper research.
Oh you did not scare me away, in fact I totally agree with you 1,000% about the Republicans. It is an ego trip IMHO that they are on, loud mouth shouting so that they will feel good about themselves and make every one around them seem like they are working for the people. H*ll, they work for themselves only just like the congress in my country does, they work for themselves and their friends and the heck with the rest of America. Power and greed that is what the Republicans are all about!
Reply With Quote
  #453  
Old 11-25-2017, 01:16 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,936
I am not after power or greed and I find describing republicans that was insulting - as I am sure you meant it to be.

I was a monarchist when I joined this board mind you but it is the information here that turned me into a republican as I realised the full extent of the corruption and misuse of position that the BRF use e.g. William using a loophole to get into the RAF as a pilot when he couldn't get there with his eyesight. As a future king he should be above reproach but he isn't, the constant whinging by the two princes about how hard they have things, the Queen and Charles using off-shore accounts to avoid tax (again it may be legal but as the monarch and heir they also have to be totally above reproach and they aren't). I won't even go into the adultery from so many of the family (trying hard to find any of them who haven't had affairs or cheated on their partners).

UK republicans - like those here in Australia - believe we should have a say in our Head of State which we don't have. Like it or not we have to accept someone based simply on who their parents are and then have to accept whomever they choose as their consort regardless of how suitable or unsuitable they may be to represent us.

We also have a situation where the future King of Australia and his siblings in a number of different generations actively supports teams playing Australia and that is unacceptable. William even lead the campaign against Australia to host the World Cup. Imagine if Australia had won the rights to the 2022 World Cup and William was king by then and he had to come to it - the ultimate hypocrisy.

Each country should have the right to elect its Head of State knowing who the consort will be - sure we may end up with a person who is seen as unsuitable by many people as is the case with Trump - but at least we would know when it was time for them to leave.

When royals married within a narrow group there was a purpose but now they can marry anyone why should the girl who lives on my left as a kid be able to have the position and power associated with being the consort while the girl on the other side can't just because of who they married?

Surely the public should have a say on the Head of State and their Consort are and that is what republicans want. I am confident that the next time Australia votes on becoming a republic we will vote Yes because they question will be worded in such a way that the majority of the nation will vote that way unlike 1999 when even many republicans voted No because the option they wanted wasn't there.

To truly live in a democracy the people have to have a say in all the people who are the face of the nation and that really does apply to the Head of State.

I wonder how Frozen Royalist would feel if they didn't get to have a say in their Head of State every four years. It is easy to admire something you don't have to live with but for those of us who do and want to change there is not need to be insulting about us but accept that we have our reasons and mine are simple - I want a Head of State who lives and works only for Australia and not for any other nation. I don't want a person appointed by some foreigner but by the people of Australia. I don't even care if that person was born in Australia - so long as they are a citizen of Australia and Australia only.
Reply With Quote
  #454  
Old 11-25-2017, 01:48 AM
Frozen Royalist's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Raleigh, United States
Posts: 199
Look Iluvbertie my apologies, I was just well blowing up about the @#$% I keep reading on websites like the Guardian and other mainstream websites like that. I do think it would be well catastrophic for my country if we didn't have a say every four years and even though I support the Commonwealth Realm to continue to exist I do think that Canada and Australia should have their own monarchs rather then continue to share with the UK.

I'll let you guys in on a little secret, the reason how I became an American monarchist is a rather fascinating tale. I grew up during the George W. Bush years listening about how we should respect the president, honor the founding fathers and the republican principles and what not but at the same time I kept watching and hearing others dissing the "system" in America everywhere. What really started me down on this path is a little incident that occurred while I was in Summer Camp. We were waiting for the counselors to get back and some of the campers took notice of this painted wooden cutout that looked like the President of the US at the time. The campers began to attack the cutout, even beheading it while calling it names and insults you'd hear on comedy shows and what not. I didn't take part in this but it did make me begin to questions about the "system". Now flash foreword to the Obama years while I was in middle and high school, it just seemed like the same thing but with the added racist insults this time. Now as mush as I respected and supported Obama (my apologies to any conservatives that read this, I consider myself to be one of the few centrist/moderate monarchists rather than conservative like the Texan Mad Monarchist) I couldn't help but think what was the point of it all in the end? I mean sure you can choose your own head of state but is it really worth it in the end?

It was then I began to take notice of monarchs like Queen Elizabeth II, Emperor Akihito, the former King Michael I of Romania, the legends of good kings and emperors about how they made good for their countries while compared to presidents of nations like Italy and Portugal whom regularly slept with women a third of their age, I know there have been royals that have done the same but still. My monarchism also stems with my concept of nations applying order, security, familiarity, and prosperity in order to be successful I mean look at Belgium, Japan, Morocco and the UK compared to Myanmar, Venezuela, Egypt and Hungary, does it not make sense to be a monarchist when you look at the facts how several of the remaining constitutional monarchies have enjoyed stability for the most part while several of these republics deal with coups, economic instability, moronic idealists, etc. Don't even get me started on Trump because I think the fact that he ran for president just reinforces the idea that republicanism isn't cracked up as the die hard supporters make it. So in the end I just decided to go a different path compared to my fellow Americans, whenever I try to bring up the fact that I'm a monarchist to my friends and classmates they tend to think of me as someone who is well "not in reality" in their opinion.

-Frozen Royalist

P.S. for the whole football controversy thing, I'm sorry that members of the House of Windsor actively worked against Australia getting the 2022 world cup I've got nothing here and you have an excellent point.
Reply With Quote
  #455  
Old 11-25-2017, 03:59 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,936
Defacing images of the Head of State happens in monarchies as well.

I work at a school that removed the one image of HM we had about 20 years ago and there was no outcry.

The staff in the primary section of my school have an image of HM though - sitting on the throne on the door of the ladies loo (toilet) and the kids think that is funny. I believe there is one in their girls' toilets as well but have never been in there. No one has complained about the placement of the image which says a lot about the views of staff, parents and students - that is where she belongs.

Many public places have removed their images of HM as being incompatible with modern Australia as she represents everything that is against our equal society.
Reply With Quote
  #456  
Old 11-25-2017, 05:42 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,397
Quote:
our equal society.
Two words 'First Australians' ! The reality is your Society is FAR from equal, and taking down the picture of your Head of State doesn't make it any the more so...
Reply With Quote
  #457  
Old 11-25-2017, 06:25 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 10,701
I regularly visit Bournemouth, Boscombe, Poole, Studland Bay and Weymouth, that area. Tory heartland I assume. Maybe it is depending who you speak, but honesty forces me to say that even in that relatively wealthy and carefree piece of England there was only indifference or sarcasm when the royal family came into conversation.

I remember that I (Dutch) and a friend (Danish) went to a posh party and even there the royal family was characterized as a bunch of freeloaders. This was not in impoverished slums in Nottingham, Leeds or Sheffield but in a posh establishment near Winchester Cathedral. This made me and my Danish friend wonder how deep it really is, that suggested popularity of the royal family, both of us coming from monarchies ourselves.
Reply With Quote
  #458  
Old 11-25-2017, 07:23 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,397
I'm not surprised by your experience at the Party Duc_et_Pair, In my experience the affluent Upper Middle Classes [particularly if in 'academe'] affect to despise the Royal Family, whilst the Middle-Middle and Lower-Middle Classes are more supportive.The Working Classes are pretty solid in their support [and always have been].
It is difficult to generalise of course, but given the alternative - a President Blair [or equivalent], barring a MAJOR change of heart, the Monarchy is the 'preferred' form of Government for most people. It HAS served us well, and people look abroad and 'don't like what they see'.
Reply With Quote
  #459  
Old 11-25-2017, 07:24 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: West Bloomfield, United States
Posts: 16
You know, as an American, I can see that there are some disadvantages to a monarch as head of state but in many ways I think it is a better system than the one we have in the United States.

First the president is supposed to be both head of government and head of state. Being the head of government is already a big job in itself and there are times when the two jobs conflict; there was a brouhaha a few years ago, for example, when then-president Obama did not attend a memorial service at (I think it was) Auschwitz because he had to meet with the leader of Saudi Arabia instead. Someone else from the administration went, but it made people angry. Because those kinds of things come up I think it would be better if we separated head of government and head of state.

But the bigger problem, to my mind, is that when you vote for the head of state and the other person wins, especially when there is an unusually bitter campaign, it's difficult to feel that the head of state represents you. A few months ago when there was the apartment fire in London, my husband and I watched the Queen and Prince William meeting with the people who'd lost their homes and I said to him at the time, "If something like that happened here, to us, and the president came I couldn't deal with it. If he showed up I would feel actively worse." (I'm not saying that to be political, just to illustrate the problem when you have an unusually divisive head of state.)

The best thing about the monarchy in the UK, to my mind, is that people don't choose the monarch, and the monarch doesn't take political positions publicly, which means in theory that she belongs to all the people equally. It's not a perfect system, but I'm not sure what would be. I've seen proposals here in the US that we separate head of state from head of government and make it an electable position with, say, a twenty-year term so that the bitterness of the campaign fades, and maybe that would work. But I do see definite advantages to an apolitical monarchy.
Reply With Quote
  #460  
Old 11-25-2017, 07:42 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
I am not after power or greed and I find describing republicans that was insulting - as I am sure you meant it to be.

(...)

UK republicans - like those here in Australia - believe we should have a say in our Head of State which we don't have. Like it or not we have to accept someone based simply on who their parents are and then have to accept whomever they choose as their consort regardless of how suitable or unsuitable they may be to represent us.

We also have a situation where the future King of Australia and his siblings in a number of different generations actively supports teams playing Australia and that is unacceptable. William even lead the campaign against Australia to host the World Cup. Imagine if Australia had won the rights to the 2022 World Cup and William was king by then and he had to come to it - the ultimate hypocrisy.

(...)

I wonder how Frozen Royalist would feel if they didn't get to have a say in their Head of State every four years. It is easy to admire something you don't have to live with but for those of us who do and want to change there is not need to be insulting about us but accept that we have our reasons and mine are simple - I want a Head of State who lives and works only for Australia and not for any other nation. I don't want a person appointed by some foreigner but by the people of Australia. I don't even care if that person was born in Australia - so long as they are a citizen of Australia and Australia only.
The system of having (essentially) a UK monarch also be the monarch of other countries indeed results in complicated issues as the UK's interests are not necessarily the same of Canada, Australia and New Zealand (to name the largest ones). So, I understand that people within these countries are not that supportive of having a head of state that hardly ever is in your own country. Instead of becoming republics an alternative could be to stay monarchies but with their own monarch (in my fantasy world I once figured we could divide Canada, Australia and New Zealand among the Queen's other children). That would at least solve part of the issue.

Regarding the partners, I am in favour of some parliamentary control (as we have in the Netherlands). A system in which only the monarch (and sometimes in theory the government) seems less able to weed unsuitable candidates out. Of course, the born prince or princess could still marry but would loose his/her rights to the throne by doing so.
__________________

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
abu dhabi american history anastasia anastasia once upon a time ancestry baby names background story baptism biography british royal family brownbitcoinqueen buckingham palace countess of snowdon cpr daisy doge of venice duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex elizabeth ii family life family tree fashion and style games general news thread george vi hypothetical monarchs imperial household interesting intro italian royal family jacobite japan jewellery kids movie książ castle list of rulers luxembourg maxima mountbatten names nepal nepalese royal jewels plantinum jubilee prince constantijn prince harry princess alexia (2005 -) princess chulabhorn walailak princess elizabeth princess eugenie princess of orange princess ribha queen louise random facts resusci anne royal balls royal dress-ups royal jewels royal marriage royal re-enactments. royal wedding serbian royal family snowdon spain speech suthida taiwan videos wedding gown wittelsbach


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:08 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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