[anonymac]

Is there any point to supporting a british royal family whose 1000+ year reign has been filled with the most foul crimes against humanity and undeserved riches derived thereof? It's hard to understand why people support the British monarchy given their principal role is looking down on you and preserving a system where birth determines your success in life.

[shinji]

It should be what the British people want, and as I understand it, the majority like the tradition.

[anonymac]

Originally Posted by shinji 

It should be what the British people want, and as I understand it, the majority like the tradition.

You should consider that the British monarchy is the monarchy for 15 countries other than the UK. So, this monarchy concerns far more people than just "the British people" and what they want. Also, how can you claim to know what the British people want or have wanted? They have never been given a chance to democratically decide whether or not they want a monarchy.

[shinji]

I didn't claim to know what the British people want, I said, "as I understand it" ...

What happens in other countries should be up to the people in those countries.

Debate on the monarchy in Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
BBC NEWS | Programmes | Monarchy | The results

[anonymac]

So you think that because the BBC News does an online poll, that not only is it accurate but represents what every royal subject wants? This can only be the reason for your linking to it which is clearly absurd and laughable, statistically speaking. Verily, I should think you must be some sort of clown who has wandered his way into this discussion.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by anonymac 

So you think that because the BBC News does an online poll, that not only is it accurate but represents what every royal subject wants? This can only be the reason for your linking to it which is clearly absurd and laughable, statistically speaking. Verily, I should think you must be some sort of clown who has wandered his way into this discussion.

Wow he was being polite and logical, and you came back being rude and pretentiously condescending.

Talk about clowns wandering his way into a discussion....

[irunat2am]

Originally Posted by anonymac 

So you think that because the BBC News does an online poll, that not only is it accurate but represents what every royal subject wants? This can only be the reason for your linking to it which is clearly absurd and laughable, statistically speaking. Verily, I should think you must be some sort of clown who has wandered his way into this discussion.

I don't read him stating that anywhere. Go outside, take a breath, and then get off his back.

Back to the topic. You can post your input without trying to belittle him.

Edit: Kevin is the winner. Too fast, too fast.

[tavilach]

Wow, anonymac...

You clearly started this thread because you wanted a hardcore debate with someone adamantly against your position, and pounced on the first person who showed very mild disagreement. Very mature.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by anonymac 

Is there any point to supporting a british royal family whose 1000+ year reign

So, the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha has been reigning for 1,000+ years?

I make it 106.

[Doofy]

And take one off the "yes" and add it to "no". Groggy morning, y'know?

[Paco500]

The way I understand it, the monrachy adds more to the economy, in taxes, tourism and tabloid sales, than it takes. It's also quite a show.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by tavilach 

Wow, anonymac...

You clearly started this thread because you wanted a hardcore debate with someone adamantly against your position, and pounced on the first person who showed very mild disagreement. Very mature.

He originally posted it in the regular lounge. Probably wanting more attention.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

The way I understand it, the monrachy adds more to the economy, in taxes, tourism and tabloid sales, than it takes.

Yep, correct.

[Strix]

Originally Posted by anonymac 

They have never been given a chance to democratically decide whether or not they want a monarchy.

The people did have a choice. The English Cival War usurped the monarchy but replaced King Charles with a dictator. No surprise that the Restoration took place and ever since then it's been "better the devil you know", though the position of monarch is now ceremonial; I doubt Lilibet will ever step in and disolve Parliament...

[Strix]

Fixed

Originally Posted by anonymac 

Is there any point to supporting an American Presidential system whose 250+ year reign has been filled with the most foul crimes against humanity and undeserved riches derived thereof? It's hard to understand why people support the President given their principal role is looking down on you and preserving a system where money and oil determines your success in life.

[Doofy]

I missed this bit:

Originally Posted by anonymac 

Also, how can you claim to know what the British people want or have wanted? They have never been given a chance to democratically decide whether or not they want a monarchy.

Can we have a referendum on EU membership too please? Because, you know, everyone under 50(ish) hasn't been asked. And everyone over 50(ish) was asked about another thing entirely.

[Strix]

Have you ever noticed you only get referendums until the public gives the answer the government wants? For example say the Government decided to adopt the Euro, and put it to a referendum to which the public said "no", we would then get another one, etc, until the answer was "yes".

However there is never then another referendum to see if the public has changed their minds......

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Strix 

Fixed

Not only a bit xenophibic, but off topic too. If you have an rant about the US, go to the other 10 or so threads on here of the like.

[JonoMarshall]

To generalise:
Older generations have pride in the monarchy.
Current generations feel they bring in money but are slightly embarrassing.
Upcoming generations couldn't give a rats *ahem*.

Will the monarchy be abolished? ...Only if a royal tries to do something outrageous or they start to become a financial drain.

[Spook E]

Back in the day (2000?) when us Aussies had the chance to vote if we wanted to become a republic or not, i voted to stay with the monarchy.

What's the harm in it? From what i understand, they have no real power and don't really cause a bother, other than getting on the piss and being annoying, but what pom isn't like that? Their a bit of fun, and it's nice to have a bit of tradition and pomp at times.

At least their not corrupt, drone's for corporations like all the bloody pollies are.

[SirCastor]

The Royal family is about tradition. And traditions are a hard thing to get rid of. Nearly any group that's been around for a while will have a sordid history of some sort. America certainly has, and we're not tossing out the constitution. As others have said, it probably helps more than hurts, and that can't be bad.

I'm reminded of the Queen's recent visit to the States. All kinds of people turned out see her, and she's not even our queen!

[Kerrigan]

Anonymac is not coming back to this discussion, he came off as too weird and aggressive in the first 2 replies and has now abdicated his short reign in this thread, due to lunacy, in the manner of King George.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Not only a bit xenophibic, but off topic too. If you have an rant about the US, go to the other 10 or so threads on here of the like.

Well, it is on topic, because the point being made was that governments in general tend towards corruption, crime and repression. Abolishing the monarchy and replacing it (presumably) with some kind of presidency would not likely be a guarantee of clement ruler-ship.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Well, it is on topic,

No because they were talking about a specific Monarchy.

You can justify most any derail by putting what you THINK the OP has in mind as to what it is about.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Anonymac is not coming back to this discussion, he came off as too weird and aggressive in the first 2 replies and has now abdicated his short reign in this thread, due to lunacy, in the manner of King George.

Yes.

This thread also marks anonymac out as being a raving leftie. Who should be horsewhipped until he knows his place.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

No because they were talking about a specific Monarchy.

You can justify most any derail by putting what you THINK the OP has in mind as to what it is about.

Well, the thread is about the Monarchy being abolished, and I think it's hard to talk about that without touching on what you would replace it with. The crimes the OP accused it of, as, as were pointed out, common to most governments, not just monarchy, so the argument that it should be abolished because of those crimes and replaced with something no less likely to repeat those crimes is bogus. That's why it was on-topic.

[Kerrigan]

He didn't even mention any crimes, just vaguely referred to "the most foul crimes against humanity". Princes groping girls and having the occasional joint during nights out on the razzle- is this an instance of the most foul crimes in humanity for which the English constitution needs radical amending?

[nonhuman]

What would even be necessary to abolish the monarchy? I'm not familiar enough with British law to answer that myself.

Would parliament have the power to do it if they wanted to? It seems to me that, short of armed rebellion, it would be up to the Queen (or whatever future monarch) to decide to proclaim the monarchy abolished and step down. And armed rebellion is pretty much out of the question in the UK at this point (convenient, no?).

As for whether it should happen or not, that's up to the people who live under the rule of the monarchy (for convenience's sake, I'll just assume that Doofy speaks for all the Queen's subjects). Were I to get a vote, I would vote against the monarchy on principle. But it's not up to me, and I fully support the right of people to shape their own government as they see fit (if nothing else, it teaches us what not to do).

[lpkmckenna]

I don't care if the monarchy in Canada is abandoned, but I would care if abolishing the monarchy lead to pointless political changes (like a presidential system).

If Canada abandoned the monarchy, the only required change would be to make the Governor General the de facto Head of State.

[nonhuman]

I don't see any reason that abolishing the monarchy would require there to be a president. As far as I know, the only real duty the Queen has in terms of politics is inviting the prime minister to form a government, correct? Absent the queen the prime minister would either just go ahead and form the government, or there would be some sort of ceremony in which the 'people' invite the prime minister.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

As far as I know, the only real duty the Queen has in terms of politics is inviting the prime minister to form a government, correct?

She can break it too, although it's unlikely to happen.

Plus, all of the armed forces report (and are loyal to) to her, not to the government. This is a good thing, since it keeps the government somewhat honest. I hate to think what a nightmare the UK would be right now (after 10 years of Blair's command and control commie policies) if this wasn't the case.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

She can break it too, although it's unlikely to happen.

Plus, all of the armed forces report (and are loyal to) to her, not to the government. This is a good thing, since it keeps the government somewhat honest. I hate to think what a nightmare the UK would be right now (after 10 years of Blair's command and control commie policies) if this wasn't the case.

Ah, I didn't know the bit about the armed forces. Parliament controls the military's budget though, right? So the armed forces are going to give at least half a damn what parliament says.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Ah, I didn't know the bit about the armed forces. Parliament controls the military's budget though, right? So the armed forces are going to give at least half a damn what parliament says.

Yep, parliament controls the budget. But pretty much every soldier is absolutely loyal to Her Maj and hates the government. Fight on parliament's side with tanks or fight on Her Maj's side with chopsticks? Chopsticks all the way.

ARRSE sums it up here.

The gaffer. God Bless Her!

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I don't see any reason that abolishing the monarchy would require there to be a president. As far as I know, the only real duty the Queen has in terms of politics is inviting the prime minister to form a government, correct? Absent the queen the prime minister would either just go ahead and form the government, or there would be some sort of ceremony in which the 'people' invite the prime minister.

Actually, the Queen (or her representative, in other Commonwealth nations) has many duties, which are mostly ceremonial, but they do take a considerable amount of her time.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Spook E 

Back in the day (2000?) when us Aussies had the chance to vote if we wanted to become a republic or not, i voted to stay with the monarchy.

What's the harm in it? From what i understand, they have no real power and don't really cause a bother, other than getting on the piss and being annoying, but what pom isn't like that? Their a bit of fun, and it's nice to have a bit of tradition and pomp at times.

At least their not corrupt, drone's for corporations like all the bloody pollies are.

What?

[PER3]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

She can break it too, although it's unlikely to happen.

Plus, all of the armed forces report (and are loyal to) to her, not to the government. This is a good thing, since it keeps the government somewhat honest. I hate to think what a nightmare the UK would be right now (after 10 years of Blair's command and control commie policies) if this wasn't the case.

Her representative in Australia found it pretty easy to dismiss the Prime Minister in 1975, so I don't think you can say the monarchy has no teeth when things get gnarly:

An Overview Of The Whitlam Dismissal

[Spook E]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

What?

What don't you get?

The fact that Australia is part of the British Commonwealth and not one of the states of the US like our leaders seem to think?

[peeb]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

What would even be necessary to abolish the monarchy? I'm not familiar enough with British law to answer that myself.

Would parliament have the power to do it if they wanted to? It seems to me that, short of armed rebellion, it would be up to the Queen (or whatever future monarch) to decide to proclaim the monarchy abolished and step down. And armed rebellion is pretty much out of the question in the UK at this point (convenient, no?).

Actually, this is a really important point. Parliament advises the monarch, the term 'Prime Minister' refers to the first advisor of the monarch. The monarch appoints (directly or indirectly) one house of parliament (that is changing slowly), and traditionally in the last hundred or so years, one house of parliament has been elected to a greater or lesser extent. The problem is that monarch ultimately signs laws. The UK relies on tradition as a major constitutional element, since it lacks the kind of revolutionary constitution that claims legitimacy through successful revolt. It isn't really clear how the UK would abolish the monarchy, since there is no real class of constitutional law in the UK that parliament can pass.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Actually, this is a really important point. Parliament advises the monarch, the term 'Prime Minister' refers to the first advisor of the monarch. The monarch appoints (directly or indirectly) one house of parliament (that is changing slowly), and traditionally in the last hundred or so years, one house of parliament has been elected to a greater or lesser extent. The problem is that monarch ultimately signs laws. The UK relies on tradition as a major constitutional element, since it lacks the kind of revolutionary constitution that claims legitimacy through successful revolt. It isn't really clear how the UK would abolish the monarchy, since there is no real class of constitutional law in the UK that parliament can pass.

Does parliament have anything like our congress' 'veto override' where if the president vetoes a passed law congress can override the veto with enough votes and have it made law anyway?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Does parliament have anything like our congress' 'veto override' where if the president vetoes a passed law congress can override the veto with enough votes and have it made law anyway?

Sounds similar to our Parliament Act.

Debate law in the Commons. Pass it up to the Lords for stamping. If they reject it, use the Parliament Act to force it through. Blair does this all the time.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Does parliament have anything like our congress' 'veto override' where if the president vetoes a passed law congress can override the veto with enough votes and have it made law anyway?

The two are not comparable. Parliament recommends laws, and the monarch signs them into law. The only power of parliament to compel the monarch comes from the kind of actions that led to the signing of the Magna Carta, a pivotal constitutional document in the UK. The basic idea is that the monarch agrees to be bound by laws, and it gives certain freedoms to people (including Hebeas Corpus, which the UK still honors). Amongst other things, the threat of rebellion by the aristocracy caused King John to sign it.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Sounds similar to our Parliament Act.

Debate law in the Commons. Pass it up to the Lords for stamping. If they reject it, use the Parliament Act to force it through. Blair does this all the time.

IIRC this relates to the relationship between the commons and the lords, not parliament and the monarch.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by peeb 

IIRC this relates to the relationship between the commons and the lords, not parliament and the monarch.

Yep. But it seems to me to be the closet thing to the veto-orderide that was mentioned.

Unless you can ever remember The Queen not passing whatever laws her government tells her to.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Yep. But it seems to me to be the closet thing to the veto-orderide that was mentioned.

Comparisons between the UK and US system are often misleading, since the two systems are very different. The Parliament Act allows one house to force legislation the other does not like, but the houses in the UK systems are very different from their US counterparts.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Unless you can ever remember The Queen not passing whatever laws her government tells her to.

I don't recall the last time specifically, but I would guess it was C18, It not happening for a couple of hundred years is not the same as it not being possible.