| Should Britain scrap the royals?
Posted: 6/13/2008 4:48:18 PM | | Well said Hams, our royal family is not a matter for the UN. Its this countries business and no one else`s. We should learn to stand our own two feet again. We could learn lessons from countries like Australia, France and the states (in some ways). The royals are not totally useless either, she has the power to over rule a UK government should they get to out of order. Remember the forces have sworn there oath to her not the government, and considering what there forces are going through they would follow her not the government ( got lots of friends in the forces who say this). Plus from a financial view. The uk is the worlds 5th biggest tourist country (or was). This is millions in tourism. The changing of the guards and that pomp does bring alot of this cash in, plenty more the family costs, blabbing on now so i`ll shut my cake hole!!!! peace!! | |
|
| Should Britain scrap the royals?
Posted: 6/13/2008 4:53:02 PM | | I vote to keep the Royals. I love all that stiff upper lip dressing up, crown jewels, horses and carriages, drama and tabloid gossip. | |
|
| Should Britain scrap the royals?
Posted: 6/13/2008 5:02:25 PM | We could learn lessons from countries like Australia, France and the states (in some ways).
Yeah we could - not a monarch in sight.
The royals are not totally useless either, she has the power to over rule a UK government should they get to out of order.
Check our laws and (unwrittten) constitution - the monarch doesn't have any power - it is a token/nominal supreme position. What has really made this country great (in the past) is our Parliament & the Statesmen/women that have emerged from it.
Don't get confused between Parliament & Government - they are not equal and often just because as in recent times Government has be unpopular & sometimes ineffectual doesn't mean our Parliament is not our national strength. Yes we currently have a monarch that is popular but history tells us that could easily change on the toss of a crown. Yep - Up the Royalist sycophants. | |
|
| Should Britain scrap the royals?
Posted: 6/13/2008 5:21:39 PM | I'd vote to keep the royal family. I don't know I just like all that kind of stuff. OK I don't think they have any real power these days.
I always sing the national anthem and quite proudly so. I think it is all part of our heritage. Part of the old days gone by when Britain really was Great Britain and not what it seems today as rip off Britain. | |
|
| |
| Should Britain scrap the royals?
Posted: 6/13/2008 10:36:00 PM | Mmmmmmm well they are hounded by the press, they are pilloried for the least transgression, they are pretty "cheap" compared to MP's so no scrap parliament and the the queen rule. yeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh | |
|
| Should Britain scrap the royals?
Posted: 6/14/2008 12:05:27 AM |
We could learn lessons from countries like Australia, France and the states (in some ways).
You do know Elizabeth is Head of State in Australia don't you?
We are the only country in the world to have a revolution, execute the king and then invite the buggers back!
Nothing will get rid of the monarchy while Elizabeth is alive, but once she is gone....fuedalsim and rule by birthright should die with her.
We have not had a decent monarch in this country for 523 years...time enough I think. | |
|
| Should Britain scrap the royals?
Posted: 6/14/2008 12:27:10 AM | The UK has an inherited Head of State (which is not the same as a Head of Government). Personally I would like to live in a nation where anyone born here can aspire to be the Head of State. It won't happen with Bet on the throne, but it looks promising with the replacements.:D
You do know Elizabeth is Head of State in Australia don't you?
The Ozzies are slowly preparing themselves for 'cutting the apron strings' methinks.
"The current Governor-General, Major General Michael Jeffery, said in 2004: "Her Majesty is Australia's head of state but I am her representative and to all intents and purposes I carry out the full role." However, in 2005, he declined to name the Queen as head of state, instead saying in response to a direct question, "The Queen is the Monarch and I represent her, and I carry out all the functions of head of state."[2] The Governor-General represents Australia internationally, making and receiving State visits." | |
|
| Should Britain scrap the royals?
Posted: 6/14/2008 12:55:05 AM | Im a bit dubious about the opening statement
The United nations have said in a report that the UK must consider whether we should keep them.
First off why should the United Nations particularly care what form of government we have in the UK ? Many other UN member states have a monarchy (some of them pretty dictatorial) so if the UN is that bothered (which I dont believe they are) they should start with these places first.
Secondly shouldnt the public of EVERY country Have a discussion from time to time about their nature of their government and not just the UK ?
Anyway I suspect the whole statement is a complete urban myth (probably reported on as fact in some tabloid rag or other) but its amusing to see all the little Englanders jumping onto the "who are the UN to be sticking their nose into our business" bandwagon  | |
|
| Should Britain scrap the royals?
Posted: 6/14/2008 1:32:23 AM | The only thing we should scrap is the human rights act,close our borders an get rid of all the immigrants,asylum seekers,not the royals,no way i want to live in a dictatorship, i know useless coward Brown does regard us as living under a dictatorship.or repulican state. | |
|
| Should Britain scrap the royals?
Posted: 6/14/2008 1:41:43 AM |
get rid of all the immigrants.
Yeah especially all the ones with strange names like Saxe-Coburg-Gotha   | |
|
| Should Britain scrap the royals?
Posted: 6/14/2008 1:43:09 AM | Talk4England
The phrase William and Mary usually refers to the joint sovereignty over the Kingdom of England, as well as the Kingdom of Scotland, of King William III and his wife Queen Mary II, a daughter of James II. Their joint reign began in February, 1689, when they were called to the throne by Parliament, replacing James II, who was "deemed to have fled" the country in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. After Mary died in 1694, William of Orange ruled alone until his death in 1702. Their rule was the only period in British history in which "joint sovereigns" with equal powers were allowed to reign; usually, the spouse of the monarch has no power and is simply a consort.
 | |
|
| Should Britain scrap the royals?
Posted: 6/14/2008 1:58:56 AM | | What no one has mentioned is the role the monarch plays in the division of power. S/he is unelected for that exact reason, there is no hidden agenda with becoming King/Queen. With a republic anyone with connections can become ultimate power in that country, making friends and enemies in the process. They would be in sole command of the police, parliament and the forces. Currently all these answer to the Monarch but s/he has no control over them. It is this division of power that I like. On top of this who would you actually vote for Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown...Sorry Brown's never been elected into office...maybe some other figure, Alan Sugar, Richard Branson. To do this you would also need to have a written constitution...you know like the one the Irish voted no to and we weren’t allowed to have an opinion on, would this constitution also be written by the Europeans for the Europeans like the other constitutions…sorry treaties. There are many arguments for and against the monarch, however I always fall back on the adage…if it aint broke don’t fix it. | |
|
| Should Britain scrap the royals?
Posted: 6/14/2008 2:15:14 AM | Ha ha Hams, the thread is doing fine without input from me, its interesting to read the views, as for me being a Scot hmmm I live life as just being me without a label, as for independance I am independant regardless of where I live, But my view is that the royal family are a waste of time and money, when someone said about the charity work they did and its good, think about it , its our money lol not theirs... So hell yeh I'd give to all charities with someone elses money.
Oh and I wouldn't particularly say am anti royal but i am anti anyone who sits on their a$$ and reaps societies hard earned money | |
|
| Should Britain scrap the royals?
Posted: 6/14/2008 2:27:25 AM | What about the suggestion Ive heard in a couple of places that all members of the Royal Family should have to undergo DNA testing before getting any further public money ?
Im in two minds on this one quite frankly
On the one hand the idea of compulsary DNA testing for anyone is pretty scary
On the other hand If you or I apply for say-Jobseekers allowance we have to prove that we are unemployed, we are looking for work and we are who we say we are.
Members of the Royal family though get state handouts on the basis of who they claim their parents and ancestors to be and nobody thinks of checking to see if these claims are not false or mistaken ? | |
|
| Should Britain scrap the royals?
Posted: 6/14/2008 2:46:53 AM | Angel
Yep I knew about the situation with William & Mary - thats why I pointed it out in response to your comment below:
Ross you can only have a King and Queen when the King is the Heir to the throne and then his wife would be Queen, but a Queen can only have a prince as her husband as a King out ranks a Queen so it's not allowed......hope that makes sense
As we have had so relatively few Queens in this country (I refer to England->UK->UKI) this is a significant portion that had a ruling King with them. I remember reading that Victoria was for making Albert King but his unpopularity/politics with the upper class & parliament stopped that - it was sooo frowned upon that she even gave him the title 'Consort'.
Andy
Sorry Brown's never been elected into office
Nor were the others you mentioned . We don't elect our Prime Ministers - must be USA you are thinking of!
He is Prime Minister by virtue if the fact he leads the Party with the most elected parliamentary representatives. Of course he was elected as a MP for that to be possible.
| |
|
| Should Britain scrap the royals?
Posted: 6/14/2008 4:02:07 AM | | Just speaking on the powers of the monarch - I've read that bills can't become law unless the monarch gives Royal Assent and that Royal Assent hasn't been denied since 1707. Isn't that theoretically political power? Could the Queen exercise that? What would happen if she did? Would that improve her usefulness or make a mess of politics? | |
|
| Should Britain scrap the royals?
Posted: 6/14/2008 4:36:38 AM | Again this is really only for show - for last 300 years - almost exactly - our monarchs have never refused this 'Assent'.
Wouldn't make a monarch more useful. (Are they smart enough for unilateril decision making. Kinda blows in the face of democracy. As did the power of the Lords until the Parliament Act(s). Would be better if we had a finer remodelled/reformed upper house.
Nearly got tested here about 10 years ago over Iraq but not pushed. Government manipulated it to counter a back benchers Bill which would have been dropped due to "10 minutes" probably anyway.
English Civil War II anybody? | |
|
| Should Britain scrap the royals?
Posted: 6/14/2008 4:43:00 AM | He is Prime Minister by virtue if the fact he leads the Party with the most elected parliamentary representatives. Of course he was elected as a MP for that to be possible.
Slight technical point isint he nominated PM by a majority of members of parliament not just because he leads the largest party (In theory parliament could nominate someone who isint even an MP although there is no historic precedent for this) ?
There are a number of possible scenarios (mainly based around a hung parliament) where the leader of the largest party wouldnt automatically become PM among these are:
1) No party secures overall majority. Largest party has 40% of seats Second party has 30% and third party holds balance of power with 25% (independents and small parties having the remaining 5% The Second and third parties agree to form a coalition government and as they have 55% between them they get to nominate the PM (probably but not necessairly the leader of the second largest party)
2) Largest party has 45 % of seats. Forms a government by doing a deal with a smaller party but smaller party has some objection against leader of largest party becoming PM. Leader agrees to step aside (while holding on to Party leader position) and comprimise candate (probably from the largest party) gets nominated as PM
3) Coalition government of two (or more) parties where its agreed that theposition of PM rotates among them.
In thory the queen (or King) chooses the PM and invites him/her to form a government. In practice it would be pointless to invite anyone who couldnt muster the support of at least 50% of MP's as such a PM would be loosing votes in parliament left right and centre and would be pretty much a lame duck. | |
|
| Should Britain scrap the royals?
Posted: 6/14/2008 4:54:27 AM | | Ahh no, don't do it. They may wallow in obscene oppulence but the alternative is too awful to contemplate: an elected head of state with democratic legitimacy pandering to every whim of the people in order to get a few extra votes. I like the fact they connect us along a single unbroken (well ok, occassionally broken) historical narrative. They have no real power, so in my view they are rather harmless. | |
|
| Should Britain scrap the royals?
Posted: 6/14/2008 4:57:24 AM | Much of the legistlation requires the PM to be a MP now. This could be changed - theoretically.
Scenarios are splitting heirs
Should have said has the backing of the largest consenting group of MPs even if influenced by their broader Party considerations.
Monarch chooses PM = window dressing.
they connect us along a single unbroken (well ok, occassionally broken) historical narrative
Ha ha - you are joking. Our royal history is anything but. | |
|
| Should Britain scrap the royals?
Posted: 6/14/2008 5:05:41 AM |
Our royal history is anything but.
Is anything but what? A historical narrative? How can it not be since we've had an hereditary monarch for the last thousand years, separated by the odd abdication and the occassional heroic battlefield slaughter or two.
...scratches head... | |
|
| Should Britain scrap the royals?
Posted: 6/14/2008 5:13:25 AM | Rather than scrapping the Royals outright what about the idea that the institution should be retained but reformed. For example cutting back on the "obscene oppulence" and/or ending the dual role as head of state and head of the Anglican church.
Many other countries which are still monarchies have greatly cut back on the level of pomp and oppulence but yet their royal families remain as popular as ever.
The fact that members of certain religions are barred from being married to members of the British royal family is often used by critics of the institution although many members of the religions in question dont seem particularly bothered ?
And those who do advocate outright abolition of the monarchy tend to be divided on what should replace it (one of the main reasons why Australia voted to keep the monarchy a few years back). | |
|
| Should Britain scrap the royals?
Posted: 6/14/2008 6:44:14 AM | We've had hereditary nonsense for a long time - some would argue more than your arbitary 1000 years. Why pick William as the start - even if you are being English centric with regards to our nation.
Even when not directly cut the hereditary line has been tenuous in the least. With many branches & spurs that should never have been Monarch. Many not 'english'.
Normans & Plantagenets = French remote relations?
Should Stephen, Richard I & John have been king?
Fighting cousins Richard II-> Henry IV - but least they were related - hereditary monarchy & all that!
Oh then the War of the Roses & monarchs switching - hereditary musical chairs.
Richard III killing his nephews.
Should Henry VIII been king ? No not really but that's historical narrative & consistency for you.
Then you get the mess of his children & Lady Jane. Ugh
Then we jump to the vaguely related Stuarts.
Anyway I'm bored but the story gets no better with Dutch & Germans coming from more or less no where to take over the greatest pigs trough in the world.
Sad most people don't really know their past. Just enamoured with the old cult of celebrity that was the crowns & nobility of Europe. Sentimental rubbish. | |
|
| Should Britain scrap the royals?
Posted: 6/14/2008 6:46:01 AM | What I meant was that Gordon Brown was never leader of the party at the time of winning the election. It’s very complicated Iknow, at general elections most people in their minds vote for the leader, the difference in attitude can be seen at bi-elections. Go to an election today and I put money on Brown loosing.
What interests me is what we would call ourselves. United Kingdom is gone straight away as we are no longer a kingdom. Great Britain, well not so Great as the little pieces Scotland, Wales would be part of Europe…May be Little Britain. We certainly would be under more control from Brussels. The EU, wants to turn the UK into a state of the Federal Power of the EUSR(European Union of Socialists Republic) as we know. We would lose our national identity...for King/Queen and country, we would have to swear allegiance to the flag...you know that blue one with gold stars on it. All our Laws would need to be ratified by the European Union, ultimately the new head of state and commander in chief would be the President of Europe, our army would be integrated into the French proposed EU army, even America is warning of the collapse of NATO.
Basically everything you know to be 'British' would be lost, currency and interest rate control, the army, the police under European control, weights and measures, what we call ourselves would be lost. Look at History, every Nation in the World, used to have a Royal Family, but over time they've all disappeared under the socialist manifesto. This isn’t just about the royal family, there is a much larger picture here and our very existence as Great Britain and the United Kingdom is at stake. | |
|
Home
login 
