With an ailling queen the question of ascension wonce again arises.
Unlike our previous monarchs such as George V the present heirs seem light headed with little respect from the public.
I a monarchist myself see a possible an opening for a usurper.
Charles: He is an adulterer and divorcee making him easily discreditable.
Andrew: Though slightly rambunctous he seems the most likely to take the throne.
Edward: a want to be actor he does not seem a good choice.
On top this the Hanoverein or Windsor line are without a good blood connection to the Tudors being brought in by the parlimentary revolution of 1700.
The Stuarts, could make a comeback.:confused:

Tony Blair will seize the crown or something. Well, if you believe the Daily Mail, that is.

Come on, grow up!
Monarchy is even more outdated then communism !
Get a life, get a republic !

"Get a life, get a republic !"

Don't the Dutch still have a monarchy?

"Andrew: Though slightly rambunctous he seems the most likely to take the throne."

Most likely? Do you not know how the monarchy works? It is the eldest son that succeeds, which would be Charles.

Personally I see this as my chance to remove the monarchy and place myself as the duly elected head of Britain. So from now on refer to me as MrPresident.....wait you already do.

Originally posted by MrHMS
"Get a life, get a republic !"

Don't the Dutch still have a monarchy?



I knew this was going the come:lol:

edit: Glad to see you agree with me though :goodjob:

Originally posted by Charles XII
Unlike our previous monarchs such as George V the present heirs seem light headed with little respect from the public.
That's the basic problem with monarchies; even if your successor is an idiot, he'll still get to be king simply by virtue of getting born in the right family. :rolleyes:

Ah it don't matter about who is the King or Queen. They ain't got any power. I just want there to be a King with some reasonably good looking daughters so some of us guys will have a princess or two to pine after. Like the brit chicks pine after those frat boy princes yall got in England.

Disband the monarch and all heir-appointed lords.

Republic.

Never thought I'd agree with rmsharpe on something, and I'm sure he is equally surprised. :p

God Save the Queen!

One is a loyal aristocrat, and scoffs at republican treason.:p

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Disband the monarch and all heir-appointed lords.

Yes, you should do something about the Bushs and the Kennedys.

"Get a life, get a republic !"


Don't be daft, the UK is a Parlimentary Republic and might I add a better funtioning won than America's.


The US's "democracy" is in need of serious reform.

In america more than half the populace doesn't vote.

There are only two parties with any prospects for succses.

There system is one in which there is no real hope for third party to make serious gains since there are nurmerous laws made in favor of the ones in power.

They have supreme court with massive powers oppointed by the government.

Their minister of defence would become president if a mere three or four of the more senior ministers were eliminated.

Their decentralized state means the laws such as abortion, gun control and minimum wage, which should be an integral part of a nation's moral beliefs vary wiedly from state to state.

Their recognized press and historians perpetuate a history filled with inaccuracies and rationalizations which have been Known for centuries.

Their military and the CIA are given massive budjets and are scantily responsible to the people.

Their goverment is controlled by business elite's on whose funding the parties require for campaining.

They have excedingly weak laws in regards to the enviroment, resources managment and idustry controls.

The president and ministers are given radically dangerous powers in emergency situations.

And finally they have trouble passing the very bills nessecary for reform because of the abilities of their upper chamber to tag on additions to bills before they get to the vote.

America also has problems with it's mentality in relation to it's foreign policies.
They give the apperance of disreagard for foreign treaties, such as their movments towards constuction of a SDI defense system, the Kyoto Accords and the breaking of various trade agrements, for example their one sided polices toward canada with which they have a free trade agrement, they for several years now have been banning a large portion of canadian patatoe exports because one farmers crop had a mild disease infection, their massives subsides of native farmers which now are nearly double that of canada and their tariffs against canadian softwood lumber which is little more subsidised than american lumber.

America's econimc health depends on both foreign envestment and imports made with a grossly overvalued dollar. A great economic collapse is nearing which we must prepare ourselves for.

America has turned from being the most progressive country in the world to being the most backward western country due to lack of substantial reform since it's inception. America is no longer a country which can subsist on laws promoting the raping of natural resources and the opputunistic merchantile class which gave it it's independence. America needs reform and it needs it now. America must learn to become a responsible member of the global community.

God bless America I say not only for America but for the rest of the world.:love:




On another note...




"Ah it don't matter about who is the King or Queen. They ain't got any power. "


The monarchy still has power, they can refuse to pass laws in the parliments of both britain and the comonwealth they can unduly influence the vote by presenting their oppinions in parliment, with their sizebale fortune they could by up several press institutions and they still hold a respected, sentimental place in the hearts of the masses.

I apolagize for any gramatical errors in the above document.

They have the ablity to destroy themsleves you mean. The monarchy has the power but cannot use it. If they use it the Monarchy well be destroyed. They can only persuade parliament if the parliament agrees with there rational agurement. So an idiot well do no harm cause they want lissen to him. If money is there power they are no more influential then big business. If you think their money well sawy parliament then your parliament must be as curropt as our congress.

the supreme court is the very thing that keeps the Fu***** system in balance. The american system works and adapts. So what if we are not tree hugging socialist. We are getting better and are no were near as bad as the Commies. And admit it your health care system is falling apart too. There is nothing wrong with our military. Have seen any coups happen in America. No. if a general wants to be Pres. he just makes himself a hero and runs like everyone else. We have had a couple and none of them have been a problem.

"Get a life, get a republic !"

Originally posted by Charles XII

Don't be daft, the UK is a Parlimentary Republic and might I add a better funtioning won than America's.


Question: are there any non-parlementary Republics?

Is the UK not a parlementary Monarchy?

Originally posted by germanos
Question: are there any non-parlementary Republics?

Yes, Presidential republics (USA, France).

The UK is not a parliamentary (or any other form of) Republic, it's a constitutional monarchy and a monarchy is per definition something different from a republic.

Thanks Hitro, just what I was looking for !:goodjob:


So much for being daft...:rolleyes:

@ Charles XII

I have some disagreements with some of your points, but I can understand your concern on some issues. Thank you for presenting this rationally and intelligently as opposed to a long and bitter rant about how much America sucks as I have seen at other times.

"Their minister of defence would become president if a mere three or four of the more senior ministers were eliminated."

Ok, disregarding for a minute the inherent disrespect in this comment for anyone who has ever served in their country's military, how likely do you think it is that a 'mere' three or four senior ministers (cabinet members) are going to be killed or incapacitated? And would you prefer that the Secretary of Agriculture become President first? All Cabinet members are voted on by the Senate, so its not exactly like he's appointed out of nowhere...

"Their decentralized state means the laws such as abortion, gun control and minimum wage, which should be an integral part of a nation's moral beliefs vary wiedly from state to state."

There IS a minimum wage mandated by the federal government, but I guess you refer to the state's ability to raise that amount.

I personally would be MORE worried if my country tried to dictate my moral beliefs. Yet you also complain about the far-reaching powers of the presidency during emergencies and the Judicial branches power. So do you want bigger Federal Government or not? The fact that Europeans prefer larger governments than Americans does not necessarily make you right. I for one prefer SMALLER government, because I think that the people should be able to make up their minds for themselves. Remember here that some of our states (cough *California* cough) are bigger than many countries so why should Senators from Rhode Island make decisions for people living in LA or San Fransisco?

"There are only two parties with any prospects for succses."

This is a legitmate point, as well as the point about half of the population not voting, but we have at least one governor and several members of Congress who are Independent Party candidates. A possible factor for this difference from European politics may be that Americans generally disregard the extremists of both ends of the political spectrum, whether they be hard-line communists or neo-Nazis. This necessarily eliminates serious contention by those candidates for major offices. You can still vote for the Communist candidate in a Presidential election, but be aware that the vast majority of Americans have rejected the ideas of the fringes of the political spectrum.

"They have supreme court with massive powers oppointed by the government."

They are appointed to allow them to make fair judgement without worrying about having to be re-elected. They are appointed by a legally elected President, and approved by a legally elected Senate, so it's not like you can get anyone on the Supreme Court.

"Their military and the CIA are given massive budjets and are scantily responsible to the people."

It's actually a fairly small fraction of the budget. Still a lot of money, but not much in proportion to all the money that is spent.

In response to roadwarrior

History has proven that military leaders should be trusted no more than politicians.
Powell and almost all previous defense ministers have been a member of the military at one point or another making them more likley to support the dogma of their piers. The possibility of prominient heads being somehow induced to cede power is a definite possibility. the defense minister is often given a riding which steadily supports the party in question and his battle laurles surley influence the ballot, if this fails the party could get a lesser member to abdicate his riding in favour of him.

The federal minimum wage is not enough for somone to subsist by.
All nations inforce moral beliefs, by way of their constitution and laws. Some desicions towards important issues should be made by the entire country if they whish to present themselves as being united. A nations culture and morals are it's matter.
Morals make law. Without law you have anarchy.

The powers of the presedincy to infringe liberty are a different thing than a lack of judicial (as in law making) consistincy.

America and it's media are creating, or have created a monoculture, culture is what normally decides the border between countries.



My country elects independents too, but it's about a tenth the size of america.

Perhaps the reason why people aren't voting is because there isn't any group that represents their beliefs, or because they believe their vote wouldn't matter.

I tend to regard the extreme right and left wings as being the same thing. As both tend to become totalitarian and are supported by people who believe the movement to be a solution for all their (and soceity's) ills.

Remember, many people in the world now regard parts of both the Democratic and the Republicans as being extremist.





Would it not be more logical if the supreme court was replaced by a jury of lesser judges. The judicial system should be an indifferent body representing the scrulples of soceity, it should not have to worry about appointment by politicians which themselves are greatly influenced by the supreme court. An oppointment by politicians is essentially the same thing as election.
As to the appointment of judges, why wouldn't a self perpetuating olligarchy work. (computer can't make question mark.)


You may have a massive budjet, but 350 billion dollars is not what I call a small amount of money. I've recently read that the american military is continuing developments of weapons of mass destruction. I've also read from a more reliable source that America tested viral weapons on North Korea during the war.

Why does America need such a large budjet to "Defend Democracy" when the western democracies can defend themselves, and every where else they have a notorius record of installing dictators to protect their own military saftey and economic interests.

In response to germanos and Hitro

True the UK is by definition a Parliamentary Monarchy.
However, my point in using republic was to show that it was a full fledged democracy and yet different from a Presidential Republic.
For example britain and the comomnwealth have a Paliament rather than a House of Representitives and that the UK has a prime minister rather than a president etc.
Besides the monarchy plays little role in the offairs of parliment of both Britain and the Comonwealth. They are essentially Republics.

We all be daft anyway, aye.;)

In response to Demetrias.

I agree with you as to the colonies.
However, I think you underestimate the persuasion power the monarchy has with influential individuals and the populace at large. The monarchy could sway the vote substantially, especially over singular issues.

Money is power.
Having no more power than big business is power enough.

All man is inherently corrupt. Each man byastly goes about his live in self seeking fear. It is everyones responsibility to counterbalance the byasts of others with their own and watch teir representitives with a keen eye.
This problem will not be solved till the end of our age.







I didn't say you souldn't have a supreme court, I said you should reform it.

I would not be so conceited towards the stability of America, they have all the components needed for the creation of a extremeist state. They have a strong and culturally edited press, they have a belief in their place as head of the "free world", they an immpending economic crises on the horizen, their economy depends on foreign trade and their security has been tarnished recently. there is also the treat of business elites using a "red scare" to prevent the formation of egalitarian parties.

And I'd like to remind you that the best and worst thing about a democracy is that it is terribly inefficient when it comes to adaptation, preventing anything less than a long term cultural change to disrupt the norm.

I'm from the Commonwealth, and we have a better health care system than Britain, ours is in decay to, but America never really had what I would call a health care program.
True the US hasn't had any coups, (which would be hard to have since there are so many small arms in circulation) but a general who holds presidential office for several termes through prestige is almost as bad.

I'll be the judge of my daftness, thank you.

Since you claim Britain is in fact a Republic (which I do not agree with), why your badmouthed reply?

Secondly, since you care to think the monarch has no power/influence, what is the point of keeping him/her? And again, why do you scoff at people who think Monarchies (in any form) are outdated and should go, when I have heard from you only excelent reasons to disband the Monarchy?

Thirdly, there is more choice between the English Monarchy and a Presidential Republic. Look at Gemany for instance. A republic, a president, but still the prime-minister calls the shots.

I am in great favor of a 'German Republic' (and if I understood Hitro well, I should call that a parliamentary republic) to replace the constitutional monarchy in the Netherlands. Not only for historic reasons (monarchy was established after the Napoleontic wars, whereas the birth of the Netherlands as an independent nation resulted in a republic (parliamentery)), but for the mere fact that the monarch HAS power, although (very) limited, and that recently, with the royal wedding and all, it was shown very clearly that in order to 'maintain' the democracy, the goverment had to take quite a few bends to let it go through. It was a rediculous performance, and a disgrace.
It is quite good to have a system where the prime-minister is the primary power, and to have a head of state to keep him/her in check (for as far parliament is not capable of doing that), I think it is rediculously outdated that this person must arrive at this position through heritary succession.

I think your poll shows just that.

There are only two parties with any prospects for success.

and in the UK there are only two parties with realistic prospects as well, since the Liberal Democrats shouldn't really count.
I suppose there are the Welsh and Scots nats, but they're losing
ground since devolution.
It comes from utilising first past the post, i suppose.

In response to magic-monkey

I did not say the UK had a good democracy.
Their reason for only having two strong parties is because, like America they lak a percentage based government and instead rely on ridings.
It comes from utilising first past the post, i suppose
What does "It comes from utilising first past the post, i suppose" mean.

In response to germanos

I hope you don't take any offense from my posts, I mean none by them.

It seems you don't realize the hypocracies of modern monarchists.
I do not scoff at anyone. I'm sorry if it seemed as such.

The monarchy provides a passtime for many Brits, it raises moral in times of difficulty and serve as an excellent wing of the diplomatic corp.

The monarchy still has power, for example partly because of facists within the royal house Britain almost made peace with germany in June of '40.

Remember that though the Prime Pinister of Germany is a powerful figure Germany also has a Chancellor and a President,




According to the Oxford Dictionary a Republic is:A state in which the main power rests in the people or their elected representitives or officers, as opposed to one ruled by a king or similar ruler; a common wealth... or Any community of persons, animals etc., in which there is a certain equality among the members.

The Windsors were placed in power by popular consent and the vast majority of her subjects would not disband her.

I don't now about you, but I think this fits the UK.



There is no such thing as a Parlimentary Republic I merely used this arrangment of words to emphasize that Britain was a republic but different from America's. I'm sorry if this wasn't clear.

I agree that Hereditary succsesion is a bad way to assign power.
I am in favor of a more or less Diocletian system in which the monarch oppoints their heir rather then automatic assencion of the eldest child.

However, I tend to be of a favorable oppinion towards the dutch monarch since every year my hometown is showered in Tulips bought at their expense.



I appologize for the poll Hanover was meant to be Stuart

Let 'em keep their royalty. They elect all the officials that matter.