Britain: Dump the monarchy?

[bhsup]

Would you be happy having such an embodiment of privilege by birth in the US ? We're not talking about just wealth here, but fundamental different treatment in law. I don't think you would..

Certainly not, and that's the beauty of it. I can look with fondness at the tradition of my old mother country while still not having to bow and scrape before some potentate over here.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

Certainly not, and that's the beauty of it. I can look with fondness at the tradition of my old mother country while still not having to bow and scrape before some potentate over here.

Damn. I was getting ready to box her up and ship her out if you'd expressed much of a longing. One partly used monarch, 55 million overly careful and subservient owners, not cheap, but apparently will bring the visitors flocking into Missouri.

(Frankly, having gone around that museum of the west which sits underneath the arch in St Louis, I think you guys need all the help you can get on the tourism front )

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Would you be happy having such an embodiment of privilege by birth in the US ? We're not talking about just wealth here, but fundamental different treatment in law. I don't think you would..

What fundamentally different treatment at law?

 

[Lambert Simnel]

What fundamentally different treatment at law?

I can't remember the last time Tony B checked whether I assented to any bills he wanted to pass. You know, it's just not the same - he doesn't call, he doesn't write me poetry, he doesn't send flowers. Relationships need to be worked at, Tony!

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

I can't remember the last time Tony B checked whether I assented to any bills he wanted to pass. You know, it's just not the same - he doesn't call, he doesn't write me poetry, he doesn't send flowers. Relationships need to be worked at, Tony!

He'll write more when he's jailbird

Besides, he tells the Queen what he wants to do, asks her opinion and then goes and does what he wants regardless. How is the Queen any different therefore from the General population?

 

[Lambert Simnel]

How is the Queen any different therefore from the General population?

Well, we can either look at it from the legal nitpicky side, in which case royal assent and the royal prerogative are options that have never been made open to me (and as you probably know, I am quite keen to start issuing my own passports and taking ownership of any unmarked white swans in the Copford area...). Or, if you feel that doesn't matter in practice (and frankly, I think it does matter, simply in terms of the message we send, and how we regard ourselves), then we can look at what it means in practice - again, I don't get private viewings of Spam-a-lot or any other show I fancy, get roads and streets closed for me, and endless free gifts both from toadying UK manufacturers, and from respectful Johnny Foreigner-types.

She is very different, either from a theoretical standpoint, or a more narrow purely practical one.

If you want to look at it from a purely legal standpoint, think of the difficulties which the Burrell case offered, when the Queen would have been called to give evidence in her own court. Or consider how many royals have been in the dock since 1649 - well, maybe they are purer than pure. Or maybe their misdemeanors would not be taken down that route ? We can but guess...

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Well, we can either look at it from the legal nitpicky side, in which case royal assent and the royal prerogative are options that have never been made open to me (and as you probably know, I am quite keen to start issuing my own passports and taking ownership of any unmarked white swans in the Copford area...).

I'm not sure that they'll let you issue passports once she is gone either. And as you've already pre-empted, it matters not in any event since these prerogative powers are excerised on behalf of the Crown by her Government anyway. You have been consulted on who makes up the Government.

Or, if you feel that doesn't matter in practice (and frankly, I think it does matter, simply in terms of the message we send, and how we regard ourselves), then we can look at what it means in practice - again, I don't get private viewings of Spam-a-lot or any other show I fancy, get roads and streets closed for me, and endless free gifts both from toadying UK manufacturers, and from respectful Johnny Foreigner-types.

I doubt you'll get any of that once she is gone either. It is more likely that those privileges will merely be reserved for whichever socialite we elect as our head of state. Given how many people can actually be arsed to vote for Parliament, who has all the power in Britian, I doubt many people will get up to vote for a Ceremonial Head of State. Unless of course we can have some kind of 'State Idol' on ITV. The new Head of State is therefore likely to be as representative, if not less so, than the Monarchy already in place.

If you want to look at it from a purely legal standpoint, think of the difficulties which the Burrell case offered, when the Queen would have been called to give evidence in her own court. Or consider how many royals have been in the dock since 1649 - well, maybe they are purer than pure. Or maybe their misdemeanors would not be taken down that route ? We can but guess...

The Queen can give evidence in her own court. Her own court can sentence her as well if she did decide to go on a killing spree.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

I doubt you'll get any of that once she is gone either.

Tread softly, for you tread upon my dreams...

Unless of course we can have some kind of 'State Idol' on ITV. The new Head of State is therefore likely to be as representative, if not less so, than the Monarchy already in place.

"State Idol" ? That's a great idea! You know, for a young 'un, you do have some good thoughts! I look forward to when Queen Shilpa is inducted for her first term (or "season" as I think these things are normally called in TV land). If, however, it turns out to be Queen Jade, then I'd respectfully suggest her queenly apartments should be moved to the royalist stronghold of Wigan - I'm sure you'll make her more than welcome.

(PS Not sure how anyone elected could possibly be less representative than the current approach of having a monarch. Unless you mean representative in the sense that she's, say, a white protestant, as are most of her subjects ? (Though, of course, that rather breaks down when we consider how many of those subjects married Greek princes...))

 

[Mega Tsunami]

Or, if you feel that doesn't matter in practice (and frankly, I think it does matter, simply in terms of the message we send, and how we regard ourselves), then we can look at what it means in practice - again, I don't get private viewings of Spam-a-lot or any other show I fancy, get roads and streets closed for me, and endless free gifts both from toadying UK manufacturers, and from respectful Johnny Foreigner-types.

Are you talking about the self-styled First Lady, Mrs Blair, by any chance? Well you could be. Loads of people in the country are in a privileged position, sometimes by marriage, sometimes by birth and sometimes by their own work or luck.

My biggest lack of understanding of Monarchy haters is – Why the hell does all this apparent privilege bother you? Why does it matter? Do you say the same about the children of the likes of McCartney, Jagger, Branson etc.? How the hell does their privilege affect you or anyone else for that matter.

The queen is there by the will of the people, doing a job on our behalf, keeping tabs on the likes of Blair for us. And he knows he has to mind his Ps and Qs because her popularity outweighs his by about 3 or 4 to 1. If he oversteps the mark she could – in theory anyway – pull the plug on Parliament. I am at a complete loss as to why all of this should bother you.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

I wouldn't expect you to understand, MT. I rather suspect you wouldn't want to either, so why don't we just skip any pretence at wanting to understand each other's opinions, and we can go off and spend our time differently ?

 

[Mega Tsunami]

@Lambert

I do try to understand. Here's my take:

I reckon Monarchy haters are a bit like the bunch of Labour MPs who passed that (ill conceived, ill thought through, unenforceable) Fox Hunting Bill. I vividly recall them baying (ironically) like a pack of hounds out for the blood of the ‘Red coated Toffs’ riding their horses on fox hunts. The late Tony Banks even admitted it – the bill was very little to do with foxes and mostly to do with having a go at the Toffs.

Monarchy haters are much the same wouldn’t you say. Little to do with Republicanisms and mostly to do with anti-Monarchy and the hatred for a certain class of people. They just don’t have the cloak of a ‘poor little fox’ to use as a means of getting at the nobs.

That’s my understanding of the situation. Is that fair?

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

If, however, it turns out to be Queen Jade, then I'd respectfully suggest her queenly apartments should be moved to the royalist stronghold of Wigan - I'm sure you'll make her more than welcome.

"Ancient & Loyal" are we

Spoiler :

The motto adopted "Ancient and Loyal" is in keeping with the arms. For a great many years Wigan has on all occasions, official and unofficial, invariably referred to itself as the "Ancient and Loyal Borough," but few are aware that authority for its use can be found in the Charter of Charles II. - the governing charter of the town down to the Municipal Corporations Act of 1835. In that Charter Wigan is designated by the King "an ancient borough" and granted a "special token of our favour for its loyalty to us," so that nothing could be more fitting than its adoption as the town's motto.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

That’s my understanding of the situation. Is that fair?

Nah, it's not.

I apologise if my post was a bit harshly worded, but, quite honestly, I really don't have the perspective of you being someone who is prepared to try to understand and potentially to change their view, at least not in a forum like this. And, hell, even if you were, this isn't a subject I care enough about to debate.

All I was doing was just exchanging fairly light hearted barbs with PoL, which felt at a level of arguing over a pint down the pub. Let's face it, mate, when you an I argue it feels much more like a student union debating hall (at least, it does to me) - maybe it's the ubiquitous Blair digs (Cherie, this time), maybe it's something else. But life's a bit short for this, y'know ?

 

[Mega Tsunami]

@Lambert
Believe it or not, I don’t call myself a Royalist; I am just pragmatic about the whole matter. I don’t bow and scrape to the Queen – I have as much respect for the position of PM as I have for Head of State.
If the Monarchy is doing a good job for Britain (and they are) then great; if not I would, I am sure, view it all differently.

But there is something I lack – I lack that hatred for people in a position of privilege and I don’t know why I lack it.

There is something I do have though and that is: a dislike for people who hate something for no good reason other than their own personal prejudices.

Look no further than the Labour MPs bent on their Anti-Toff-Fox Hunting bill.

 

[Ingvina Freyr]

Ingvina, I think there is logical reasoning there. If you're not satisfied with it, well, I'm not going to bother trying to convince you of it. Frankly, I don't care at all about convincing anyone about the benefit of abolishing the monarchy, because I think there is so much emotional baggage associated with this (in my experience, more on the royalists' side, but so what) that it's not useful discussing.

Discussions do not necessarily have to lead to an agreement to be meaningful. Just listening to other opinions is interesting enough I think.

I am sure your country will stay a monarchy. If you want to try and change that you will have to start caring about convincing others about whatever benefits you see in changing the political system.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

Discussions do not necessarily have to lead to an agreement to be meaningful. Just listening to other opinions is interesting enough I think.

Sometimes, for sure. But that "interesting opinion" is something I'm finding less and less at CfC, to be honest. (No offence intended, and it's not directed at anyone in particular.) And on the British monarchy ? Sorry, but I've heard all of the royalist views before - not surprisingly (and without suggesting it is a reason per se for demerit in their arguments) they haven't changed very much in the last 30 or 40 years.

I am sure your country will stay a monarchy. If you want to try and change that you will have to start caring about convincing others about whatever benefits you see in changing the political system.

There are many things I care more about than the monarchy or lack thereof. And my chosen vehicle for convincing people towards any given societal reform certainly isn't CfC

 

[Lambert Simnel]

@Lambert
Believe it or not, I don’t call myself a Royalist; I am just pragmatic about the whole matter. I don’t bow and scrape to the Queen – I have as much respect for the position of PM as I have for Head of State.
If the Monarchy is doing a good job for Britain (and they are) then great; if not I would, I am sure, view it all differently.

But there is something I lack – I lack that hatred for people in a position of privilege and I don’t know why I lack it.

There is something I do have though and that is: a dislike for people who hate something for no good reason other than their own personal prejudices.

Look no further than the Labour MPs bent on their Anti-Toff-Fox Hunting bill.

OK, so you don't have a particular viewpoint on the monarchy as such. You just wanted to label one group of people and dismiss their views, throw in a couple of anti-Labour gibes, and be merrily on your way ? Well, fine, but don't expect me to warm to discussing any of it with you

 

[Rossiya]

If the Monarchy is doing a good job for Britain (and they are) then great; if not I would, I am sure, view it all differently.

How can the monarchy of today be doing a "job", let alone a good job? Do they really do anything productive that Blair couldn't?

 

[Goonie]

I disagree.

From all accounts, the Queen never exits a limousine wearing no knickers...

Much to the chagrin of this poor colonist...

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Sorry, but I've heard all of the royalist views before - not surprisingly (and without suggesting it is a reason per se for demerit in their arguments) they haven't changed very much in the last 30 or 40 years.

Told you you were old

How can the monarchy of today be doing a "job", let alone a good job? Do they really do anything productive that Blair couldn't?

Posted this before but here it is again.

I would much rather let Blair get on with running the country and leaving tea with the King George's Fund for Sailors to others.