Organization of the State

[FredLC]

In the discussion about the World Cup in the "sports forum", someone pointed out that he was sad about the elimination of England because he wanted them to win and dedicated the victory to Her Majesty, the Queen.

Someone else answered that the team should play for the people, not the Queen, because she is just a woman with the luck of have being born heir to the throne.

The replay was polite but inflamed, and I’ll quote here so you guys can have the exact notion:

"What is special about the Queen"?

She is my monarch, my sovereign, the defender of my faith, and my liege. I do not mock your government, beliefs, or religion. Please extend a similar courtesy towards me also.

Well, i do not have the intention to mock or disrespect, but having lived my entire life in a republic, that kind of concept sounded weird to me. To voluntarily define yourself as a "subject to the majesty", not as a "citizen". It sounds subservient.

At the same time, I am forced to admit that, subservient or not, the regular English citizen has a far better living condition than the regular Brazilian. Well, IMHO, the well being of a person is far more important than the denomination of how you position yourself before your government.

So, I’m proposing a discussion about the forms of state and government, to what extent they were important in history of humanity, the good and bad points each have and if any of then is intrinsically better than the others.

I’d like to hear, specially, the perspective of people that does lives in Monarchies.

What do you guys have to say about it?

 

[elfstorm]

In normal day to day life living under a monarch is no different than under a president - you just do your thing and don't worry about it.

I kinda worry about people who get overly patriotic about the Queen though, they don't seem to have a very firm grip on reality. I mean calling her the 'defender of the faith' geez, what an out moded concept! (For those of you who don't know the Queen is supposed to be the defender of the Anglican faith. Not Presbyterian, or any other religion common in Britain).

I guess I'm not really a monarchist, but then when I look at the various Republic's around the world I can't say any of them strike me as significantly better places to live.

 

[Ozz]

I can understand it.

It's a GIVEN loyality, Being English he can say scr*w the Queen
He has the freedom to do so, Or He can be indifferient, or he
can be as he is.

Being a "subject of her majesty" simply means being a free
Englishman.

What he says sounds subservient to you?. It doesn't sound
any more subservient to me that the way I have heard some
Americans talk about the US President or Catholics the Pope.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Now it is time for the man whose statement sparked this to put in his bit - me.

First of all, one is not English, but Australian. Thus, as well as being an Australian citizen, I am also a subject of the Crown. This in the end has no practical impact upon one's life, apart from the prefix "Royal" being placed before the name of various institutions.

I do feel a pronounced loyalty and affection towards the institution of the Monarchy, and the current monarch.

And my reply was not "polite but inflamed", but rather polite and firm; the reply of a gentleman.

One is not subservient, but part of a social order that is good and proper. One is proud of one's heritage and aristocratic background, and am not inclined whatsoever towards bolshy notions that people are equal, and all that. Add that to a good and proper fascist political allegiance, and ye can begin to understand my case.

I pity those who have to dwell in undignified tin pot republics and democracies, but rest assured that we are working on fixing that.

"I kinda worry about people who get overly patriotic about the Queen though, they don't seem to have a very firm grip on reality. I mean calling her the 'defender of the faith' geez, what an out moded concept!"

One cannot be 'patriotic about the Queen'; ye can be patriotic over a country. Anyway, 'Defender of the Faith' is one of her titles, making her head of the Anglican Church, which is another role that makes Her Majesty different in my view than some commoner off the streets.

Anyway, God Save the Queen, and Heil Myself!

 

[magic-monkey]

Wasn't the title "defender of the faith" originally granted to Henry VIII by the papacy for writing a treatise denouncing Martin Luther? It therefore, ironically enough, referred to catholicism rather than making the ruler "head of the Anglican church". I assume this title has been maintained in order to reinforce the role of the monarch as head of all aspects of the state, however inappropriate its origins.

There has been talk of modifying it to "defender of the faiths" in order to keep up with the times. Monarchy is perhaps the only institution which could think that stronger links with religion = a bold step into the modern world.

FredLC, i assure you that our evil friend's views are not typical of majority of the queen's "subjects".

 

[allhailIndia]

Well we kicked the queen and all her subjects out 55 years back, so you know where my sympathies lie


Hey Simon, I'm BACK

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by allhailIndia
Well we kicked the queen and all her subjects out 55 years back, so you know where my sympathies lie


Hey Simon, I'm BACK

On the contrary, the British got out of an area that was more trouble to them than it was worth. If it was worthwhile, they would have kept it. It is simply a matter of political will.

Anyway, decolonization has been an unmitigated non-success.

And who are you anyway? I'm not supposed to talk to strangers.

 

[knowltok2]

I believe the notion goes: It is absurd that an island should rule a continent.

This will work well for Simon, as he is covered in either case.

Undignified tin pot republics indeed! Is that any way to refer to loyal allies and members of your cabinet? Are there not better targets for your evil?

 

[Rodgers]

I think the downside to living in a monarchy is it perpetuates (in some) the idea that the aristocracy and Royal Family are somehow above us normal folk. Thereby generating snobbery etc to a higher level than it might otherwise be (I'm aware there are snobs in every society but perhaps more here)

If I told the Queen to f*ck off to her face I imagine I might somehow end up in jail or at least in very deep trouble, whereas if it was said to a president I doubt much would happen. I dont really want to say that to her (I dont really mind her as a concept etc) but there is an aura of "sanctity" about her which is a bit annoying - a slight restircition of my "freedom" i suppose.

 

[Thuloid]

What's the big deal here? We're talking about a person whose main functions are to open shopping malls, christen boats and wave slowly to crowds.

I actually feel fairly sorry for Liz 2 the Revenge. How sad to have your role in life and social circle so predetermined. I wonder how she considers her own life (what she sees as her main function, her contribution to the world).

 

[HotDog Fish]

Well she's our queen to, umm..she doesn't do much actually, she's a fugure head, kind of like how Tony the Tiger is Frosted Flakes mascot!

 

[SKILORD]

she's a fiuregead. Leave her alone, let her do her thing because it's not like you have to live in constant fear that she'll hike taxes or make forced lons on you. The British Government is to all practical purpouses a republic.