Time to get rid of the Monarchy?

[Uncle Paul]

So, just maybe, the crimes extend beyond the Boer War

Also since she, as monarch, is supposed to embody Britain and British sovereignty is invested in her person, how is she not responsible for the actions of the officials of what is referred to, literally, as Her government?

Every country has done bad things, even South Africa. No country is perfect, that doesn't mean that all countries and their sovereigns should be hated.

 

[Takhisis]

OK, so basically we have one person who says that the reason for Great Britain to have an unaccountable monarch as head of a family who, between crown possessions and personal possessions of the family, probably has over a hundred thousand million quid in assets, and in fact refers to itself as a business a.k.a. the firm IS simply to legitimise white supremacist rule in South Africa to return to the good old days where women did all the good things like shut up, start breeding early rather than get a decent job or education, not breastfeed in public and be white.

I suppose we can all take such argumentation for its true worth and then move on.

 

[Uncle Paul]

OK, so basically we have one person who says that the reason for Great Britain to have an unaccountable monarch as head of a family who, between crown possessions and personal possessions of the family, probably has over a hundred thousand million quid in assets, and in fact refers to itself as a business a.k.a. the firm IS simply to legitimise white supremacist rule in South Africa to return to the good old days where women did all the good things like shut up, start breeding early rather than get a decent job or education, not breastfeed in public and be white.

I suppose we can all take such argumentation for its true worth and then move on.

You sure love your strawmen, don't you?

 

[Arakhor]

What does this mean?

Just that. A monarchy doesn't magically stabilise a country: having a respected, long-lasting head of state does that, and that usually means a monarch, due to not having to be reelected.

 

[Takhisis]

You sure love your strawmen, don't you?

I don't like them, which is why I won't have any truck with or try to meet you halfway on your ridiculous ideas.

 

[schlaufuchs]

Just that. A monarchy doesn't magically stabilise a country: having a respected, long-lasting head of state does that, and that usually means a monarch, due to not having to be reelected.

Does a respected, long-lasting head of state produce stability? Or does a stable country produce heads of state who are perceived as being respected and long-lasting?

 

[Takhisis]

Does a respected, long-lasting head of state produce stability? Or does a stable country produce heads of state who are perceived as being respected and long-lasting?

If you believe that the monarch is the embodiment, the channeler of the country, then the monarch might just catch the aura of the country itself.

 

[Ajidica]

Does a respected, long-lasting head of state produce stability? Or does a stable country produce heads of state who are perceived as being respected and long-lasting?

Yes.

Former President Richard M. Nixon said today that Generalissimo Francisco Franco earned worldwide respect for Spain through “firmness and fairness.”

“General Franco [ed: still dead] was a loyal friend and ally of the United States,” Mr. Nixon said in a statement. He added: “After a tragic and bloody civil war; he brought Spain back to economic recovery. He unified a divided nation through a policy of firmness and fairness toward those who had fought against him.”

The statement by Mr. Nixon, who lives in nearby San Clemente, was telephoned to The San Diego Union.

 

[Takhisis]

Remember that Nixon was not a crook.

 

[schlaufuchs]

Yes.

XOR

 

[Farm Boy]

“Refraining from weighing in on politics,” is itself a political act, particularly when you have power and wealth.

I've been thinking on this. Does it help to have somebody with enough means to usually do worse actually standing there and essentially saying, "Through my fault. Through my fault. Through my most grevious fault." ? Action, even with the best of intention, also has cost all its own.

I get not liking the aesthetics. But perhaps missing that particular feature makes one at least a little sensitive to it.

 

[Lexicus]

Just that. A monarchy doesn't magically stabilise a country: having a respected, long-lasting head of state does that, and that usually means a monarch, due to not having to be reelected.

Do you respect King Charles III?

 

[Farm Boy]

He's worth more in that regard, perhaps, than our quasi-king, spending half a trillion to awash the richest half(but heads of household with annual incomes over 250,000 don't qualify!) without even passing a bill through the budgetary branch of government. All hail the State! How do we phrase that line of the relevant song... "let freedom ring?"

 

[AmazonQueen]

Just that. A monarchy doesn't magically stabilise a country: having a respected, long-lasting head of state does that, and that usually means a monarch, due to not having to be reelected.

The trouble is you are as likely to end up with a long-lived buffoon as head of state if you have a monarchy.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Whereas the monarchist two-step game of "they still get the inherited titles, power, and powers of their ancestors but can't be held to account for their ancestors' crimes" quickly grows tiresome; as does the related two-step of "the monarch has no real power and doesn't affect political outcomes, but also monarchy magically ensures political stability"

There's nothing magical about it; just like anything else, that needs to be worked at.

What does this mean?

From a Canadian perspective, it lets the country keep functioning while some people keep kicking around ideas to change the Constitution to remove the monarchy from our government.

Thing is, though, constitutional reform requires a lot of people to agree. It's not easy to get that many people to agree to anything in this country. It's even worse than the pineapple-on-pizza issue on CFC. We'll never all agree on that, either. Just be grateful that a whole government doesn't hinge on it.

So?

So you seem to be rather stuck in a narrow span of time and space.

This is not traditional, though, this comes from the last couple of decades. It would be unthinkable to a Canadian from 1922. It's sad the way Canada bends over backwards for Amerindians these days.

Canada's grown up a bit socially since 1922.

Just replace it with Die Stem, which is a far superior anthem anyway.

I gave it a listen. Had to cover my ears. The video had nice elephants in it, though. I like elephants.

Besides, Google tells me it hasn't been your anthem since the '90s, or at least not the exclusive one.

A language that isn't from the founding stock. In Canada, languages other than English and French are foreign, and French is only not foreign in French Canada...it's foreign in Vancouver. Multiculturalism makes life worse for the founding stock of a country.
Diversity, Inclusion, Equity = DIE
I don't want to see countries DIE.

Since I rather doubt you've ever been to Vancouver, it's impossible to take seriously any assertions you make about that region. French is present in every province of the country.

You really would be happier on a deserted island by yourself. Everyone there would think exactly like you.

Obviously, I prefer the less tolerant emperors.

Obviously. I guess Caligula's your favorite, then? I'll admit that John Hurt did a hell of a job portraying him in I, Claudius, but it doesn't change the fact that Caligula was one of the more evil historical figures.

His comments were legendary, and I wish that more public figures said that kind of stuff. It's a breath of fresh air. Prince Philip was based.

You wish more public figures made bigoted jackasses of themselves in public. Okay.

stuff

Your proselytizing is not required. Though it is true that if any of the UCP politicians in my province needed my help, I'd walk on past them and offer a comment referencing karma. After all, they don't care about people like me.

Their tribal "religions" are actually false cults, and their political independence should have been dissolved generations ago. It's time for them to assimilate and play by the same rules as everyone else. No special considerations.

Any belief system that seeks to separate its worshipers from their money in order to enrich its leaders is a cult. I've yet to hear that this is something the indigenous faiths practice.

1. He had every right to care how his great-grandchildren looked
2. It was more likely Queen Camilla who said it

What difference would it make if Archie were black, white, or plaid? He's a little kid who doesn't deserve anyone's contempt, least of all yours.

Camilla is not Queen. She will never be a real Queen.

Well, then I guess the Amerindians aren't really native to North America, either, so you just wasted a lot of posts defending them.

Did I ever say they evolved in North America? No. Of course they didn't, though their ancestors arrived over 14,000 years ago according to the archaeological record. That doesn't mean I'm in favor of cultural genocide.

You've demonstrated a remarkable ability to completely miss the point. I don't know whether to shake my head in bemusement or congratulate you.

That's unfortunate. If you needed to borrow words, you could have at least borrowed from Afrikaans.

Apparently there are words I use that come from that language. But they aren't relevant to the same words we've borrowed from indigenous languages. Of what use would words related to our climate and natural environment be, coming from a language used in a part of the world with a totally different climate and environment?

 

[Arakhor]

Do you respect King Charles III?

I respect the office. He's hardly had time to do anything as King to change that opinion.

The trouble is you are as likely to end up with a long-lived buffoon as head of state if you have a monarchy.

Well, yes, but for the last century, that's been reserved for our government. If that changes, then my opinion would likely change too.

Camilla is not Queen. She will never be a real Queen.

She will never be a queen in the same way her mother-in-law was, but she's just as much a queen as Queen Mary or the Queen Mother were.

 

[Takhisis]

^Well yes, there you're distinguishing between queen consort and queen regnant.

 

[Traitorfish]

And how is that a bad thing? Why should royals be expected to keep their political views hidden?

I don't particularly think they should keep their views hidden. (I think that a lot of Britons have deluded themselves into thinking that they can have the trappings of monarch but the substance of a republic.) But you claimed that the British monarchy is apolitical, and that's a claim that deserves scrutiny.

 

[Takhisis]

I think that there's a useful distinction to be made here: one thing is the monarchs keeping their opinions to themselves and another is the ridiculous pretence that they do not have one.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I think that there's a useful distinction to be made here: one thing is the monarchs keeping their opinions to themselves and another is the ridiculous pretence that they do not have one.

Of course they have opinions. They've been overheard airing them on occasion, even the Queen. It's just expected that they keep them private.