Time to get rid of the Monarchy?

Should the UK get rid of the Monarchy?

  • Yes

    Votes: 33 42.3%
  • No

    Votes: 26 33.3%
  • Radioactive monkeys should rule all countries

    Votes: 19 24.4%

  • Total voters
    78
Do monarchists believe that Charles III was appointed by God to reign over the Commonwealth?
Depends. But I just go with that it originated with "bigger army diplomacy" sometime in 1066 (Gotta start somewhere) to the rules that were established during the long history since 1066.

(Note the video was published in 2015 and the author hasn't gotten around to updating it to reflect Elizabeth II's passing and Charles III inheriting the crown. Though he does mention that the crown would pass onto William and then to George)
 
Last edited:
Does William Prince of Wales need to learn Welsh and speak it during a speech?
Absolutely not. The Prince of Wales thing is all about reminding the Welsh of their status as a conquered people, and how any self determination was taken from them in a scam. This is how is started:

He [Edward I, in 1301] called the Welshmen togither, declaring unto them, that whereas they were oftentimes suters unto him to appoint them a Prince, he now having occasion to depart out of the countrie, would name them a Prince, if they would allow and obey him whom he should name. To the which motion they answered that they would so doo, if he would appoint one of their owne nation to be their Prince: whereunto the king replied, that he would name one that was borne in Wales, and could speake never a word of English, whose life and conversation no man was able to staine. And when they all had granted that such a one they would obey, he named his owne sonne Edward borne in Caernarvon castell a few daies before.​

Historie of Cambria, now called Wales, by David Powel (1584)
 
Even if one did believe that James VI & I and his heirs were appointed by God, the succession has been long regulated by Act of Parliament, thus the monarchs are appointed by law and fate (acts of God, if you will), rather than direct divine appointment.
 
Even if one did believe that James VI & I and his heirs were appointed by God, the succession has been long regulated by Act of Parliament, thus the monarchs are appointed by law and fate (acts of God, if you will), rather than direct divine appointment.

Exactly. The question is, did God cause Charles III to be Elizabeth II's heir, and did God cause Elizabeth to die so that Charles could inherit the throne?
 
God moves in mysterious ways!
 
They can become president though.
In BoJo's very specific case, I think he could do both.

And so could Donald Trump.

(shudders)
Do monarchists believe that Charles III was appointed by God to reign over the Commonwealth?
The question is, did God cause Charles III to be Elizabeth II's heir, and did God cause Elizabeth to die so that Charles could inherit the throne?
Well, she would have replied that indeed there was divine right.
 
I'm pretty sure Krishna approves of Charles being King.
 
The Mau Mau Revolt led to harsh tactics, as a response to an unlawful revolt against the authorities.
At the risk of piling on, why was the appropriate response to the Mau Mau to basically open concentration camps, but not the appropriate response to Rhodesia entering into and organized revolt against both the British government and British state?
On 27 July 1959, Powell delivered a speech on the Hola Camp of Kenya, where eleven Mau Mau were killed after refusing work in the camp. Powell noted that some MPs had described the eleven as "sub-human", but Powell responded by saying: "In general, I would say that it is a fearful doctrine, which must recoil upon the heads of those who pronounce it, to stand in judgement on a fellow human being and to say, 'Because he was such-and-such, therefore the consequences which would otherwise flow from his death shall not flow'."[102]: 206–207  Powell also disagreed with the notion that because it was in Africa, different methods were acceptable:

Nor can we ourselves pick and choose where and in what parts of the world we shall use this or that kind of standard. We cannot say, "We will have African standards in Africa, Asian standards in Asia and perhaps British standards here at home". We have not that choice to make. We must be consistent with ourselves everywhere. All Government, all influence of man upon man, rests upon opinion. What we can do in Africa, where we still govern and where we no longer govern, depends upon the opinion which is entertained of the way in which this country acts and the way in which Englishmen act. We cannot, we dare not, in Africa of all places, fall below our own highest standards in the acceptance of responsibility.[102]: 207 
Denis Healey, a member of parliament from 1952 to 1992, later said this speech was "the greatest parliamentary speech I ever heard ... it had all the moral passion and rhetorical force of Demosthenes".[114] The Daily Telegraph report of the speech said that "as Mr Powell sat down, he put his hand across his eyes. His emotion was justified, for he had made a great and sincere speech".[115]
 
At the risk of piling on, why was the appropriate response to the Mau Mau to basically open concentration camps, but not the appropriate response to Rhodesia entering into and organized revolt against both the British government and British state?

Because Rhodesia tried to work with the British, but when they were denied the ability to become a Commonwealth state that maintained Her Majesty as sovereign, they broke free, but they didn't attack any British soldiers or any Brits, whereas the Mau Mau was an armed revolt that killed Brits.
 
Because Rhodesia tried to work with the British, but when they were denied the ability to become a Commonwealth state that maintained Her Majesty as sovereign, they broke free, but they didn't attack any British soldiers or any Brits, whereas the Mau Mau was an armed revolt that killed Brits.
In what way did they try and work with the British government? The British government was insisting on majority rule before independence; a completely reasonable requirement given other Dominions such as Canada and Australia had majority rule. Further, as the colonial power the British government was within its right to determine under what circumstances the Rhodesian government would receive independence. Instead, the Rhodesian government entered into a state of rebellion recognized by no other government. Indeed, on many occasions Rhodesian soldiers opened fire on troops belonging to states that recognized Betty Windsor as Head of the Commonwealth.
Further, there is strong evidence to suggest the Rhodesian government conspired to try and destabilize and bring down the elected British government.
 
but they didn't attack any British soldiers or any Brits, whereas the Mau Mau was an armed revolt that killed Brits.
So basically there's people whom it's right to kill and people whom it's wrong to kill.

Y'know, contemporarily in those very same '60s the British Army was massacring Catholics in Ireland.
 
I believe in the Christian God, not false gods such as Allah, Krishna, etc...

You believe in God, but you don't believe in God? Right.
 
At the risk of piling on, why was the appropriate response to the Mau Mau to basically open concentration camps, but not the appropriate response to Rhodesia entering into and organized revolt against both the British government and British state?


They british couldn't do that in South Rhodesia even if they wanted it. They lacked the access, not just the military power. Lacking the power to continue to subdue the whole empire, they had already been foighting wars only to let go of Malasya, Kenya, then got humiliated in Egypt... all more important economically and strategically,all easier to gold on to.
It was an easy choice to just cut it off. It was kind of surprising that the UK, even bothered for so long with hampering the new government in Rhodesia.

South Africa was after WW2 very much under the control of controlled of the dutch descendants, who while remaining members of the Commonwealth effectively rebelled against the UK when it became clear thay the Empire was being dismantled (taken over) with active american involvement. Which the UK could not counter. The Al-Saud deal starting the replacement of british hegemony in the Middle East with the americans, the US refusal to transfer weapons to european militaries for attempts at reconquering the former asian colonies (the US rather dumped them at sea), the mutinies of both the indian "native" troops and the english conscripts putting an end to any dreams in London of continuing with the Raj... that the british did fought some colonial wars didn't stem the tide of change - the Empire was crumbling.

These dutch descendants were supremacists who always resented british control after the UK conquered and annexed their states, and as soon as the saw the British Empire in its death throes took over power and pushed away british influence in South Africa as far as they could. They had wanted to do an enthic cleansing to consolidate their power in South Africa and the british prevented that, which they never forgave. When they took back control of the former colony they couldn't (not in the wake of WW2 at least) go fully genocidal on the other people within it, but they could and did "reduce the english threat" in the area. South Rhodesia declaring its independence unilaterally was only possible because South Africa supported it against the rump British Empire. The portuguese were not any more sympathetic to the new british strategy of moving to neocolonial economic control. Tanzania was the only non-hostile access the british could retain, and it barely allowed them to guide things in North Rhodesia.
 
For the record, I do know why the Brits treated Kenya and Rhodesia differently. I was trying to get him to figure out why.
 
Back
Top Bottom