[MrQuike]

Originally Posted by woot_whoo

Who trained her and how? What did the training entail and were there any checks, balances or examinations on her performance? If the royals are trained for the job by experts, why is Philip such a poor diplomat? Why doesn't Charles understand that his role is supposed to be neutral and strictly non-partisan? Why does Harry have no seeming knowledge of avoiding media censure?

Which 'badly performing monarch' was replaced? Edward VIII is the only monarch I can think of who was replaced, and that was his decision, as pressed by the government. He was exceedinly popular amongst the people.

I was only discussing the constitutional monarch. Charles I was also replaced.

[Si_Crewe]

Originally Posted by woot_whoo

Not at all, you just seem to change the rules of the debate to suit yourself. Anything goes so long as you feel it supports your argument, but you can't handle the self-same debating tactics being used by someone with a differing opinion. Why not just admit it was foolish to collapse Presidencies together in order to paint republics in a negative light?

Because it isn't foolish.

It demonstrates that elected heads of state are guilty of all the things I listed as being potential problems with having an elected HoS.

Saying "But the Irish president is alright" doesn't negate the potential for that happening in a different case.

Conversely, the nonsense you replied with about the Saudi' royal family is utterly ridiculous in a discussion about Britain, where our royal family have none of the same powers as the Saudi's do.

That IS foolish.

[woot_whoo]

Originally Posted by Rhumbatugger

And I go out of my way to vote for EVERYTHING, council by elections included. You just want me to be anti democracy, but I ain't okay?

If council elections and general elections were scrapped and our leaders chosen by appointment, would you say 'at least they're not elected' then, as though it's some badge of honour?

[Rhumbatugger]

Originally Posted by woot_whoo

What? Are we getting back into the semi-poetic lyrics again?

My Romantic, literary nature, I'm afraid. One of the reasons we have difficulty communicating.

It's not all about the dull practicalities. Well, for me.

[Richard46]

Originally Posted by MrQuike

Clearly not. Must be worth the minimal cost, or they'd have done the deed by now.

Probably not enough incentive because we are daft enough to pay for their head of state and they have not had the imagination (like us) to notice that they (like us) don't actually need one.

It is just another job for the establishment and suckers fall for it. However you cut it we spend a fortune (three of them actually; at least) on a job that does not even exist.

[woot_whoo]

Originally Posted by Si_Crewe

Because it isn't foolish.

It demonstrates that elected heads of state are guilty of all the things I listed as being potential problems with having an elected HoS.

Saying "But the Irish president is alright" doesn't negate the potential for that happening in a different case.

Conversely, the nonsense you replied with about the Saudi' royal family is utterly ridiculous in a discussion about Britain, where our royal family have none of the same powers as the Saudi's do.

That IS foolish.

I was talking about Parliamentary Presidents. Unless you have examples of shockingly bad behaviour from a Parliamentary President, your distrust of Executive Presidents is as irrelevant as a comparison of the scandals of absolute monarchs with the behaviour of constitutional monarchs. To wit, our royals have been involved in several scandals of the type which have brought Presidents into disrepute. It might be useful to clarify that scandals are necessarily due to the office (be that elected or hereditary) but to the people involved. Hence not every elected official is a Berlusconi, and not every constitutional monarch is an Edward VIII. The key point, however, is that their are easier methods of removing a President than a monarch.

[Si_Crewe]

Originally Posted by woot_whoo

I was talking about Parliamentary Presidents. Unless you have examples of shockingly bad behaviour from a Parliamentary President, your distrust of Executive Presidents is as irrelevant as a comparison of the scandals of absolute monarchs with the behaviour of constitutional monarchs.

I don't really see how the office really has any bearing on the fact that untrustworthy person can come to power.

As I already said, it nowhere near comparable to compare the antics of Saudi' royals with our own because they simply do not have the ability to do those things whether they want to or not.

However....

Bearing in mind that I fundamentally approve of the idea of a monarch as a head of state, I will say that I'd be quite happy to see the whole royal "thing" down-sized significantly.

Basically, if we're going to have a head of state who's simply a figurehead I'd rather it was a monarch who, at least, adds some traditional value instead of some jerk who's just there to keep a seat warm.

[Rhumbatugger]

Originally Posted by Si_Crewe

I don't really see how the office really has any bearing on the fact that untrustworthy person can come to power.

As I already said, it nowhere near comparable to compare the antics of Saudi' royals with our own because they simply do not have the ability to do those things whether they want to or not.

However....

Bearing in mind that I fundamentally approve of the idea of a monarch as a head of state, I will say that I'd be quite happy to see the whole royal "thing" down-sized significantly.

Basically, if we're going to have a head of state who's simply a figurehead I'd rather it was a monarch who, at least, adds some traditional value instead of some jerk who's just there to keep a seat warm.

Agree, but actually I don't want downsizing.

If you've got it FLAUNT it.

It's rather wonderful really, that we've still got it.

Thank goodness we had the whole revolution thing really early like, and got over it.

[batgirl]

Originally Posted by MrQuike

Clearly not. Must be worth the minimal cost, or they'd have done the deed by now.

They came close, though, and probably would've, had the people been offered a better choice of system.

[Si_Crewe]

Originally Posted by Rhumbatugger

It's rather wonderful really, that we've still got it.

Thank goodness we had the whole revolution thing really early like, and got over it.

Well, that's the thing isn't it?

It's kind of like hearing about how somebody had a Ferrari 125 back in the 1940s but scrapped it because it was junk.
It's shocking to us, now, but back then, before anybody recognised how iconic it might become, it was simply another vehicle to be replaced if it went wrong.

We are in the fortunate position where, metaphorically speaking, we've still got a Ferrari 125 in the garage and some people want to replace it with a Mondeo because it's got more leg-room.

[Rhumbatugger]

Originally Posted by Si_Crewe

Well, that's the thing isn't it?

It's kind of like hearing about how somebody had a Ferrari 125 back in the 1940s but scrapped it because it was junk.
It's shocking to us, now, but back then, before anybody recognised how iconic it might become, it was simply another vehicle to be replaced if it went wrong.

We are in the fortunate position where, metaphorically speaking, we've still got a Ferrari 125 in the garage and some people want to replace it with a Mondeo because it's got more leg-room.

Yep, and we're envied And lucky.

[Dan Fortesque]

Originally Posted by Rhumbatugger

Yep, and we're envied And lucky.

The word delusion springs to mind.

[Rhumbatugger]

Originally Posted by Dan Fortesque

The word delusion springs to mind.

Ah Dan, the word uninspired springs to mind

[woot_whoo]

Originally Posted by Si_Crewe

Well, that's the thing isn't it?

It's kind of like hearing about how somebody had a Ferrari 125 back in the 1940s but scrapped it because it was junk.
It's shocking to us, now, but back then, before anybody recognised how iconic it might become, it was simply another vehicle to be replaced if it went wrong.

We are in the fortunate position where, metaphorically speaking, we've still got a Ferrari 125 in the garage and some people want to replace it with a Mondeo because it's got more leg-room.

Where on earth do you come up with these metaphors?!

[Si_Crewe]

Originally Posted by Dan Fortesque

The word delusion springs to mind.

It certainly does.

[woot_whoo]

Originally Posted by Rhumbatugger

Yep, and we're envied And lucky.

HA! If we're envied, presumably there are countries which have movements aimed at either adopting our monarchy or reintroducing their own monarchy. Have you any evidence of this happening anywhere, or do you just like to pretend we're envied?

If anything, the fact that the UK has an actual visible Republican movement indicates that we're more envious of republics than republics are of us.

[Si_Crewe]

Originally Posted by woot_whoo

HA! If we're envied, presumably there are countries which have movements aimed at either adopting our monarchy or reintroducing their own monarchy. Have you any evidence of this happening anywhere, or do you just like to pretend we're envied?

If anything, the fact that the UK has an actual visible Republican movement indicates that we're more envious of republics than republics are of us.

Yes.

I'm sure all those american tourists turn up each year to see how our republican movement is developing.

That's probably also why they're forced to come back year after year as well.

[Rhumbatugger]

Originally Posted by woot_whoo

HA! If we're envied, presumably there are countries which have movements aimed at either adopting our monarchy or reintroducing their own monarchy. Have you any evidence of this happening anywhere, or do you just like to pretend we're envied?

If anything, the fact that the UK has an actual visible Republican movement indicates that we're more envious of republics than republics are of us.

They can't they are historical or they don't exist.

It's something special - left over from our particular history.

And the idea of 'Queen' of 'Prince and Princess' is everywhere.

Many would never go back to it, because it has difficult historical resonances for them. But a constitutional monarchy, as we have, is something real - a connection with history which a lot of people, all over the world appreciate.

[woot_whoo]

Originally Posted by Si_Crewe

Yes.

I'm sure all those american tourists turn up each year to see how our republican movement is developing.

That's probably also why they're forced to come back year after year as well.

Surely you don't think American tourists are coming here for the current royals? If they are, they certainly aren't voting with their wallets, as Buckingham Palace does not make it in to even London's Top 20 tourist attractions. Tourists come here for our history - and they seem to prefer ex-royal residences and decommissioned palaces than anything to do with the current crop. Don't you think that we'd get far more tourists to Buck House if it was free of royals and every gallery, courtyard and chamber were fully open all year round?

Seriously, it's a non argument. AFAIK no other country in the world is myopic enough to actually claim that it's their system of government which brings in tourist money. It's a notion wholly peculiar to British monarchy apologists. Do you see the Dutch claiming that tourists flock to Amsterdam because of Queen Beatrix? Do the Americans panic with the advent of each new President because they think it'll hurt tourist footfall in the Whitehouse? Does no one visit Stratford upon Avon because Shakespeare shuffled off this mortal coil four hundred years ago? Also, by your logic, tourists must only visit Big Ben because of our MPs; it's a complete fallacy. I'm not saying there aren't some ardent international monarchists who visit London because of the monarchy, but there is no evidence that the Windsor family's royal status brings people here. Furthermore, Americans (as much as monarchists claim) are no more enamoured of our monarchy than we are of American celebrities. In fact, the average Briton (judging by magazine sales) are much more interested in American celebrities than Americans are in our royalty - but you don't see Americans trying desperately to justify their culture by citing British interest.

[woot_whoo]

Originally Posted by Rhumbatugger

They can't they are historical or they don't exist.

It's something special - left over from our particular history.

And the idea of 'Queen' of 'Prince and Princess' is everywhere.

Many would never go back to it, because it has difficult historical resonances for them. But a constitutional monarchy, as we have, is something real - a connection with history which a lot of people, all over the world appreciate.

Then where is the movement in, say, America (since Simon seems to think that the Americans coming here for our royalty) to have them back? There isn't one. Ergo, they're no more 'envious' of our royals than we are of their celebrities (whom we seem to froth at the mouth over).

Face it, there is not a shred of evidence anywhere that other nations are envious of our monarchy - you've confused 'interested in' with 'envious of'. Furthermore, do you see Americans (or any other country in the world) seriously trying to justify its system of government by claiming that other nations are envious?!

[MrQuike]

Originally Posted by woot_whoo

HA! If we're envied, presumably there are countries which have movements aimed at either adopting our monarchy or reintroducing their own monarchy. Have you any evidence of this happening anywhere, or do you just like to pretend we're envied?

If anything, the fact that the UK has an actual visible Republican movement indicates that we're more envious of republics than republics are of us.

Well according to the Mori poll that's 19% up for a republic. Breaking that down into seperate groups based on, age, gender, sex etc the best group is only 25%. That shows us that 80% of us aren't envious at all. Also doesn't say much for the Republican movement.

[woot_whoo]

Originally Posted by MrQuike

Well according to the Mori poll that's 19% up for a republic. Breaking that down into seperate groups based on, age, gender, sex etc the best group is only 25%. That shows us that 80% of us aren't envious at all. Also doesn't say much for the Republican movement.

Hardly my point (although 10 million people is hardly a tiny minority). That 19% is 19% more than any monarchist movement in any republic; ergo, they are even less envious of us than we are of them.

[Dan Fortesque]

Originally Posted by woot_whoo

Hardly my point (although 10 million people is hardly a tiny minority). That 19% is 19% more than any monarchist movement in any republic; ergo, they are even less envious of us than we are of them.

That figure could easily change too. During the scandals of the 90s, I bet the pro-republican figure was higher.

[woot_whoo]

Originally Posted by Dan Fortesque

That figure could easily change too. During the scandals of the 90s, I bet the pro-republican figure was higher.

I think the advent of King Charles and Queen Camilla might change things - although it'll depend how long it looks like they'll be on the throne before golden boy Wills and his wife get their turn.

[Dan Fortesque]

Originally Posted by woot_whoo

I think the advent of King Charles and Queen Camilla might change things - although it'll depend how long it looks like they'll be on the throne before golden boy Wills and his wife get their turn.

I think the powers that be would love Charles to meet his maker before he got on the throne. I'm surprised that he hasn't suddenly croaked it of a heart attack or something by now.