DS Forums

 
 

Queen Unwell


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-01-2017, 19:27
benjamini
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hebrides
Posts: 28,135
This seems like a silly comment, but I'll bite.

I'm pro-republic. I have always had that view and would really struggle to change my view on that.

I don't think the Queen does literally nothing, I just think her role is over hyped and that all the arguments for retaining her are grossly exaggerated. I don't see why an elected head of state couldn't do exactly the same thing she does, just without all the pomp and ceremony and all the extended family. Surely we can all agree there is a bit too much money diverted towards the Royals and their extended sundry?

I don't accept she is responsible for stability or that tourism booms because of her. People make it sound as if republics don't have any tourism. Do people not go to Washington DC to see the White House? Do people not visit Germany and France to see Castles too? You never heard of anyone rushing to Liechtenstein purely because they have a Royal family. I wholeheartedly reject the claims that they bring in so much money. The tourists would still come in their droves if the Royals were to be kicked out tomorrow and that's a simple fact. My main objection to Monarchy is that it is not earned, it is just given by pure accident of birth and then we have no choice but to accept it and pay for it and we have no way whatsoever of getting rid of this person nor do we have any control over what to do or how they act.

Ceremonial heads of state are at least selected by the people of the nation they represent and can act in addition to the government as a kind of neutral representative on official levels. They would have to earn thier position and would be just as easy to replace if the people decided thus. I'm sure people will harp on about how we could end up with a Z list celebrity and how they would rather have the Queen, of course that's true, we could end up with a no hoper, but at the same time, that's who the people will have chosen. We could also end up with someone just as dignified as the Queen.

So yes, I am very much anti-Monarchy because for as long as we have them we are never a democratic nor fair society when we have one family at the top who have never had to do anything to get there.
The idea of an elected head of state is as anarchronistic as a hereditary head surely? They are both costly and superfluous in a alleged democracy . The Queen has been unusually and surprisingly scandal free and rather singularly remarkable, unlike many royals and elected heads of state and I greatly admire her for her singularity.


I suffer royalty on a purely historical premis, to get rid of them to replace them with some other bo**ox layer of genuflecting protocol is nonsense.
Heads of State are generally surplus, costly, often easily corrupt and undemocratic despite protestations to the contrary .
benjamini is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 03-01-2017, 19:38
shaddler
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Station Eleven
Posts: 3,476
The idea of an elected head of state is as anarchronistic as a hereditary head surely? They are both costly and superfluous in a alleged democracy . The Queen has been unusually and surprisingly scandal free and rather singularly remarkable, unlike many royals and elected heads of state and I greatly admire her for her singularity.


I suffer royalty on a purely historical premis, to get rid of them to replace them with some other bo**ox layer of genuflecting protocol is nonsense.
Heads of State are generally surplus, costly, often easily corrupt and undemocratic despite protestations to the contrary .
But then the Prime Minister would effectively become the head of state, and only those voters who are also members of the governing political party would get to choose who it is.
shaddler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 19:41
benjamini
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hebrides
Posts: 28,135
But then the Prime Minister would effectively become the head of state, and only those voters who are also members of the governing political party would get to choose who it is.
So what are you saying here? We need someone above the elected head of government ? To do what exactly ? Define what a head of state is for me?
benjamini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 19:41
Richard46
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 41,696
The idea of an elected head of state is as anarchronistic as a hereditary head surely? They are both costly and superfluous in a alleged democracy . The Queen has been unusually and surprisingly scandal free and rather singularly remarkable, unlike many royals and elected heads of state and I greatly admire her for her singularity.


I suffer royalty on a purely historical premis, to get rid of them to replace them with some other bo**ox layer of genuflecting protocol is nonsense.
Heads of State are generally surplus, costly, often easily corrupt and undemocratic despite protestations to the contrary .
Quite. They mainly appear to exist to impress each other.

I would though describe the current Queen as singularly unremarkable. Indeed her ability to keep a low profile in a period of intense media coverage is perhaps her crowning achievement.
Richard46 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 19:44
benjamini
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hebrides
Posts: 28,135
Quite. They mainly appear to exist to impress each other.

I would though describe the current Queen as singularly unremarkable. Indeed her ability to keep a low profile in a period of intense media coverage is perhaps her crowning achievement.
I think her 90 years of unremarkablness is singularly dull boring and rather remarkable in and off itself.
benjamini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 19:48
Richard46
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 41,696
I think her 90 years of unremarkablness is singularly dull boring and rather remarkable in and off itself.
I think we agree on essentials; as usual.

BTW Happy New Year
Richard46 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 19:52
benjamini
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hebrides
Posts: 28,135
I think we agree on essentials; as usual.

BTW Happy New Year
Indeed Richard. Hope you had a good festive holiday and didn't imbibe too much in malt whisky
I too am singularly blessed. And count them blessings often.
benjamini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 20:16
shaddler
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Station Eleven
Posts: 3,476
So what are you saying here? We need someone above the elected head of government ? To do what exactly ? Define what a head of state is for me?
Someone has to represent the government and the nation. Without a separately elected or appointed head of state that role falls to the Prime Minister. The way our system works is that the leader of the governing party is chosen only by its own members, and if that's how our head of state were to be chosen I don't see how that is any better than the situation we have now. In my view the position of head of state should be entirely ceremonial and non partisan, something which would not be possible if all we did was remove the monarchy.
shaddler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 20:36
Trulytrue
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 242
No. Tax dodging is when you don't pay tax which you are legally required to pay. If you are not required to pay it, then it isn't being dodged.

You haven't expressed anything at all. Nevertheless, although your anti-monarchy sentiments are coming across loud and clear you still haven't provided anything which supports either of your claims.

If you can't actually answer a couple of simple questions with simple and logical answers, then there's little point in continuing this line of discussion.

Never mind.
So its OK for the queen to be a bad role model but not for the Kardashians ( think that is the name?) The queen didn't even feed 100 homeless but that is OK with you but those others did and you slam them.. oh man!

She has more money than she could ever spend. she lives a life of luxury while people are having to go to food banks and are dying of cold , people killing themselves due to benefit cuts and losing their homes and you think its OK because a law (or loophole) was made many years ago that royalty don't need to pay tax. does not mater the morality of it ..

I know where I want my tax money to go and its not on her and her family.

Its about time this was stopped and made right and the loopholes that allow all the big companies to get out of paying tax.
Trulytrue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 20:47
WhoAteMeDinner
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,352
I humbly agree. My blood is red.
And you are not half German and Greek either. The British have an odd sense of national identity.
WhoAteMeDinner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 21:23
blueblade
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern East Anglia
Posts: 75,216
So its OK for the queen to be a bad role model but not for the Kardashians ( think that is the name?) The queen didn't even feed 100 homeless but that is OK with you but those others did and you slam them.. oh man!

She has more money than she could ever spend. she lives a life of luxury while people are having to go to food banks and are dying of cold , people killing themselves due to benefit cuts and losing their homes and you think its OK because a law (or loophole) was made many years ago that royalty don't need to pay tax. does not mater the morality of it ..

I know where I want my tax money to go and its not on her and her family.

Its about time this was stopped and made right and the loopholes that allow all the big companies to get out of paying tax.
But would you agree that we had a referendum before we considered getting rid of them?
blueblade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2017, 22:35
Moany Liza
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,749
So its OK for the queen to be a bad role model but not for the Kardashians ( think that is the name?) The queen didn't even feed 100 homeless but that is OK with you but those others did and you slam them.. oh man!

She has more money than she could ever spend. she lives a life of luxury while people are having to go to food banks and are dying of cold , people killing themselves due to benefit cuts and losing their homes and you think its OK because a law (or loophole) was made many years ago that royalty don't need to pay tax. does not mater the morality of it ..

I know where I want my tax money to go and its not on her and her family.

Its about time this was stopped and made right and the loopholes that allow all the big companies to get out of paying tax.
I think you're wandering wildly off the point here and I really have no idea where you're going with any of this.

All I asked was for a straightforward answer to two points raised by another poster. I haven't had a satisfactory answer to either of them, which is why I asked for clarification on what was meant by these purported examples of the Queen's "piss poor" behaviour.

I haven't actually expressed a personal opinion on the Queen or the Royal Family one way or another so I don't know why you're rambling on about the Kardashians all of a sudden. What on earth do any of them have to do with this topic?

Moany Liza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 00:36
WhoAteMeDinner
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,352
But would you agree that we had a referendum before we considered getting rid of them?
You should not make that kind of commitment, remember who is next in the queue after all:

HM "Tha tha tha tha" Charles III.
WhoAteMeDinner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 00:42
WhoAteMeDinner
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,352
As an Irish person, I have always been puzzled why more is not made in Britain, in these austere times, of the scale and cost of the whole Royal bandwagon, if not the institution itself.

Why so many personal royal residences that are off-limits to the public most of the year or completely and all the useless and functionless minor royals who live rent free in various palaces and stately homes.

It seems like a kind of lavish welfare programme for the big-nosed and the dumb to me.
WhoAteMeDinner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 01:26
neo_wales
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: South Wales/Gran Canaria
Posts: 8,294
I think her 90 years of unremarkablness is singularly dull boring and rather remarkable in and off itself.
You are in yourself unremarkable
neo_wales is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 02:47
Mark.
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The dark side of the moon
Posts: 51,361
As an Irish person, I have always been puzzled why more is not made in Britain, in these austere times, of the scale and cost of the whole Royal bandwagon, if not the institution itself.

Why so many personal royal residences that are off-limits to the public most of the year or completely and all the useless and functionless minor royals who live rent free in various palaces and stately homes.

It seems like a kind of lavish welfare programme for the big-nosed and the dumb to me.
I do wish people would furnish themselves with the facts instead of spouting the same ill-informed nonsense.

I suggest you start with reading up on the Crown Estate, followed by learning the difference between the Royals' public and private residences.
Mark. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 06:39
blueblade
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern East Anglia
Posts: 75,216
You should not make that kind of commitment, remember who is next in the queue after all:
There shouldn't be any need for it anyway, but I would lay heavy money that if there were a referendum, there would be a substantial majority in favour of retaining the monarchy, which might, hopefully, shut the anti royals up for good.

That's why those who keep saying they should be abolished, might first want to consider what the rest of the population think. But they never do.

HM "Tha tha tha tha" Charles III.
What are you babbling about? We know who the next in line is. What's the problem?
blueblade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 06:45
Phoenix Lazarus
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 13,888
You are in yourself unremarkable
So much so that you've just remarked upon them!
Phoenix Lazarus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 07:59
WhoAteMeDinner
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,352
I do wish people would furnish themselves with the facts instead of spouting the same ill-informed nonsense.

I suggest you start with reading up on the Crown Estate, followed by learning the difference between the Royals' public and private residences.
No thanks mate, as I am not a subject of any other person, I will pass on that.

How many weeks of the year is Windsor or Buck House open to the public to visit ?
WhoAteMeDinner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 08:38
davidmcn
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 9,454
How many weeks of the year is Windsor or Buck House open to the public to visit ?
Windsor Castle is open all year round.

Buckingham Palace is open for two months in the summer. Not sure that would be any different in a republic.
davidmcn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 08:50
jjwales
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,439
There shouldn't be any need for it anyway, but I would lay heavy money that if there were a referendum, there would be a substantial majority in favour of retaining the monarchy, which might, hopefully, shut the anti royals up for good.
Why would you want to shut them up "for good"? They're hardly much of a nuisance, and does it really bother you that much that some people have an alternative view to put forward?

If we had a referendum right now, you're right, there would probably be a royalist majority, largely because of the popularity of the present monarch. Doesn't mean there is always going to be one - in another 20 years or so, things could be very different and I would expect republicans to make their case again when the time seems right.

That's why those who keep saying they should be abolished, might first want to consider what the rest of the population think. But they never do.
Why should they consider what the rest of the population think? They're just putting forward their own opinion, and it's not as though they're asking for the abolition of the monarchy to be imposed in a dictatorial fashion.
jjwales is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 09:11
Richard46
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 41,696
Arguing that there is no need for a democratic choice because the result is predictable is a very weak and indeed dangerous position to hold.
Richard46 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 11:03
Mark.
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The dark side of the moon
Posts: 51,361
No thanks mate, as I am not a subject of any other person, I will pass on that.
If you're not prepared to learn the facts, don't pass comment.
Mark. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 11:25
James Frederick
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 37,002
Arguing that there is no need for a democratic choice because the result is predictable is a very weak and indeed dangerous position to hold.
If anything last year showed us no result is predictable.

If they ever did a referendum on abolishing the monarchy I'm not saying it would happen but I think the number wanting it would be higher than expected
James Frederick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2017, 11:39
pie-eyed
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,236
I think there would be a massive majority in favour of keeping the totals as however much the antis would like to convince otherwise. The British royal family is a large part of what makes Britain what it is and gives it it's standing in the world.
pie-eyed is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:41.