|
||||||||
Queen Unwell |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#626 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hebrides
Posts: 28,135
|
Quote:
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. 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 . |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#627 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Station Eleven
Posts: 3,476
|
Quote:
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 . |
|
|
|
|
|
#628 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hebrides
Posts: 28,135
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#629 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 41,696
|
Quote:
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 . 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#630 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hebrides
Posts: 28,135
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#631 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 41,696
|
Quote:
I think her 90 years of unremarkablness is singularly dull boring and rather remarkable in and off itself.
BTW Happy New Year |
|
|
|
|
|
#632 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hebrides
Posts: 28,135
|
Quote:
I think we agree on essentials; as usual.
BTW Happy New Year ![]() I too am singularly blessed. And count them blessings often.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#633 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Station Eleven
Posts: 3,476
|
Quote:
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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#634 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 242
|
Quote:
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. ![]() 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#635 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,352
|
Quote:
I humbly agree. My blood is red.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#636 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern East Anglia
Posts: 75,216
|
Quote:
So its OK for the queen to be a bad role model but not for the Kardashians ( think that is the name?)
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. ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#637 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,749
|
Quote:
So its OK for the queen to be a bad role model but not for the Kardashians ( think that is the name?)
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. ![]() 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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#638 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,352
|
Quote:
But would you agree that we had a referendum before we considered getting rid of them?
HM "Tha tha tha tha" Charles III. |
|
|
|
|
|
#639 |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
#640 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: South Wales/Gran Canaria
Posts: 8,294
|
Quote:
I think her 90 years of unremarkablness is singularly dull boring and rather remarkable in and off itself.
![]() ![]()
|
|
|
|
|
|
#641 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The dark side of the moon
Posts: 51,361
|
Quote:
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 suggest you start with reading up on the Crown Estate, followed by learning the difference between the Royals' public and private residences. |
|
|
|
|
|
#642 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern East Anglia
Posts: 75,216
|
Quote:
You should not make that kind of commitment, remember who is next in the queue after all:
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. Quote:
HM "Tha tha tha tha" Charles III.
What are you babbling about? We know who the next in line is. What's the problem?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#643 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 13,888
|
Quote:
You are in yourself unremarkable
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
|
|
|
|
|
#644 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,352
|
Quote:
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. How many weeks of the year is Windsor or Buck House open to the public to visit ? |
|
|
|
|
|
#645 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 9,454
|
Quote:
How many weeks of the year is Windsor or Buck House open to the public to visit ?
Buckingham Palace is open for two months in the summer. Not sure that would be any different in a republic. |
|
|
|
|
|
#646 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,439
|
Quote:
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.
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. Quote:
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#647 |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#648 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: The dark side of the moon
Posts: 51,361
|
Quote:
No thanks mate, as I am not a subject of any other person, I will pass on that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#649 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 37,002
|
Quote:
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 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
#650 |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 03:41.





