[Closed] Republicans ... miserable bunch arn't they?

So some people are miserable and then you say everyones happy. Make your mind up.

nice troll and when I live in a republic I will let you know whether I become instantly more miserable.

what next monarchist upset at the end of the monarchy - miserable bunch etc

To be fair this hasn't been the best day for Republicans, so you can't be surprised if they look a tad miserable.

You would hardly expect them to be overjoyed by today's celebrations, would you ?

To be fair i was having a great day till junior went to bed and i came over all tired and switched the telly box on. Up until that point i had seen nothing of the royal rubbish.

Just seen one

Jesus, that's a big "bunch"...

ernie_lynch - Member

You would hardly expect them to be overjoyed by today's celebrations, would you ?

Why not? It was mostly boats- republicans aren't particularily anti-boat. Just the one queen but [i]loads [/i]of boats.

Well in that case why the **** were they miserable ?

As you say, it was a great day for boats, sailors, whatever.

I think Frodo perhaps got it right after all.....a right bunch of miserable gits. As well as being unpatriotic.

republicans aren't particularily anti-boat

We only like boats full of republicans.

a right bunch of miserable git

genius!

I thought that was comedy gold ernie. Don't tell me it was merely a typo??

You'd have to be miserable and a little stupid to want an elected head of state rather than a hereditary one!

Yeah I forgot the "s" zimbo. I don't know why you think I might have been 'joking'.

damo2576 - Member

You'd have to be miserable and a little stupid to want an elected head of state rather than a hereditary one!

Really? why?

Eire seems to have had some decent presidents despite some well dodgy politicians in general

You'd have to be miserable and a little stupid to want an elected head of state rather than a hereditary one!

Yeah! And a right old daft grump to prefer a hereditary queen to an unelected tyrannical dictator, which is my head-of-state of choice.

Great a new collective noun to add to the dictionary:

A "misery" of Republicans

How apt! 😉

You'd have to be miserable and a little stupid to want an elected head of state rather than a hereditary one!

Especially when one considers said head of state would be voted in by the majority...have you actually [b]seen[/b] the majority...bloody scary bunch I tell you. I'm sure I don't need to remind people that the same scary bunch voted in that Tony B.Liar.

aye, and then they voted CallMeDave in. can't trust them one little bit

A "misery" of Republicans

Don't forget he only saw the one, so that's a "misery of republican".

So would the royalists oppose reform of the house of lords and give the monarch more power?

Really? why?

Aside from the usual arguments about stability, capability, incentive etc, for me personally I'd much rather have a hereditary head of state driven by sense of duty than an elected one driven by ego and votes winning.

Especially when one considers said head of state would be voted in by the majority

Not necessarily. The President of the Republic can be elected by parliament, as is the case in Italy.

Yeah! And a right old daft grump to prefer a hereditary queen to an unelected tyrannical dictator, which is my head-of-state of choice.

Mine too - but since they won't let [b]me[/b] be that tyrannical dictator, I'll have to settle for second best 😀

Not sure about a fully elected house of lords either. The second chamber does an important role and getting elections involved might muddy the waters? Not hereditary but appointed would be my preference. People from different walks of life, skills, abilities and professions.

As for the queen, who cares? She has no real power so all of these Republicans are getting their knickers in as twist about nought!

let me be that tyrannical dictator

See, where you're going wrong is you want them to "let" you. If you were any sort of tyrannical dictator you'd just go and get it. Two snooker balls in a sock, few cans of Special Brew, and get fighting.

As for the queen, who cares? She has no real power so all of these Republicans are getting their knickers in as twist about nought!

So you are saying why have a monarchy?

I like many believe the royal family are very disconnected from the people, however if you head to places like Edinburgh, London or Windsor and see the numbers of tourists I am sure they manage to bring in more money than they cost us. Americans probably come over here half expecting to bump into the Queen. So aside from the fact that I will not be attending any jubilee party or that my employer is not giving us a bank holiday I am happy enough to put up with them.

You want tourist legalise drugs and prostitution.
i once tried to see if there was any significance in tourist number for when she was here or in a palace and visits and you know what there was not apparently most tourist dont check or actually get to meet he

Re no power you are somewhat mistaken though i prefer to discuss crown power which includes the royal prerogative..its not like the crown call elections, signs legislation to make it law, has weekly meeting with the PM of their government or is the head of the state and the Church.
Your right the crown really does have no power and certainly not any more power than any other unelected person by benefit of birth

Your comment cheered up this republican

Americans probably come over here half expecting to bump into the Queen.

Really ? ......Jeezus those Yanks are daft ! 😀

There must a multitude of different ways that we can relieve them of their dollars.

Although telling them they might meet Lilibet is a good start.

I am sure they manage to bring in more money than they cost us

...this is probably true but they should have no part in the government of this land, in actuality or on paper.

To say that the Queen should have no part in the government sounds daft. For instance, I am sure Tony Blair was more influenced by George W Bush, than a cream scone and cup of earl Grey with Her Maj.

To say that the Queen should have no part in the government sounds daft

probably not as daft as you ignoring the "or on paper" bit what I wrote..

[img] [/img]

does the monitor lizard dance?

so its ok for an elected representative to meet weekly with an unelected person to discuss the govt business then because they have no influence 😕

The majority of the argument in support of this equates to it does nothing in which case lets just not do it.

are you askin'..?

yeah...but I'm shy... 😳

[img] [/img]

story of a wallflower's life...hang about and they cop off with someone else...

zimbo, I did not ignore it. I will admit that I am no expert in constitutional law, however what 'actual' power is the Queen likely to wield? I was trying to say that there are plenty of other factors more likely to influence a governments policies than anything the Queen is likely to say or do. I am aware that an elected party has to seek the Queens permission to form a government, and I imagine the Queen has the power to dissolve a parliament. I would like to see her try! It may be written 'on paper' in the bylaws of Shepton Mallet that it is ok to beat your pet lizard on a Sunday as long as it is wearing frilly knickers. So what!

other factors more likely to influence a governments policies than anything the Queen is likely to say or do

Yeah, you're right, but I feel that it's a matter of principle that our democracy should be just that. I know the Queen is likely to do nothing controversial but she should not even have the opportunity to do so. Principles are so important in drafting a constitution.

And yes, I beat my lizard without frilly knickers, but, honestly, I've never been to Shepton Mallet...

zimbo
Fair enough. We will agree to disagree.
I have never been to Shepton Mallet either.
Is anyone here from Shepton Mallet, what is the biking like, and what do you do to Scots on a Tuesday? 😕

I know the Queen is likely to do nothing controversial but she should not even have the opportunity to do so. Principles are so important in drafting a constitution.

Of course the counter point to that is that politicians are far, far more likely to do something 'controversial', than the Queen, and she is what prevents [i]them[/i] from having the opportunity to do so.

Of course the counter point to that is that politicians are far, far more likely to do something 'controversial', athan the Queen, and she is what prevents them from having the opportunity to do so

yeah, but, daft as we might be, at least we chose for them to be tits on our behalf

and she is what prevents them from having the opportunity to do so.

really? how would that work? Could you cite any examples?

You know what, Junky, me and you could be mates if you'd only acknowledge the supremacy of LFC! 😀

aye we could have an unmatched friendship for sure 😉

JY, start with Voltaire (to give an interesting historical context and argument) then come up to date with David Starkey. Enjoy the read. Good night and God Bless EIIR (two birds with one stone there 😉 )

God Bless EIIR

I think you'll find it's spelt EIRE - now there's a good republic!

.....then come up to date with David Starkey

What does the latest update utterances of David Starkey say with regards to monarchies being good for democracy in the case of Saudi Arabia ?

Not sure if teamhurtmore meant ER II.
Can I add that although not elected , does both the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Arbroath still not give people the power to overthrow a crap monarch?

No idea tbh ernie and if i am honest I have no idea what Voltaire has to do with it either -does he drink with Liz?
I bet if we had benefited from a private education we would be guffawing at his joke though and know that Saudi answer

really? how would that work? Could you cite any examples?

Why not learn your constitutional history and find out for yourself 😉

yeah, but, daft as we might be, at least we chose for them to be tits on our behalf

S'funny - 'cause for the last two years the rallied cry of the STW Lefty brigade has been that we [b]didn't [/b] choose them 😳

S'funny - 'cause for the last two years the rallied cry of the STW Lefty brigade has been that we didn't choose them

Well, yeah but no but yeah. We have a relatively unrepresentative voting system, I'd agree, and a very lazy voting population. But at least we do notionally get to vote for/against them.

S'funny - 'cause for the last two years the rallied cry of the STW Lefty brigade has been that we didn't choose them

I haven't heard that one, and I try to pay attention to the Lefty Brigade's rallying cry.

Zimbo's point was very clearly that the people chose the elected politicians. It is very hard to argue that isn't the case. So a very fair point imo.

I cannot understand the logic of anybody who thinks that a system of hereditary monarchy (and royal family, who will bring in a monarch from a branch of the family in another country if necessary) with its associated privilege/superiority over the the commoners (and being head of the fairly poorly attended [i]established[/i] church) is somehow "better" than having some sort of elected/appointed ceremonial head-of-state for shorter term.

The government headed by the Prime Minister 'run' the country and could still do so without a monarch.

Celebrating 60 years of the queen surviving since inheriting "the throne" is quite strange if you think about it.

There's a difference between patriotism/being grateful for being a UK citizen(ok, subject) and being a royalist, although few seem to be able to make this distinction.

I can only assume that staunch Royalists are the sort of people who dislike change and don't like to question anything.

ps. Just because one is not keen on the idea of monarchy does not mean that one is in favour of a violent Russian-style revolution toppling the monarchy.

I am pretty sure we had more say in the govt than the monarch but happy to do some constitutional research on that and get back to you.
I am pretty sure the left of STW did not choose this lot though.
I am pretty sure you have nothing to support your earlier point.

ps. Just because one is not keen on the idea of monarchy does not mean that one is in favour of a violent Russian-style revolution toppling the monarchy.

I'd give that a go. Better than passively being rodgered by the feudal hierarchy, supported by the slack-jawed Tory toffs. Pass me a Mosin Nagant, I'm going to storm the palace...

Little test - can anyone remember what happened when we tried running the country without a monarch, and with just politicians in charge?

can anyone remember what happened when we tried running the country without a monarch, and with just politicians in charge?

Yes ! They banned Christmas !

Good point Z-11

Yes ! They banned Christmas !

Ooh, are we talking about Birmingham City Council five or six years ago? Or something less relevant?

Zulu-Eleven - Member

Little test - can anyone remember what happened when we tried running the country without a monarch, and with just politicians in charge?

* It could be argued that other countries have managed without hereditary monarchs looking after them, although do feel free to disagree with this.

Yes ! They banned Christmas !

Worth remembering that the Rump parliament inherited a large budget deficit from the previous (long) parliament, and had to embark on a programme of privatisation and unpopular taxes...

Plus ca change... 😉

I suspect that Cromwell would not return if we tried it again though.

No of course not, but would Christmas be safe ?

Course, everything became immediately better after the Restoration. Or actually, not.

No of course not, but would Christmas be safe ?

ernie as long as we dont vote the Grinch in as president Christmas will be safe, thank god.

Plus ca change...

What are you trying to say Z-11 ? That Elizabeth II took her eye off the ball and we're now back to where we where after Cromwell ?

Yes of course, it's starting to make sense now, no wonder we're in a mess........[i]plus ca change[/i] indeed.

I have to say Z-11, you really have a fascinating insight into things.

we're now back to where we where after Cromwell ?

Just in time for a new King Charles 😉

You're not being very supportive of your sovereign Z-11. She it 'cause she's a lady ?

Junkyard - Member
and she is what prevents them from having the opportunity to do so.
[b]really? how would that work? Could you cite any examples?[/b]

A sensible question JY

Junkyard - Member
No idea tbh ernie and if i am honest I have no idea what Voltaire has to do with it either -does he drink with Liz?

A less-than-sensible response, albeit with an attempt at humour!!

If you want a sensible answer JY to a legitimate and important question why not look at history? In the same way, as I mentioned to Artistotle that he/she should look back at what his/her namesake said about the importance of a monarchy (since he struggles to understand any logic behind a royalist stance, he should try and read it). Ditto, Voltaire given the context of his upbringing and history, why would a philosopher who spent so much time condemning injustice and prejudice conclude that a monarchy was the key to progress and change (Enlightened absolutism). Then one might read a contemporary account in David Starkey.

Then one just might understand the enduring appeal of the monarchy, the respect that it has worldwide and the reason why 1.2m people lined the banks of the Thames and many more celebrated across the nation. Just a thought!

[p.s. no idea what Starkey says about Saudi but give his views of religious and sexual tolerance, it should be easy to assume!]

Voltaire thought that a constitutional monarch was an improvement over an absolute monarch (the absolute monarch of France had imprisoned and exiled him), he saw a constitutional monarch as progressive and modern. His thoughts and ideas are an expression of that time in history and his experience. He was a moderniser and in the current world he would probably take a very different view and support a more modern system of governance.

I think the fact that many modern countries are able to cope without a Monachy tells us far more than Voltaire

Very true at the start MSP, not sure we can be categorical in the conclusion. Of course, he rejected the concept of the divine right to power in favour of the social contract whereby the monarch or ruler has a DUTY to govern wisely. Hence my (only) reason for introducing him into the debate - perhaps the reason why so many people rejected the views of the Misery ( 😉 ) of Republicans yesterday was the simple fact that they saw how well ER had followed Voltaire's notion [b]of fulfilling a duty to govern wisely[/b]. Perhaps they also contrasted that with the behaviour of many/most of our elected representatives!?!

they saw how well ER had followed Voltaire's notion of fulfilling a duty to govern wisely

She doesn't actually govern, does she? Well, only in the feudal fantasies of the ever-shrinking Delusion of Monarchists.

I don't see having a big party in the middle of the biggest financial crisis in modern times as ruling wisely. In fact if she actually had any sense of duty to the people of the country she would have recognised the pain many are in and done something much more appropriate.

What you seem to believe is a sense of duty, looks to me much more like a sense of entitlement.

Really the whole thing was just an excuse for a party 😉

[img] [/img]

I mean you arrange a street party any other time and the old bill will turn up and cuff the lot of you for 'causing a disturbance'.
Royal jubilee you say? Whats that then?

[img] [/img]

Misery

You can keep repeating it over and over, and I know you're pleased with yourself, but it won't be getting funny anytime soon. Sorry.

How any intelligent person can be in favour of a monarchy in the 21st century, is frankly staggering. But as STW reminds one, over and over again, enlightenment is a slow process.

Well, it's not as if the country isn't being ruled by an insanely rich, out-of-touch, unelected toff anyway...

How any intelligent person can be in favour of a monarchy in the 21st century, is frankly staggering. But as STW reminds one, over and over again, enlightenment is a slow process.

Sorry if this has been said before, but I don't think most people are in favour of a monarchy, they just aren't in favour of the alternative (because that's unknown). We don't like change.
I'm no fan of the monarchy, but I don't think anything else will be an improvement.

Do people honestly believe that without a monarchy, Britain will suddenly became some sot of paradise, where everyone is equal and loves each other?