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 - MemberLittle test - can anyone remember what happened when we tried running the country without a monarch, and with just politicians in charge?
It was before my time, so my memory lets me down.... I suspect that Cromwell (or any other divinely-guided protector) would not return if we tried it again though.
* 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 ?
Who knows? ...although the 'Jesus' bit could probably be safely removed without many people noticing whilst they buy huge amounts of 'stuff', go to the office party and eat lots whilst watching The Great Escape and "The President's Speech", so I'm prepared to take the risk.
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?
Do people honestly believe that without a monarchy, Britain will suddenly became some sot of paradise, where everyone is equal and loves each other?
Oliver Cromwell tried it once, that went well 😆
Do people honestly believe that without a monarchy, Britain will suddenly became some sot of paradise, where everyone is equal and loves each other?
Nope.
god bless her.. the old girls 86 years old almost 20 years beyond even the latest retirement age and she turns out in all weathers to meet and greet.
she stood in the worlds glare for 6 hours yesterday. she didnt get a choice to be qe 2 it happened she bit the bullet and has given her whole life to one role.. i could nt do it. good effort.
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.
On the contrary I think Queenie got it spot on. In times of hardship its good to have something to celebrate ...anything. All I've seen is people having fun in the rain!
As usual the republicans just don't seem to get it. We all know that a hereditary royal family is wrong in a democratic society but we don't care. Why? ...because it really doesn't matter. They don't rule us they don't interfere with our lives. They do give us a reason to party and a day off!
[img] 
[/img]
😆
On the contrary I think Queenie got it spot on. In times of hardship its good to have something to celebrate ...anything. All I've seen is people having fun in the rain!As usual the republicans just don't seem to get it. We all know that a hereditary royal family is wrong in a democratic society but we don't care. Why? ...because it really doesn't matter. They don't rule us they don't interfere with our lives. They do give us a reason to party and a day off!
And as usual the royalists don't get that they are being played like the Roman mob, ignorance is bliss!
It does amuse me the delusions. Bread a circuses it is indeed and at that it only attracts a small %he population. Many of us see it for the crass waste of money and symbol of servitude that it is
Its just a symbol of times gone by and servitude. Some of us have grown up beyond that hankering for the victorian era
"Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV
And you think you're so clever and classless and free
But you're still f*cking peasants as far as I can see"...
What's funny TJ is that you and others are talking about this like I and others don't get it? We do get it, ironically its you and others that do not. We understand what the Monarchy is and where it came from.
As for a crass waste of money, many would argue its a good investment. Its not a significant sum in the grand scheme of things anyway.
When the Royal family ever come to exceed their usefulness that will be the end of them, no I don't think anyone believes they are in servitude.
TandemJeremy - MemberIt does amuse me the delusions. Bread a circuses it is indeed and at that it only attracts a small %he population. Many of us see it for the crass waste of money and symbol of servitude that it is
Its just a symbol of times gone by and servitude. Some of us have grown up beyond that hankering for the victorian era
Quite.
If 100s of 1000s of people want to stand and watch a Royal pageant (millions didn't and I saw a lot of people out and about who were obviously not watching it on TV) , then fair enough, but I'd prefer not to have my country represented and reigned-over as such.
It appears to be some sort of desire to be deferential and servile to a 'superior', paternal/maternal being, who are somehow [i]better[/i] than politicians by virtue of a system of eternal hereditary privilege. I wonder if there is any connection between monarchists and adherents of religion?
I do not see any logic in it all.
Voltaire et al were of their time. It may suit some people to hang on to quotes from 100s of years ago, but (some) things have moved on since then. You may not have noticed, but France is now a republic, and despite what some blinkered patriots like to think, France is fully-functioning country that is very popular with the British -especially the middle-classes who are probably the least likely group in the UK to be monarchists.
Germany also has no monarch, and aside from the fact that lots of British people still base their view of the country on WW2 propaganda, it also functions well -and I like the place a lot.
