Edit: thm posted a reply whilst I typed to an earlier comment

The acceptance of monarchy may be linked with the seemingly British tendency to ‘slag ourselves off’ and to laugh/poke fun at/resist people who attempt things such as reform or forming extreme political movements(This may or may not have anything to do with our political stability)

Royalism/a mis-guided sense of pratriotism/wishing to maintain the status quo/having somebody “who are ours” to look upto or gossip about being the effect rather than the cause?

ernie_lynch – Member
teamhurtmore – I don’t think they are feigning ignorance of modern British history and politics for effect. Put them right and tell them, won’t you ?

Lifer – Member

Perhaps to end the argument you could provide an example where the queen has ‘played a balancing role that protects against political extremes’?

So you have an answer / example ? or is it just the usual load of specious baloney?

Copies TJ’s reply scurries back to the helmet debate…he would not have minded if i had said that to him I am sure 😕

THM – you made a claim, you have been asked to back it up

Hence we come back to the first important role of the constitutional monarch – the person with a social contract to protect against the tyranny of the majority and to respect the rights of the minority. ………….. that the monarchy plays a very valuable role in restricting political extremes and protecting the interest of the minority.

so can you actually back this up please. Even a general example?

Junkyard – If I make a claim I am prepared to back it up.

Do you actually read threads before posting? C’mon you are just making yourself look a little silly now.

Yes I have read the thread. You have made this claim. You have been asked by several people to provide something to back it up. You seem unable to do so

I ask you again. Do you have anything to back up this claim that

the monarchy plays a very valuable role in restricting political extremes and protecting the interest of the minority.

Or are we to assume that actually it is not true.

Junkyard – If I make a claim I am prepared to back it up.

yes you both back them up with bad evidence 😆

Do you actually read threads before posting? C’mon you are just making yourself look a little silly now.

well its funny cause you seem to read the posts and then answer with something you think is appropriate but in actual fact is just more of what caused the questions in the first place.

Clue – its on this page for starters. I thought you might just realise which two European examples I was referring to (sorry gave you too much credit perhaps?) and mentioned the third by name – Spain. The desperation is palpable. Anyway, the rains stopped the bunting is flapping, the Pimms etc cooled, time to stop being miserable and have the next Monarchists Jamboree. 😉 Enjoy the alternatives, whatever they are.

AA, you are just proving my point. Look at the specific answers to specific questions and as the Meerkats or the Opera guy says, go compare!

So – the answer is no – you don’t have anything to back up the assertion

the monarchy plays a very valuable role in restricting political extremes and protecting the interest of the minority.

I thought not.

I thought not.

When does half term finish? 🙄

I thought you might just realise which two European examples I was referring to (sorry gave you too much credit perhaps?) and mentioned the third by name – Spain.

Perhaps you’ve given me too much credit too – I don’t understand how Spain ties in with “modern British history and politics”, can you explain it to me ?

And no, I’m really not “feigning ignorance”, I am really that clueless concerning modern British history and politics. So please give examples of where the British Monarchy has ‘protected against political extremes and the tyranny of the majority’.

Do you mean the Bedchamber Crisis as an example of this ?

Constitutional monarchies have proven themselves to be the MOST stable form of government.

A constitutional monarch provides an apolitical head of state, NO major european republic has been able to achieve the level of political stability that we have enjoyed in the UK for three hundred years. The proof of the system working is that we, apart from everyone else, have enjoyed this unprecedented advantage.

A President selected by parliament is nothing more than a puppet of the parliament and therefore useless, whereas a president elected by the people (the one most republicans want) is the worst kind of republic, it would turn a job which should be apolitical into a political position. The President would have a mandate to the people whom elected him/her, a mandate which may not correspond with the government.

I find it amazing that i am proving your point as I have no idea what your point is.

Has the usa not been quite stable? You can point to other countries till your blue in the face but you cannot tell me anything the the queen has done so all you have are some tenuous correlations.

Constitutional monarchies have proven themselves to be the MOST stable form of government.

so did emperors till they ended and indeed monarchy.
Pretty sure most people would term America as a stable democracy and france so it is not in any sense a pre requisite for stable democracy.

Since the political reform of the absolute monarchy in 1932, Thailand has had 17 constitutions and charters.[22][23] Throughout this time, the form of government has ranged from military dictatorship to electoral democracy, but all governments have acknowledged a hereditary monarch as the head of state

Has the usa not been quite stable?

To be fair they did have quite a nasty civil war in the last 300 years which Z-11 refers to.

Although of course you only need to go back about another further 50 years and you’ll find that the English did too. Which is presumably why Z-11 didn’t want to go back that far.

Well, surely the English Civil War was when we certain sectors of the population decided to get rid of the monarchy, suceeded, we all found that despite what we’d been promised, it really didn’t work that well at all, so went back to having a monarchy again, so its a rather poor example Ernie

As for the USA – I think you’ll find that they were having some fairly big old disputes about just who ruled who out into the mid nineteenth century, remeber the Alamo and all that 😉

Regards good old stable France – would that be the same France that was ruled by Napoleon, and then a little soujourn into extremism with the Vichy government, with Petain being appointed as prime minister by Lebrun prior to the armistice with Germany being signed?

The fact that the monarch has not had to intervene since 1707 proves that we got it pretty much right when we drew up the current constitutional settlement in 1689. you’re asking THM to prove a negative, its the fact that, as an exception compared with all the other comparable nations, we’ve had this stability that proves his point.

Which other major European nation would you like to offer us as an example of long term political stability through the beauty of the republic?

Spain?
Italy?
Germany?
Russia?
Greece?

Of course, that oft ignored part of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland, has been politically very stable.

so its a rather poor example Ernie

The English Civil War is a poor example of what Z-11 ? I gave it as an example of instability – are you suggesting that England was stable when it was having a civil war ?

Spain?
Italy?
Germany?
Russia?
Greece?

A very good point Z-11…..all examples of where the monarchy has behaved in a questionable manner and been the cause of some considerable instability.

But why are providing such examples ? ….. I thought the point you were trying to make was that monarchies provide stability ?

I thought the point you were trying to make was that monarchies provide stability ?

Where did I say that?

I think that you’ll find you’re lacking in that old attention to detail thing again Ernie – I said that

Constitutional monarchies have proven themselves to be the MOST stable form of government.

See that bit in bold

its quite an important part of what I said, and where it significantly differs from the straw man argument you’re trying to set up.

Lets be clear we are not asking him to prove a negative, we are asking to put forward something the queen has done to aid stability.
I’d also like to point out that seeing as how the royals were wanting to make peace with their friends the nazi’s any examples prior to wwii are pointless. I’m sure monarchy was a source of stability for a long time as was slavery but Britain has moved on.

Coughs re posts constitutional monarch thailand ask pertinent question about it being an example of stability.

Since the political reform of the absolute monarchy in 1932, Thailand has had 17 constitutions and charters.[22][23] Throughout this time, the form of government has ranged from military dictatorship to electoral democracy, but all governments have acknowledged a hereditary monarch as the head of state

ah stability from a monarch Gawd bless em etc

This thread just keeps giving.

Lifer – Member
This thread just keeps giving.

Yep. As long as the argualympians are in here, the rest of the forum can be fun! 🙂

I’d also like to point out that seeing as how the royals were wanting to make peace with their friends the nazi’s

Unlike the democratically elected government?

I see Z-11 you say :

Constitutional monarchies have proven themselves to be the MOST stable form of government.

You then provide a list of countries were they very clearly haven’t done that :

Spain?
Italy?
Germany?
Russia?
Greece?

I, quite understandably, question the logic of that, and you accuse me of a “straw man argument”.

Perhaps I should allow you to post illogical nonsense uninterrupted ?

I though our monarch would prevent such excess? **** I’m confused, whats your point again?

stability and monarchy what utter guff. The world was plunged into the abyss by the imperialist misadventures of the relatives of our current queen.

We seem to be arguing over the past again. Perhaps the monarchists can remind us again what relevance they have for the future.

Monarchy:

a ‘tradition’ that involves a ‘special’ family (who managed to gain their position in the distant past by various means) being endorsed, funded and provided for most generously by the state for eternity and fawned over to a nauseating degree by many of the common folk of the country, for no apparent reason.

The monarch ‘reigns over us’, but has no (real) power or authority and rarely comments publicly (less is more? -or is it less?) and stays in post for life.

The words duty and destiny are used a lot in association with the various royals.

The bunting and commemorative tat industries benefit most greatly from the monarchy.

As an aside, a surprisingly large number of medals often appear to be worn by some members of the royal family at important occasions

Vive la republique!

The Jubilee – Thank god it’s over

Have to agree, Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness look a pair of right happy feckers.