To the Queen

[jynx]

I'd rather have a monarchy than a president. A silent figure head that draws in huge amounts of money from tourism is always preferable to George Bush ruling the country.

I didn't wanna make a thread to ask this...so I'll stick it here... Is grouchos selling download tickets? (Long story short, I can't buy one with me card online as my banking address hasn't been changed yet, so it would probably end up going to the wrong address and the royal bank are cunts.)

[Chunder]

Originally Posted by Red_Baron

The reaction I have got just goes to prove my point that the hatred of the monarchy is irrational. I make one reasonably put post and sudenly we sink to the depths of personal insults just because I show the slightest bit of support.

I couldn't agree more.

The simple fact that most people here couldn't tell you what the Sovereign, or Head of State's role is (shown through very crude 'she doesn't do anything' commentary) shows a complete lack of understanding of fundamental concepts needed to construct rational arguments for removing the Queen.

By all means form an opinion for or against the Monarch, but at least do it rationally.

As a challenge, I ask any one of you Queen-haters out there to give just one well constructed argument for keeping the queen. Prove that you have some kind of holistic view of the situation, and some kind of grasp of the basics. Or indeed, try to state some facts about what the Queen does, and construct a decent, anti-monarchy argument from there, instead of employing empassionned (but ultimately hollow) rhetoric.

Oh sorry, I forgot, it's cool to hate the Queen.

[AlanG]

Originally Posted by Chunder

As a challenge, I ask any one of you Queen-haters out

I dont think anyone who opposes the monarchy "hates" the Queen. They just oppose her wielding of power.

Originally Posted by Chunder

As a challenge, I ask any one of you Queen-haters out there to give just one well constructed argument for keeping the queen. Prove that you have some kind of holistic view of the situation, and some kind of grasp of the basics. Or indeed, try to state some facts about what the Queen does, and construct a decent, anti-monarchy argument from there, instead of employing empassionned (but ultimately hollow) rhetoric.

Well the basic "well constructed argument" for keeping the Queen is either
"its traditional"
or
"well its better than Bush lols"

Perhaps if the pro-monarchists could provide some rational arguments for keeping them at the beginning of any discussion on it rather than put the onus on anti-monarchists to provide both rational arguments for and against.

The people who live under the delusion that the monarchy is just some benign presence with no real power should find out what happenned to Edward Gough Whitlam the Australian PM.

Originally Posted by Red_Baron

Yeah nowhere in that post does it say my parents told me to support the Queen.

You've misinterpreted the phrase "brought up to be loyal" as "told to be loyal to the Queen". Loyalty doesn't just apply to the Queen, you can be loyal to lots of things. I've just happened to make a choice and stick to it.

The reaction I have got just goes to prove my point that the hatred of the monarchy is irrational. I make one reasonably put post and sudenly we sink to the depths of personal insults just because I show the slightest bit of support.

If I had a :P after the sentence would you have taken it in the spirit it was meant? This is after all bollocks and not SeriousDiscussion. As no one had provided a "well constructed argument for keeping the queen." I parodied one you had used before. And I was taking the piss out of the argument, not yourself, with my tongue in cheek the whole time.

If it is the case that she has no power then she can't make a big difference in your life either positive or negative so why get be so against her?

Because she does have real power - the crown powers.
The facade of Westminster blurs it and there hasnt been a "constitutional crisis" to trigger it here for donks but its still held by the monarch. The real powerbase at westminster isnt the cabinet, its the privy council. Its the ruling monarch who selects the prime minister, not us who elect him/her. Its the ruling monarch who finally approves bills, not the parliament. The fact that these powers havent been exercised in any serious way in the UK which counters the parliaments wishes doesnt mean they cant be.

The monarch can with immediate effect if they so wish:

• Select David Cameron to be her Prime Minister (yes hers, not ours).
  I used DC as example as he is leader of opposition but she could choose any leader of party, any MP or anyone she wishes. She could (if drunk or something) select me to be her PM and theres nowt we could do about it.
  
• Reject every Bill ever brought before her.
• Take us to war.

etc.

As I say:Edward Gough Whitlam shows that these powers are real and not benign.

Honestly you give the government £60 odd million and see how well they spend it.

I complain when the government wastes money too. If the prime minister got 60mill/year for living expenses for his family I would complain about that too. If you would then why complain about the Royals getting that?

I also think it's better to have a head of state that is not seen by the rest of the world to be so involved in the politics of a country. That way if you get an idiot like Bush in charge there is someone else who can represent the whole of country around the world.

How many people regard Bush as the spokesman for the entire US and think every one in the US is "just like him"?

So because Bush is a bad president then all presidents are bad? This is also the false comparison I mentioned earlier:
1. If you oppose the monarchy you must support a president.
2. Bush is a president and he is dum lols
3. Therefore presidents are bad.

Let me see, someone whos elected over someone who gets a job through accident of birth. Yep I'll go with the elected, recallable and accountable part every time.

In the same way if I need an operation I go to a good surgeon not the child someone who may have been a good surgeon.

Besides the Bush comparison is ridiculous.:
"You dont want a queen, do you want a George Washington?"
well actually that would be a hell of an improvement.

And taking it to its logical conclusion ask Americans if they would rather have X president or King George the Third.

Does that prove that presidents are better than kings? No it just proves that argument is not a "well constructed argument".

I'm sure there are going to be 1000s of well research statistics into exactly why we shouldn't have a monarch but at the end of the day how many of you can say your life has been adversly effected by having a monarch as a head of state?

Me. There is someone who my tax money goes towards who subsequently wields massive amounts of power(however much of that is delegated to others) who is not accountable, transparant or recallable.

[AlanG]

As I mentioned it before

Originally Posted by Thomas Paine in Age of Reason

As the republic of letters brings forward the best literary productions, by giving to genius a fair and universal chance; so the representative system of government is calculated to produce the wisest laws, by collecting wisdom from where it can be found. I smile to myself when I contemplate the ridiculous insignificance into which literature and all the sciences would sink, were they made hereditary; and I carry the same idea into governments. An hereditary governor is as inconsistent as an hereditary author. I know not whether Homer or Euclid had sons; but I will venture an opinion that if they had, and had left their works unfinished, those sons could not have completed them.

Do we need a stronger evidence of the absurdity of hereditary government than is seen in the descendants of those men, in any line of life, who once were famous? Is there scarcely an instance in which there is not a total reverse of the character? It appears as if the tide of mental faculties flowed as far as it could in certain channels, and then forsook its course, and arose in others. How irrational then is the hereditary system, which establishes channels of power, in company with which wisdom refuses to flow! By continuing this absurdity, man is perpetually in contradiction with himself; he accepts, for a king, or a chief magistrate, or a legislator, a person whom he would not elect for a constable.

Originally Posted by Thomas Paine in Age of Reason

Could it be made a decree in nature, or an edict registered in heaven, and man could know it, that virtue and wisdom should invariably appertain to hereditary succession, the objection to it would be removed; but when we see that nature acts as if she disowned and sported with the hereditary system; that the mental character of successors, in all countries, is below the average of human understanding; that one is a tyrant, another an idiot, a third insane, and some all three together, it is impossible to attach confidence to it, when reason in man has power to act.

It is not to the Abbe Sieyes that I need apply this reasoning; he has already saved me that trouble by giving his own opinion upon the case. "If it be asked," says he, "what is my opinion with respect to hereditary right, I answer without hesitation, That in good theory, an hereditary transmission of any power of office, can never accord with the laws of a true representation. Hereditaryship is, in this sense, as much an attaint upon principle, as an outrage upon society.

[humndislocation]

Originally Posted by Chunder

As a challenge, I ask any one of you Queen-haters out there to give just one well constructed argument for keeping the queen. Prove that you have some kind of holistic view of the situation, and some kind of grasp of the basics

Oh sorry, I forgot, it's cool to hate the Queen.

There's the argument that the queen provides a check and balance, and would be able to stop laws being signed into power, if a fascist dictator got into power.

I find this argument naive at best, since for a fascist dictator to get into power, their party would have to have the support of a large percentage of the population, and would probably not have much problems getting support to get the monarchy abolished, either through legitimate channels, or through force.

Besides which, I'd argue that if the Queen used her power to veto a bill, even against our current parties, the monarchy would be abolished pretty quickly.

There's also the tourism argument. I'd argue that this is also a moot point, given that the monarch doesn't have to have any power in order to be of interest to tourists. We don't even need to have a monarchy for this. Buckingham palace isn't going to vapourise if we abolish the monarchy guys.


My question is, why do those in support of the monarch not have much of an argument other than "HURRR U KNOW NOTHING AND R RAGING AGAINST THE MACHINE LOL"?

[Rebelius]

Originally Posted by humndislocation

There's the argument that the queen provides a check and balance, and would be able to stop laws being signed into power, if a fascist dictator got into power.

Surely it would be a lot easier for, somewhere down the line, a fascist Monarch to get into power? being that they'd just have to be born at the right time to the right person.

Just because we have a good monarch now, doesn't mean we always will.

[PlaySleepRepeat]

Originally Posted by Rebelius

that's not three words mate. And it's hardly even true.

Ah, your clumsy eyes stumbled upon my joke. Well done you.

I think you'll find everybody is German. It's true I read it somewhere. It's the only reason I have to explain why my father walks with a limp.

He's plotting something I knows it.

[Hecate]

The monarchy is an outdated dinosaur with far too much money and property. They are German (just look at the surnames involved in the Royal Family), and how does everyone think they got to where they are today? War and lust for power, stepping on anyone in the way, just look at British history.
Some might say that makes them dictators anyway, and they have the power to do whatever they want, at our expense, but through no choice by the public.......hmm a bit like some governments!
I can't see Charles ever being crowned, and don't know enough about William to hazard a guess at what kind of monarch he would be, but the pressure to maintain power and status quos from behind the scenes is immense.

[Rebelius]

it depends what you think gives someone their nationality. The place they were born, the place they grew up, the places their parents were born, the place their ancestors were born.

It's kind of like calling George Bush british.

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by Rebelius

it depends what you think gives someone their nationality. The place they were born, the place they grew up, the places their parents were born, the place their ancestors were born.

Officially, your nationality is decided by your ancestory, where you were born and where you have lived most.
I guess I was being a bit pedantic, and meant by my comment that their ancestory is German.

[Red_Baron]

If I had a :P after the sentence would you have taken it in the spirit it was meant? This is after all bollocks and not SeriousDiscussion. As no one had provided a "well constructed argument for keeping the queen." I parodied one you had used before. And I was taking the piss out of the argument, not yourself, with my tongue in cheek the whole time.

point taken

Because she does have real power - the crown powers.
The facade of Westminster blurs it and there hasnt been a "constitutional crisis" to trigger it here for donks but its still held by the monarch. The real powerbase at westminster isnt the cabinet, its the privy council. Its the ruling monarch who selects the prime minister, not us who elect him/her. Its the ruling monarch who finally approves bills, not the parliament. The fact that these powers havent been exercised in any serious way in the UK which counters the parliaments wishes doesnt mean they cant be.

The monarch can with immediate effect if they so wish:

* Select David Cameron to be her Prime Minister (yes hers, not ours).
I used DC as example as he is leader of opposition but she could choose any leader of party, any MP or anyone she wishes. She could (if drunk or something) select me to be her PM and theres nowt we could do about it.
* Reject every Bill ever brought before her.
* Take us to war.

Exactly, one common argument is that she has no power so is therefore useless but in reality she does, as you have shown.

Having said that, if she did for some reason choose a Prime Minister who was not of the majority party the commons system would prevent him getting his bills through as he would not have a majority vote. So in effect the party who acheived a majority vote from the people would still have a lot of influence.

I complain when the government wastes money too. If the prime minister got 60mill/year for living expenses for his family I would complain about that too. If you would then why complain about the Royals getting that?

I think that for the number of royal visits taken that it is value for money IMO.

So because Bush is a bad president then all presidents are bad? This is also the false comparison I mentioned earlier:
1. If you oppose the monarchy you must support a president.
2. Bush is a president and he is dum lols
3. Therefore presidents are bad.

Let me see, someone whos elected over someone who gets a job through accident of birth. Yep I'll go with the elected, recallable and accountable part every time.

In the same way if I need an operation I go to a good surgeon not the child someone who may have been a good surgeon.

Besides the Bush comparison is ridiculous.:
"You dont want a queen, do you want a George Washington?"
well actually that would be a hell of an improvement.

And taking it to its logical conclusion ask Americans if they would rather have X president or King George the Third.

Does that prove that presidents are better than kings? No it just proves that argument is not a "well constructed argument".

I think perhaps you've got the wrong end of my argument. I'm not saying all presidents are bad. I am saying it is better to have a head of state seemingly detatched from the politics of a country and therefore be seen to be able to represent all the people of the country abroad not matter what their political stance.

Me. There is someone who my tax money goes towards who subsequently wields massive amounts of power(however much of that is delegated to others) who is not accountable, transparant or recallable

That's fair enough I would hardly describe the small amount of tax as an adverse amount but that's a matter of opinion. I also think that the royals do enogugh good to warrent the small expense One thing you could ask is if we have an acountable government at the moment? Correct they could be voted out but is that enough in some cases?