Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Owlbread]

You're assuming that
A) I don't want a republic.
B) I just thought that the British System isn't broken.
The thing is, you are painting it like it's a bad thing.

I presumed you didn't want a Republic given that you were defending the Monarchy on the two major Republican talking-points - the cost (or profit) and the Authoritarian nature of the system. I am painting it like it's a bad thing because I think it is a bad thing.

He's painting it like the queen eats babies.

No no, she's not that bad. Only after they're dead.

[kingfisher1112]

You're assuming that
A) I don't want a republic.
B) I just thought that the British System isn't broken.
The thing is, you are painting it like it's a bad thing.

I presumed you didn't want a Republic given that you were defending the Monarchy on any Republican argument I threw at you. I am painting it like it's a bad thing because I think it is a bad thing.

He's painting it like the queen eats babies.

No no, she's not that bad. Only after they're dead.

So, a monarchy using it's powers responsibly ( I.e, not at all) is a bad thing? Besides, if they take power you can take up arms and.... Oh wait that's right, you gave those up. Oh well. But it's not like the queen has a reason to do these things. They are content with what they have.

[Owlbread]

So, a monarchy using it's powers responsibly ( I.e, not at all) is a bad thing? Besides, if they take power you can take up arms and.... Oh wait that's right, you gave those up. Oh well. But it's not like the queen has a reason to do these things. They are content with what they have.

The monarchy using its powers responsibly isn't a bad thing, but having the powers in the first place is. I'm not really sure why you're having a snide dig at us either with the whole "taking up arms" thing either.

[kingfisher1112]

So, a monarchy using it's powers responsibly ( I.e, not at all) is a bad thing? Besides, if they take power you can take up arms and.... Oh wait that's right, you gave those up. Oh well. But it's not like the queen has a reason to do these things. They are content with what they have.

The monarchy using its powers responsibly isn't a bad thing, but having the powers in the first place is. I'm not really sure why you're having a snide dig at us either with the whole "taking up arms" thing considering I support the right of people to have access to weaponry to overthrow a tyrannical government. Many of my fellow British citizens apparently don't, but that's ok - the vast majority of them support the monarchy as well.

Why is the monarchy having power a bad thing?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Because it is a hereditary system decided entirely by bloodline and is totally independent of the people's will?

[Owlbread]

Why is the monarchy having power a bad thing?

Because it's an offence to popular democracy. It would be amusing to see Monarchists trying to convince the United States of the overwhelming benefits of becoming the United Kingdoms of America.

Because it is a hereditary system decided entirely by bloodline and is totally independent of the people's will?

Or the will of God. The other little subtext to this whole thing is that the Queen is both the head of state and the head of the Church of England - so that means a foreign church actually has influence over Australia and Canada.

[kingfisher1112]

Why is the monarchy having power a bad thing?

Because it's an offence to popular democracy.

And why is it an ' Offence?'

[Owlbread]

And why is it an ' Offence?'

Because it is undemocratic. It involves someone being in a position of vast influence over your country (most of the influence is unofficial) because they inherited that position. They could be a complete bastard or a benevolent mother figure, it doesn't matter. The hand of god has put them there to rule over you, their subject. Not a citizen.

To see where even the "benevolent" modern British monarchy can go wrong - take a look at Edward VIII, the known Nazi sympathiser and Hitler's candidate for a Nazi-controlled puppet state leader. I know, Godwin's law, but it has to be said.

[kingfisher1112]

And why is it an ' Offence?'

Because it is undemocratic. It involves someone being in a position of vast influence over your country (most of the influence is unofficial) because they inherited that position. They could be a complete bastard or a benevolent mother figure, it doesn't matter. The hand of god has put them there to rule over you, their subject. Not a citizen.

Vast Influence? Matey, the Royals don't have a vast influence. If they tried to pull off any sort of influence, there would probably be an uproar. It's never happened. They serve a symbolic role only. Tell me one time where the royals ( in recent history) have actually flexed their muscles and done something. It's not Authoritarian if they don't have Authority.

[Owlbread]

Vast Influence? Matey, the Royals don't have a vast influence. If they tried to pull off any sort of influence, there would probably be an uproar. It's never happened. They serve a symbolic role only. Tell me one time where the royals ( in recent history) have actually flexed their muscles and done something. It's not Authoritarian if they don't have Authority.

They don't need to flex their muscles, they just influence things unofficially, the largest focus being things like popular culture. There's also a lot of influence on politics behind the scenes; one only need look at Tony Blair's knighthood policy, where the Queen effectively became a political tool of one man.

By the way - if the Head of State has no authority then there is no point to having a Head of State.

[kingfisher1112]

Vast Influence? Matey, the Royals don't have a vast influence. If they tried to pull off any sort of influence, there would probably be an uproar. It's never happened. They serve a symbolic role only. Tell me one time where the royals ( in recent history) have actually flexed their muscles and done something. It's not Authoritarian if they don't have Authority.

They don't need to flex their muscles, they just influence things unofficially, the largest focus being things like popular culture.

By the way - if the Head of State has no authority then there is no point to having a Head of State.

So basically they are like the media, except the Royal Family?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It's the principle of the thing. If Obama got himself declared King Obama I of America, even if that position had no power, there would be a rightful opposition to such a thing.

Monarchy degrades democracy just by existing.

[kingfisher1112]

It's the principle of the thing. If Obama got himself declared King Obama I of America, even if that position had no power, there would be a rightful opposition to such a thing.

Monarchy degrades democracy just by existing.

It degrades democracy by affecting democracy in no way?

[Owlbread]

It's the principle of the thing. If Obama got himself declared King Obama I of America, even if that position had no power, there would be a rightful opposition to such a thing.

Monarchy degrades democracy just by existing.

Very true.

So basically they are like the media, except the Royal Family?

"The media" is a very misleading term that collectivises something that isn't really collective.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It's the principle of the thing. If Obama got himself declared King Obama I of America, even if that position had no power, there would be a rightful opposition to such a thing.

Monarchy degrades democracy just by existing.

It degrades democracy by affecting democracy in no way?

It does effect democracy. By existing as it does it holds up the mental image of authoritarian hierarchies in the minds of the public. It doesn't even really have to try to degrade democracy. The cultural and intellectual weight of its existence effects democracy without action.