Print

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

[smjjames]

As long as they lead by example and duty is my opinion on the monarchy. Would still rather have a king or queen than a president and would happily fight to protect them because they represent the many kingdoms of Great Britain.

As well as it's extended family, aka the colonies, which does include the US. We may not be a part of the Commonwealth, but we still have the shared history with Britain.

[martinuzz]

As long as they lead by example and duty is my opinion on the monarchy. Would still rather have a king or queen than a president and would happily fight to protect them because they represent the many kingdoms of Great Britain.

As well as it's extended family, aka the colonies, which does include the US. We may not be a part of the Commonwealth, but we still have the shared history with Britain.

Family doesn't hold tea parties without inviting the Queen

[NJW2000]

Heh. The opinion on the monarchy generally arrived at by the teenagers/young adults I know is pretty much, "ah, who gives a shit." Many of these being pretty hard left.

Some of them were initially against the monarchy for financial reasons, which is fair enough if you don't understand how much £300 million a year is in the context of the budget. But considering the proportion of stubborn people who like having the royals around, it's pretty clearly not worth the effort.

Also the Queen helps hold the Commonwealth together and stuff, but that's roughly counterbalanced by risking a schmuck like Charlie getting anywhere near a seat of power. And a bunch of values and shit, because the monarchy help loads in the spiritual and ethical crises of our nation.

I don't know if these teens identify as trendy, but they're (we're) certainly pretty angsty.

[Loud Whispers]

Not too bothered about Royals, rather the institutions of the Crown is the far more important thing. I like that a constitutional monarchy keeps its source of authority and its executor of authority separate, electing Ministers, rather than Kings in the habit of Presidents - it helps keep the ambitious in check
Thus the UK general position is that monarchs can be forced or allowed to abdicate, but none can be allowed to abolish the Crown and leave the Throne vacant. The highest Minister or Officer remains a subject amongst subjects, and it is the British people who decide how the Monarchy lives, and it is the Monarchy from which Officers and Mandarins exercise their functions on their behalf. Works for me before you factor in the monetary benefits, the great influx of money we get from the Crown lands or Tourism.

[TD1]

Hehehe, parliament is costing us money; we should abolish it.

[scriver]

I'm rather meh about the royal family. I don't particularly care for the king (Have a much higher opinion of the princess heir, though), I dislike how much money they receive without insight in how it's spent, and I'm not too find about royalty in general. However, I absolutely under no circumstances would want presidential elections a la the US, I feel they only serve to obfuscate the political power system and who actually makes laws. Too much person cultish feeling to it.

On the other hand, I would be absolutely revolutionary if we had the kind of monarch that Spain has who travel around the world hunting endangered animals and who is constantly found to be involved in corruption and shit. That shit pisses me of from over here.

If we would remove the monarch system though i would much rather we still called the head of state king/queen though.

[smjjames]

If we would remove the monarch system though i would much rather we still called the head of state king/queen though.

You just want to have your cake and eat it, you can't have it both ways as King/Queen only applies to monarchy when it comes to politics.

[TD1]

Meh. It's all terminology - if you name a Prime Minister a King, he does not become a Monarch. If you name a King 'President', he does not lose his Monarchic position.

[pisskop]

The role has actual functions, and historical implications colors their proper meanings.

Dont bandy about functional definitions and swap their names.

[smjjames]

The role has actual functions, and historical implications colors their proper meanings.

Dont bandy about functional definitions and swap their names.

^
This

[TD1]

If power is legally restricted in the same way, then no amount of historical colouring will make a difference. Though, I agree that it's better not to tempt fate. Current system works alright so far.

[Loud Whispers]

If power is legally restricted in the same way, then no amount of historical colouring will make a difference. Though, I agree that it's better not to tempt fate. Current system works alright so far.

Can't remember who brought it up in a similar discussion, but Rome is a really good example - where Kings, Consuls, Imperators and Dictators may serve the same role, but there are many differences between them which are important. Hell, there are differences within Monarchies, from the absolute monarch of Saudi Arabia to the constitutional monarch of Norway

*EDIT
Revolutionary France is also bretty good
Killed the King, Elected a Consul, got a Dictator, becomes an Emperor

[ChairmanPoo]

On the other hand, I would be absolutely revolutionary if we had the kind of monarch that Spain has who travel around the world hunting endangered animals and who is constantly found to be involved in corruption and shit. That shit pisses me of from over here.
 

...and that's without even getting onto how he became king in the first place: he basically sucked up to a certain bald old man until he got the appointment.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Yes, *that* bald old man. There is a video in French of an interview from 1969 in which he basically sang praises of El Generalisimo. Not that you will actually see it in TV, heaven forbid.

Another fun fact: the Spanish Consitution states that the King is inviolate and cannot be held responsible for any of his acts. So yes, technically he could start hunting people in the streets instead of endangered animals, without anyone being able to do a thing. So I guess we should be grateful

F

[Silverthrone]

Yes, a monarchy in the United States, for instance, would simply not be a good idea, since there is not precedent for such an institution, and because that land is more or less built entirely open the idea of the popular republic.

As for the Spanish king, I cannot say I am terribly impressed. It seems terribly gauche, all those things he gets up to. 'The fact that you can does not mean that you should' is a reliable little lesson of life, one that the King of the Spaniards ought to consider. For it is ever more true for a monarch.

Speaking of monarchs, it will be odd in a few years. For all my life, there has been a King of Sweden and a Queen of Britain. In a few years, once the current monarchs have passed, it will be the other way around. A queen Victoria, no less. The last queen we had abdicated and ran off to Rome and became a catholic, however, so I doubt she will be a change for the worse.

[pisskop]

well, having a figure at the heart of  country, that stands as a prominent and permanent role model and as an extension of the people.

Being american, we all lack that.  We have hollywoods and drugs and nomnoms and derek overrated jeter.


I do long for the idea of having pride in such a figure.  Must be nice.  All the permanent heads hide in shadows.  Many do not have more than a couple of publicly available tidbits about them, and fewer have photos one could see.