The monarchy in the UK

[mikhail]

While the queen is around i gotta say i support the Monarchy.She embodies a more classical form of monarchy that has alot peoples affections.However when prince charles takes over i cant stand the idea of him becoming king.He is a fool who doesent realise his place that as king he should keep his opinions to himself he is a sucker for any bullshit going like homeopathy i dont believe he will keep his political opinions to himself the way the queen does.

I think once the queen goes we can no longer pretend to hold on to something so far from the past.It will be sad but i think around the world people dont like Charles and tourist money will dry up.


I have 2 alternatives

1 A president at least we could have a range of candidates which always seems like a much wider choice to me.I hate the fact Gordan brown is prime minister yet nobody voted for him to be (dont point out the technicalities to the voting system government is very centralised) I actually think a general election should be called if a leader retires and Browns refusal to have an election just seems so undemocratic to me.

2 We have a lottery style competition £1 a ticket all the money goes to pay for the Monarchs expenses and the random winner gets to be king or queen.

 

[PeteEU]

The British Monarchy is worth billions for the UK. So why get rid of it? By putting a president into power (aka a republic) you will be putting way more power in said persons hands unless you just make it a figure head like it is now. And if you do that, do you really think that the millions of millions of tourists coming to the UK to see the royal palaces, and so on, would actually come in the same numbers? I dont thats for sure.

 

[mikhail]

The British Monarchy is worth billions for the UK. So why get rid of it? By putting a president into power (aka a republic) you will be putting way more power in said persons hands unless you just make it a figure head like it is now. And if you do that, do you really think that the millions of millions of tourists coming to the UK to see the royal palaces, and so on, would actually come in the same numbers? I dont thats for sure.

Well the palaces will still be there and open to the public.I just cant see Charles getting embraced by the public the same way.I dont think he will keep his mouth shut and stay out of politics.

 

[Hundebolg]

The british Monarchy is antiquated and superflous. Brits are being kept in their nostalgic empire dreaming, and this is infringing onto the very human rights of Iraqis nowadays. The Queen is an emblem of bloodthirsty conservatism and should be beheaded by an angry crowd as soon as feasible.

 

[Volker]

Her royal majesty, Queen Elizabeth II. is very, very German friendly. May she live long and happy.

Prince Charles is very, very German friendly. May he live long and happy.

The monarchy in the UK is an old and good institution and Britons should not give it away only because they are not happy about what some news papers write about a person.

 

[new coup for you]

The Monarchy persists because it's entertaining.

The reason the UK has the best tabloids is because you've been honing your gossip skills since the fall of the Roman Empire on your ludicrous nobles.

 

[bub]

Monarchy is a factor of stability. I don't know if it is still necessary, but eh...it has been like that for centuries and it's not bad. Anyway, it does not have a lot of power anymore.

Maybe Charles looks dumb (we've got the same problem here, Prince Philippe is sympathic but he does not look very clever and is disliked by the Flemish) but think in the long term.

Or if you really don't like him, put somebody else (his son?) to the throne

 

[new coup for you]

The UK doesn't ah...quite...have the same...existential...problems that Belgium does, Bub.

Although...we'll see how the SNP fairs, maybe i'll have to take it back.

 

[Volker]

Monarchy is a factor of stability. I don't know if it is still necessary, but eh...it has been like that for centuries and it's not bad. Anyway, it does not have a lot of power anymore.

Maybe Charles looks dumb (we've got the same problem here, Prince Philippe is sympathic but he does not look very clever and is disliked by the Flemish) but think in the long term.

Or if you really don't like him, put somebody else (his son?) to the throne

Please tell me, you talk about Prince William and not about Harry.

Prince Charles does not look dumb and he is not dumb for sure. He can fly helicopters and jets for example.

 

[mikhail]

Please tell me, you talk about Prince William and not about Harry.

Prince Charles does not look dumb and he is not dumb for sure. He can fly helicopters and jets for example.

He is an idiot and everyone knows it.Thats like saying someone isnt an idiot because they can drive a car.I have to work among morons who dont deserve their place i swear i could pick homeless people off the street that would do better.The UK still has big problem with the class system where you do well not because who you are but where your from.

 

[new coup for you]

name some recent royals who were mental athletes...

 

[Hundebolg]

name some recent royals who were mental athletes...

The british royal family is inbred and crippled by hereditary dementia, just have a look at Charles. They are among the lowest of low, and deserve nothing less than a clean cut by the revolutionary Guillotine under the bellowings of an amazed and angry mob.

 

[GarzaUK]

While the queen is around i gotta say i support the Monarchy.She embodies a more classical form of monarchy that has alot peoples affections.However when prince charles takes over i cant stand the idea of him becoming king.He is a fool who doesent realise his place that as king he should keep his opinions to himself he is a sucker for any bullshit going like homeopathy i dont believe he will keep his political opinions to himself the way the queen does.

I think once the queen goes we can no longer pretend to hold on to something so far from the past.It will be sad but i think around the world people dont like Charles and tourist money will dry up.


I have 2 alternatives

1 A president at least we could have a range of candidates which always seems like a much wider choice to me.I hate the fact Gordan brown is prime minister yet nobody voted for him to be (dont point out the technicalities to the voting system government is very centralised) I actually think a general election should be called if a leader retires and Browns refusal to have an election just seems so undemocratic to me.

2 We have a lottery style competition £1 a ticket all the money goes to pay for the Monarchs expenses and the random winner gets to be king or queen.

When/If Prince Charles does become King he will no longer be allowed to voice opinions in public. He can only voice opinions to the Prime Minister. Which IMO is good news. Isn't it a funny how all other monarchs called Charles are usualy idiots?? lol

Secondly I like the monarchy, because it is different. I don't want a French, American, German, Irish type of government, I want a British sort of government, the sort of government that has evolved over one thousand years. Anyway a President usually is like a monarch, goes away on state visits and does f**k and leaves all the work to the Prime Minister/Chancellor/Taiosearch or whatever.

 

[Red_Dave]

Or if you really don't like him, put somebody else (his son?) to the throne

I think would be a good idea actually. Its well within parliaments power to dissmiss and appoint kings [indeed they,ve done so 3 times] so it shouldnt be too difficult consitutionally and I think would be a good way to keep some of the good sides of the monarchy while removing the bad.

What annoys me about the Monarchy in its current form is the notion that someones worthy to be head of state by the virtue of who his parents where. I find it hard to be patriotic about something that proclaims to the world "look at us, we missed the enlightenment!"

So a potential way to deal with this would be to appoint someone on the basis of merrit rather then birth. So if you appointed someone like Stephen Fry, who is largely regarded as a national treasure anyway then you could have a good center to our national identity without the less desireable aspects of the monarchy that belong in the dark ages.

 

[GarzaUK]

So a potential way to deal with this would be to appoint someone on the basis of merrit rather then birth. So if you appointed someone like Stephen Fry, who is largely regarded as a national treasure anyway then you could have a good center to our national identity without the less desireable aspects of the monarchy that belong in the dark ages.

Stephen fry is a national treasure??? :shock: WHAT???

 

[Red_Dave]

Stephen fry is a national treasure??? :shock: WHAT???

Probably a bad choice of words and perhaps a bad example but someone who's widely respected and liked yet uncontroverisal politically [and thus less divisive]. What im trying to say is that we should be using the monarchy a bit like a peerage [albiet without the bribery] and reward people on the basis of achieving something in the arts or sciences rather then having blue blood.

 

[GarzaUK]

Probably a bad choice of words and perhaps a bad example but someone who's widely respected and liked yet uncontroverisal politically [and thus less divisive]. What im trying to say is that we should be using the monarchy a bit like a peerage [albiet without the bribery] and reward people on the basis of achieving something in the arts or sciences rather then having blue blood.

I would guarantee ALOT of people would turn the job down. And a lot of people would say why the hell not just get rid of it.

 

[Volker]

He is an idiot and everyone knows it.Thats like saying someone isnt an idiot because they can drive a car.

With a helicopter you have to manage to stay in the air for while, it's not so easy how it looks like. A nice person showed me some things about flying an Ecureuil, which is the coolest helicopter in my opinion, and I think, it was a lot of fun, we were flying over the area here and he was pretty good with flying and explaining.

I have to work among morons who dont deserve their place i swear i could pick homeless people off the street that would do better. The UK still has big problem with the class system where you do well not because who you are but where your from.

I don't know this from Germany.

 

[Volker]

When/If Prince Charles does become King he will no longer be allowed to voice opinions in public. He can only voice opinions to the Prime Minister. Which IMO is good news. Isn't it a funny how all other monarchs called Charles are usualy idiots?? lol

We have such a strange rule about the President and talking about politics, too. Sometimes the Presidents here break this rule.

Secondly I like the monarchy, because it is different. I don't want a French, American, German, Irish type of government, I want a British sort of government, the sort of government that has evolved over one thousand years. Anyway a President usually is like a monarch, goes away on state visits and does f**k and leaves all the work to the Prime Minister/Chancellor/Taiosearch or whatever.

Wir wollen unser'n alten Kaiser Wilhelm wiederha'am, mit'm Bart, mit'm Bart, mit 'nem langen Bart ...

This is a song , which means, we want our old Kaiser Wilhelm back, with the long beard :mrgreen:

 

[Volker]

I think would be a good idea actually. Its well within parliaments power to dissmiss and appoint kings [indeed they,ve done so 3 times] so it shouldnt be too difficult consitutionally and I think would be a good way to keep some of the good sides of the monarchy while removing the bad.

What annoys me about the Monarchy in its current form is the notion that someones worthy to be head of state by the virtue of who his parents where. I find it hard to be patriotic about something that proclaims to the world "look at us, we missed the enlightenment!"

So a potential way to deal with this would be to appoint someone on the basis of merrit rather then birth. So if you appointed someone like Stephen Fry, who is largely regarded as a national treasure anyway then you could have a good center to our national identity without the less desireable aspects of the monarchy that belong in the dark ages.

Maybe it's a good idea, but it did not work well for Germany and Poland. Both countries had their election monarchies for centuries. In Germany it ended with people got voted who did have rather not so much power, the houses Luxemburg and Wittelsbach for example, until the house Habsburg came into power.

In Poland they did not wanted to become one of their own dynasties too mighty, so they had foreign kings, the last dynastie in this time was the one from Saxony. Poland became something to play with for foreign powers and the Polish people lost independence this way.

 

[Slainte]

I like the arrangement the other Commonwealth countries have with the monarchy; the flashy visits and the charity work without the tax burden and endless, boring gossip.

Does any non-Brit really believe Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, Balmoral etc would be less worth visiting if an old women stopped staying there once a year? Vienna gets millions of tourists visiting its palaces every year and ti got rid of its monarchy a century ago!

The only technical function the Queen actually carries out is deciding if we should have another election if one election fails to provide a clear winner. I think shes had to do that once in the last 50 years, everything else is done by the government, if Charles wants to have an opinion he can go right ahead, if he breaks convention though - off with his head! :mrgreen:

 

[Hundebolg]

if Charles wants to have an opinion he can go right ahead, if he breaks convention though - off with his head! :mrgreen:

Applause! Applause!

Off with his head !

 

[Plain old me]

Secondly I like the monarchy, because it is different. I don't want a French, American, German, Irish type of government, I want a British sort of government, the sort of government that has evolved over one thousand years.

...the sort of government that gives 60% of the Parliament to a party with 35% of the votes and has an utterly undemocratic upper house... I view the monarchy in much the same way I view the rest of our political system, old, crumbling and in dire need of reform.

Don't get me wrong, the monarchy has served it's purpose, but Red Dave is right... we missed the enlightenment by some two hundred years. Being a modern, liberal democracy with a hereditary head of state, appointed by God, is not something to hold onto with pride, it's something over which we should be ashamed. Replace her with a weak Presidency, a rotating position or a headless state, whatever, but let's stop holding this relic of a by-gone political system in such high regard.

It's been a while...

 

[mikhail]

...the sort of government that gives 60% of the Parliament to a party with 35% of the votes and has an utterly undemocratic upper house... I view the monarchy in much the same way I view the rest of our political system, old, crumbling and in dire need of reform.

Don't get me wrong, the monarchy has served it's purpose, but Red Dave is right... we missed the enlightenment by some two hundred years. Being a modern, liberal democracy with a hereditary head of state, appointed by God, is not something to hold onto with pride, it's something over which we should be ashamed. Replace her with a weak Presidency, a rotating position or a headless state, whatever, but let's stop holding this relic of a by-gone political system in such high regard.

It's been a while...

This arguement of is of course very strong but i have to say ive been glad the house of lords is their a few times over the last few years.I think colser intergration with europe is inevitable and i think the changes in the political system will be taken in light of this.How the monarchy wroks into this i dont know.

 

[GarzaUK]

...the sort of government that gives 60% of the Parliament to a party with 35% of the votes and has an utterly undemocratic upper house... I view the monarchy in much the same way I view the rest of our political system, old, crumbling and in dire need of reform.

Don't get me wrong, the monarchy has served it's purpose, but Red Dave is right... we missed the enlightenment by some two hundred years. Being a modern, liberal democracy with a hereditary head of state, appointed by God, is not something to hold onto with pride, it's something over which we should be ashamed. Replace her with a weak Presidency, a rotating position or a headless state, whatever, but let's stop holding this relic of a by-gone political system in such high regard.

It's been a while...

I am not denying that our system of government needs to change and that we need a constitution.

I just can't understand how instead of someone who we voted for to fly over the world, shake hands, have dinners with other heads fo state and basically doing **** all is anymore enlightened than someone who is born into doing it. I mean the Irish President does exactly the same as the Queen. If I had to vote for someone to do **** all I wouldn't vote at all.

I don't think anyone anymore believes that a monarch is appointed by God. I think the monarchy for all its flaws makes us different to everyone else. And being different is not such a bad thing.