26Likes This is a discussion on There is no secret... within the Government in general discussion forums, part of the United Kingdom Political Forums category; There is no secret that now many of our citizens express own dissatisfaction with such outdated ruling system of this ...
Junior Member
There is no secret that now many of our citizens express own dissatisfaction with such outdated ruling system of this state as the monarchy. And it is quite understandable that, for instance, our left liberals cannot pay compliments to delegation of power by inheritance, existed now in the UK. But what about our ruling party’s members?
I mean a Labour Party candidate, Peter White, who has recently called the Queen a “parasite” and likened her to “vermin” (newssky . com /skynews/Home/UK-News/Queen-Insult-Peter-White-A-Labour-Candidate-Calls-Monarch-Vermin-On-Facebook-Message...). He has flatly refused to honor The Queen Elizabeth II during Her oncoming Diamond Jubilee, because “she does nothing except milking own country for everything she can”!
Well, it is so suitable to present The Queen in this unattractive light while leaders of the Labour Party do nothing for country’s leading out of crisis’ deadlock! Nobody deny that plenty of money is sent to The Queen’s official hospitality. But in this case we put our money to such good use as the true symbol of country’s stability. And I cannot understand why we should maintain such Labour leaders as, for example, Mr. Brown, who is unable to save this State at its current economic and financial death’s door!
Chancellor
Your point being?Originally Posted by Mr.Smith
The monarchy represent Traditional Britain and Traditional British Values to huge numbers of people both in this country and around the world and as such is very good value for the relatively tiny amount they cost us.
The Queen, as Head of State, is a figurehead only, and whilst I agree there are certainly some changes that could be made, the whole concept of the Monarchy still remains an excellent one.
"High taxes don't redistribute wealth; they redistribute taxpayers" -- Arthur Laffer
Senior MP
The United Kingdom has a Monarch,
If you dont like it emigrate,preferably far away.
The likes of Peter White should be locked in the Tower
Accidental Poet
Streetwalker, unless I misunderstand Mr. Smith and I read it through twice, I think he was agreeing that the Queen serves a useful purpose and disagreeing with Peter White. A bit of a difficult read, given obvious language difficulties but backing the Queen.
I wonder why the things that should be so simple, so natural... like loving someone and letting them see into your heart... should require so much courage?
Senior MP
I wasnt having a pop at Mr Smith just giving my view on the subject he raised.
I appologise for any confusion caused
World goin one way, people another
Wow. Quite the support for the Monarchy here. So I'd ask any of you royalists...do you believe the Queen/Royal family have any power?
Yes in legal terms they only exist as figureheads or as a lame tourist attraction and throwback to the days of old when the ruling class ruled and all us peasants did as we were told, but in real terms, the influence they exert surely means they have power over the direction of the country right?
And what precisely, have they done to earn this power, this influence? And with this great wealth that they have, do you not think they have connections with government, with big business, with other people of wealth, both here and throughout the world? I ask again, what have THEY DONE to justify this position of influence?
The odd public visit? Making and selling organic biscuits? Frequent dabbles in the entertainment industry? As for 'representing traditional values' of Britain, what would they be then? Divorce? Infidelity? Having servants and living lives of excess and leisure? What about going abroad and insulting the natives? Well at least that one is more commonplace...
Some people are more comfortable accepting the royals because they LIKE the idea of us having superiors. People who exist on a pedestal above the rest of us. It gives them comfort and a link back to the past and a simpler time to feed their nostalgic delusions of the days of old. That is not a reason for the continued inequality at the heart of British society, and if we really want to embrace the values that every man or woman in this country is born equal then the inherited wealth and influence of the Royal Family needs to be abolished.
Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time.
E. B. White
"To be honest, you think a/c jump the fence, I say the whole college jump the fence"
The wonder that is Angelcountry
"If we're going to have a police state, at least orgainise it properly!"
Guy Outside the Chilcott Enquiry as he was led away by police for causing a 'disturbance' (thanks to LA I now know his name is Michael Culver)
Conservative Member
I agree entirely with Midas.
Let's remember that the Monarchy costs around 69p per year per person. I am happy to contribute my 69p to keep the Monarchy.
never , never , never will i accept the monarchy. It is a living embodiment of a hierarchial society here in britain reinforcing the notion that there is an established order and that us serfs should know our place.
Why do the mp`s who represent us (allegedly)swear an oath of allegiance to the queen and not to those they represent?
Why are we all classed as subjects of the queen instead of citizens of britain?
The monarchy epitomises conservative values and is a bastion against change.
Support for the monarchy is steadily declining , although still gets a healthy support from parts of the population , mainly older sections.
It is to the young generation that we can hope will eventually bring about the change needed , of whom many see the monarchy as an irrelevance.
fingers crossed.
Where do you get your figures from?
Detailed figures are unavailale and any information we do get only provides the merest glimpse of the phenomenal wealth in the hands of this firm.
On top of what these spongers receive from us they rake in vast profits from land property etc.
2001 the crown estates made a profit of 148 million after tax.
I wont bend a knee to this family, they should be confined to the history books.
Christian Zionist
Perhaps you should not use money, then, as the monarch's head is all over it.
Every day that you live in the UK, you "accept" the monarchy.
Jesus said in John 3:17, "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved."
unfortunatly barry there is not much i can do about it .
can only look forward to the day we join the euro , then we wont have that problem
Senior MP
There are some pretty convincing arguments in favour of the monarchy, and there are some much less convincing but this one is really quite astounding.
So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern votaries, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal. - F.A. Hayek
Economic Left/Right: 4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.74
Senior MP
He's a Christian, and as such is drawing from the teachings of Christ. When asked about taxes, Jesus replied "Give unto Ceaser what is Ceasers and Give unto God what is Gods". Ceasers face was on their money.
,...... a tool of inequality. Of elitism. The Queen is better than us, she has "royal blood".
**** yeah.
Senior MP
Lock the royal family up
Prince William is meant to be coming to NZ soon, that disgusts me that a royal would dare come here, they should all be locked up.
Why can't Jesus eat M&Ms?
Because they keep falling through the holes in his hands!
Jesus may love you, but he won't respect you in the morning.
The Fascist
Why? The monarchy serves a valuable purpose in being the figurehead of the Commonwealth, what would you do? Elect a president? Then you would be complaining how much power they have. Or would you prefer to simply have the PM as a head of state? And remove the checks and balances?
Senior MP
Please don't take this wrong, Kiwi. I think you're a smashin' lad. And enjoy our conversations.
But if someone ever said anything like that to me in the pub, I would hope I hadn't just filled my mouth with drink... It'd be all over you as I burst out laughing!
How dare he, indeed!
Senior MP
I used to hate the royals. Living the high life and all.
But when you think of our amazing past... Yes, amazing. I used to work in a museum and we had people from all over the world coming to see Great Britain. The history! They'd say. We have a rich past, and who knows, when they look back on this time, they might say that the royals did nothing... Until William got on the throne. Then people could wear German war clothes for fun without the controversy! And PC went out of the window. That might be the time when we can watch Alf Garnett and all the other greats without it offending the sissies again
The royals used to be there to suppress the workers, keep them in squalor, no they are just there to milk the appreciation from deluded middle classes. We owe them nothing, and its time we got rid of them. We don't need a figurehead that is a symbol of inequality and oppression.
100% with you brother!!!!!!!!
I am honoured to be friends with a number of aussies , and while i don`t pretend to speak for the whole of australia , i have yet to find any that support or find relevance in an absent and foreign monarch.
Why should any democratic and egalitarian society find a place for the notion of primogeniture , sexual and religious discrimination inherent to the throne?
Why not do away with this charade?
The Fascist
Oh so we get rid of anything that was ever bad? So we should be getting rid of unions because they at one point held Britain hostage? Should we get rid of the police because at one time they were corrupt? Hell let's get rid of the army because at one time they conscripted people.
The royals do not symbolise oppression, they symbolise the unity of Britain and its traditions. As for those who complain about how much the royals cost, they actually provide more than they take in tax, in 2007-08, the monarchy recieved 40 million pounds from the Government, but provided 200 million to the treasury through various investments and estate functions.
The Fascist
When it comes down to it, we do because it doesn't affect us. The monarchy barely effects Australian politics or Australia in general, if we elected a HoS, it would effect us directly, which we don't want. Besides, we have a Queen for our HoS, how is that discrimination?
If she does`nt really affect you , why do we need her?Any of our countries?
Set her up in a little castle somewhere and let a charity paid for by tourists and monarchists and those who wish to contribute keep her.
We don`t need a symbol for the sake of tradition as a figurehead of politics or establishments anywhere.
A position of inheritance that can only be held by a white northern european protestant is discrimination to me?!
The Fascist
Because the alternative is a president. Quite simply, there is no point in changing the system, the outcome is either a system without checks and balances where the PM has an absurd amount of power, or an elected HoS who still does nothing at all.
The role of the Monarchy has never been to suppress the workers, although I admit it may have been an unintended consequence, particularly during the times of divine rights and autocratic control. You and those of the left need to realise the fact that we live in a hierarchical society in which, at least in theory the King or Queen sits atop. The figurehead of any society will always be considered a symbol of inequality and oppression - Prime Ministers, Presidents, Princes, Kings and Queens are held in disregard by those unable to comprehend their place in society. I ask how would removing the Queen (or the Royals) decrease inequality? The French staged a bloody revolution during which the King, his family and their supporters were brutally murdered - not for committing any crime but simply for their position within that society or for supporting that institution; is it acceptable to indiscriminately kill a person for their position?
In Guns, Germs and Steel, Jared Diamond proposes that inequality originated when some from the global community of hunter gatherers settled and began farming. Their decision to settle in a fertile land, grow crops and raise animals as a food source gave them an unfair advantage over those who spent a large portion of their time merely hunting food. The time saved hunting allowed the settlers to develop advanced farming techniques, tools and weapons - thus increasing inequality. You seem to think inequality is a modern phenomena, introduced by capitalism and global trade - ordained by Kings and Queens, the fact is societies only function by the installation of leaders and thus subordinates.
After the American revolution, a war to end the rule of a tyrant King and his parliament sought to install a new King. Now fair play to George Washington for rejecting the idea, but the office of President was created, elevating one member above all others. It is the natural order, seen in both human and animal societies.
If not a Monarchy (constitutional), what system of government would you propose to end inequality, that remember has been with us for most of time?
Change is not always for the better , but you can only progress and improve through change.Keeping the status quo forthe sake of it is the road to stagnation .
The queen is increasingly being seen as an anachronism , i am sure the young of australia are the same as the young over here with regards to the view of the monarchy.
A complete irrelevance with only a sentimental historical value to the older generations.Times and values change.
The same sentimental historical values that led many of the older generation to fight for King and Country to prevent Britain from invasion from an enemy whose goal was conquest and thus to 'change' the order of things. How easy you dismiss their valour and determination!
sorry tete but that is completely wrong.Having been close to my grandfather , neither he nor any of his friends that he told me about served in the second world war and fought against the nazis for king and country.
He didn`t want to fight, he was forced, conscripted into the army like it or lump it and went on to serve with distinction.I have his medals , which i treasure in my possesion.
If someone invaded britain today, i would not be fighting for queen and country but to protect my family and friends.
pouring on the for queen and country speeches does nothing to give credibility to the existence of this family in the 21st century.
I said many and not all. They fought, conscripted or otherwise for British independence and independence of British institutions - the royal family included!
Also you fail to respond to anything I wrote previously about societies need for hierarchical structures - how people have a misguided view of their place within that society! I ask what would be achieved by deposing the Monarchy? How do they limit progress for you?
i am sure the serfs in norman times were out fighting at agincourt for king and country , or was it because they would be tossed off the land and face starvation if they didn`t?
I would agree ,all countries have an elitest core throughout the world, but while many , for example , european countries dumbed down or got rid of their monarchies in the transition from feudalism to capitalism in the 17- 18th centuries, ours re invented itself .Also you fail to respond to anything I wrote previously about societies need for hierarchical structures - how people have a misguided view of their place within that society! I ask what would be achieved by deposing the Monarchy? How do they limit progress for you?
I ask you , why do we need them?
Please do not start on about tourism , etc have heard it all before.
If we don`t keep working on systems of governance , we will never improve them.Surely we need to work towards a system of equlity for all , and get rid of the class system which we especially seem to suffer from in this country, which isn`t helped by the perpetuation of a parasitical family inheriting status and wealth simply through an accident of birth?
Of course there is an elitist core - lets remember that elevation to this elitist core (at least the lefts definition of it) is possible via mere financial standing and many reach a position within the core via political elevation!
Many European countries were formed from historical nationalistic sentimental movements within the larger European empires. The demise of the Prussian, Russian and Austro-Hungarian empires allowed the newly established countries to form governments without the history of a national monarchy. Those, such as France only achieved republicanism via a bloody revolution a regicide - leading to rule by dictator; the same can be said for Russia and although the Italian and Spainish Royals were not killed - their replacement at least initially were dictators.
You say we need to remove class from society - on what model? A dictatorship similar to the USSR? Nazi Germany? Republicanism like the USA? The left requires class to function, without it their core purpose and main argument is dead! Capitalism can and has reduced class barriers - the US being an example although from a leftist point of view wealth is the new class so thus it continues.
You can't ask for reasons to not abolish the Monarchy then dictate what those reasons are. Tourism relating to the Monarchy is obviously a reason - as the net benefit (at least financially) outweighs the cost. Historical relevance is important for culture and identification purposes and I challenge you to prove that removing the Royal would result in any improvements to inequality. France, Germany, the US, Russia and any other republic nation you care to mention has comparable levels of inequality to the UK; the left of their countries fight the same never ending battles, and fail with the same arguments as their UK counterparts!
And yet , for example , a succesfull muslim , who may be an upstanding pillar of the community cannot be elevated to the position of head of state in this country?no matter his political or financial standing!
agreed ,so is your argument for the monarchy fundamentaly just the fear of change?Again , why do we need them?Many European countries were formed from historical nationalistic sentimental movements within the larger European empires. The demise of the Prussian, Russian and Austro-Hungarian empires allowed the newly established countries to form governments without the history of a national monarchy. Those, such as France only achieved republicanism via a bloody revolution a regicide - leading to rule by dictator; the same can be said for Russia and although the Italian and Spainish Royals were not killed - their replacement at least initially were dictators.
in america i believe it`s what, not who, you know!They have a black president based on his ability to get elected , through his various qualities.We could never have a black head of state, irrespective of his qualities simply because he does not meet the discriminatory criteria for the job!You say we need to remove class from society - on what model? A dictatorship similar to the USSR? Nazi Germany? The USA? The left requires class to function, without it their core purpose and main argument is dead! Capitalism can and has reduced class barriers - the US being an example although from a leftist point of view wealth is the new class so thus it continues.
From an earlier thread i believe someone said more people visit legoland than windsor castle.You can't ask for reasons to not abolish the Monarchy then dictate what those reasons are. Tourism relating to the Monarchy is obviously a reason - as the net benefit (at least financially) outweighs the cost.
fully agree once more , removing the monarchy would not result in an immediate improvement to inequality but would be a step in the right direction and send out a great message.The premise that sometimes your connections and bloodline will advance you in our society rather than your ability is something that must be stamped upon.Getting rid of the monarchy is the first step in the right directionHistorical relevance is important for culture and identification purposes and I challenge you to prove that removing the Royal would result in any improvements to inequality. France, Germany, the US, Russia and any other republic nation you care to mention has comparable levels of inequality to the UK; the left of their countries fight the same never ending battles, and fail with the same arguments as their UK counterparts!
Senior MP
I don't quite see how the royals are a check or balance?
So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern votaries, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal. - F.A. Hayek
Economic Left/Right: 4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.74
So what! A good upstanding Christian cannot rise to be the head of state in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia who's monarchy also form the seat of government, and who's constitution is a religious text - the Qur'an. The same can be said in any Islamic state; Iran, Pakistan, Iraq or Libya.
I wouldn't say the fundamental argument is a fear of change but instead the embracing of tradition! The arguments for and against the monarchy tend to cancel each other out in my opinion. As you have stated before change doesn't necessarily equate to good or in this case progress.
I agree America do have the concept of what you know - hasn't really improved inequality. The UK has had a female Prime Minister and it would be possible for a black or Asian person to also assume that office. The discriminatory criteria is not prejudicial based on race, colour or sex - but based on long standing traditions of succession to the throne and I see little reason to alter that tradition as it will achieve nothing.
That's not an argument to abolish the monarchy - more people attend football matches than church, should we abolish religion?
What message ? Look we managed to abolish an age old tradition aren't we all great now lets all hold hands, share our worldly possessions and sing cum-bay-****ing-ah. The realisation that in the real world connections and bloodline play a part in determining the future of some people is one that we must all come to terms with. The left are hypocrites, sitting complaining about globalisation, capitalism, poverty and inequality all the while in their heated homes, full cupboards, their consumer driven worlds of computers, ipods and mobile phones actually believing that abolishing the monarchy is a great first step to world improvement - worked for the Soviet Union didn't it?
With respect tete , i am concerned with britain and what affects us .As an advanced western nation should we not be setting an example?
fair enoughI wouldn't say the fundamental argument is a fear of change but instead the embracing of tradition! The arguments for and against the monarchy tend to cancel each other out in my opinion. As you have stated before change doesn't necessarily equate to good or in this case progress.
i say again keeping tradition for the sake of tradition equals no progress.A system of priveleges through accident of birth makes a mockery of life as we know it todayI agree America do have the concept of what you know - hasn't really improved inequality. The UK has had a female Prime Minister and it would be possible for a black or Asian person to also assume that office. The discriminatory criteria is not prejudicial based on race, colour or sex - but based on long standing traditions of succession to the throne and I see little reason to alter that tradition as it will achieve nothing.
tempted to say yes , another anachronism.don`t want to offend any religious forum members though , but wouldn`t be a bad ideaThat's not an argument to abolish the monarchy - more people attend football matches than church, should we abolish religion?
WHY?why must we accept and come to terms with this?What message ? Look we managed to abolish an age old tradition aren't we all great now lets all hold hands, share our worldly possessions and sing cum-bay-****ing-ah. The realisation that in the real world connections and bloodline play a part in determining the future of some people is one that we must all come to terms with.
Should black people have accepted slavery as the norm because it was once an age old tradition??
yes tete i suppose we are hypocrites , though no less than the right.No change no improvement or betterment!The left are hypocrites, sitting complaining about globalisation, capitalism, poverty and inequality all the while in their heated homes, full cupboards, their consumer driven worlds of computers, ipods and mobile phones actually believing that abolishing the monarchy is a great first step to world improvement - worked for the Soviet Union didn't it?
The Fascist
How have values changed in regards to the monarchy? Are political stability, tradition, nationalism, no longer values of society? Is it always out with the old, in with the new? To what? You keep saying out with the monarchy but don't provide any alternatives. Do we elect a president? What happens then? Who do we elect? An actor or sports person? How much power will they have? If it's the same as the Queen, then there's no point in changing the system, or do we make the PM redundant with an all powerful president like the American system? The monarchy is fine, it does nothing, so we can't complain about what it is doing, but there's still the power there in an emergency.
They can veto laws and dismiss the Government in times of an emergency, however they themselves cannot take any real political power.
I see no reason why Britain (or the west for that matter) must set examples for the rest of the world. I think the argument of nationalistic self preservation should and is relevant in this debate thus comparison with other nations also with traditional monarchies is acceptable.
It's not only for the sake of tradition though is it. Much of what makes us British is bound up in royal traditions and cultures. The Royals have a beneficial effect on the economy and sit as head of not just our state but of our state religion too.
Okay to offend monarchists as they are nothing but deluded middle class anachronisms but better respect the faithful. I pretty much agree with you, but the if we're on the topic of anachronisms - the NHS?
Come on don't place something in debate you know I can't argue against, besides slavery was and still is something that affect all colours and races and I wouldn't say slavery was a tradition. We must come to terms with the fact that we each have a position within society - we can elevate from that position in certain areas and not in others.
The right do advocate a sense of self - whereas the left are idealists living in a make believe world, proposing what needs to be done but doing very little! That was my point.
BNP Forum Member
...and as a result the Monarchy generates millions of pounds a year in tourism etc.
For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal. - Enoch Powell, Rivers of Blood speech, 1968.
The monarchy generates zero income from tourism. People don't come to see the queen, they come to see Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace and all of the other physical relics of our history. In fact, we would make more money without a monarch, since people would pay to see the former private apartments. Think about it, its not as if noone would ever go to Windsor Castle any more if the monarchy didn't exist, is it?
Senior MP
They don't actually do that though, and if they did it would be wholly undemocratic. If they are a check and balance then they are a wholly inappropriate one.
So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern votaries, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal. - F.A. Hayek
Economic Left/Right: 4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.74
Senior MP
The reason I dislike the royal family is simple. If find it offensive that MY head of state is some unelected old biddy from the other side of the world.
What if I think it is fair for the official head of state of NZ to be someone from NZ, and elected.
What if I don't want to look at currency and see the queen of England? What if I don't want MP's swearing an oath to the Queen of England?
Why can't Jesus eat M&Ms?
Because they keep falling through the holes in his hands!
Jesus may love you, but he won't respect you in the morning.
The Fascist
No, they don't, but they can which is the point. They prevent a majority Government going dictatorially crazy, for example if the BNP were somehow elected, and we didn't have the Queen, who would stop them implementing segregation like in Neo's nightmares?
Senior MP
Well then I guess it would be the will of the people for the BNP to have control. The Queen is not some morally superior being capable of judging what is best more so than any of us.
So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern votaries, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal. - F.A. Hayek
Economic Left/Right: 4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.74
The Fascist
So how is a majority Government meant to be controlled? Or a President? Now I don't like democracy, it's basically a popularity contest, and the average joe who votes does not a have the required expertise to judge either sides policies, hell the people who are elected don't have the qualifications to even do the jobs they're supposed to. The will of the people is hardly clear or right, the Queen, however, is in a position where she has a dam better understanding of what's going on. Her reserve powers are what stops stupid people making really stupid mistakes. So yes, the Queen is far more capable of judging what's best for the nation compared to the public.
Oh so we get rid of anything that was ever bad? So we should be getting rid of unions because they at one point held Britain hostage? Should we get rid of the police because at one time they were corrupt? Hell let's get rid of the army because at one time they conscripted people.
I agree. get rid of the army.
But unions?
The whole point of a strike is to disrupt the country, under Thatcher everyone working in a job where striking was appropriate should have gone on strike- bring the country to a halt, its the only was to get the moneymakers to listen to the scum. because thats waht anyone on unde 30 grand is. Scum.
Senior MP
How?! She has no understanding of how the vast majority of people live their lives, no qualifications which set her apart from any elected official. I share your observations of democracy but cannot see how that can justify a head of state chosen simply by inheritance.
So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern votaries, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal. - F.A. Hayek
Economic Left/Right: 4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.74
World goin one way, people another
Wow, way to earn that self-imposed fascist tag. The right to either take part or ignore politics is at the heart of democracy. A majority government does not need to be controlled.
The Queen's power is, or at least should be, merely a formality. If by some freak of nature the circumstances allowed the Queen to become our ruler, (can't believe I'm even considering this) she would have little support in the country and some other group would take power.
Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half of the time.
E. B. White
"To be honest, you think a/c jump the fence, I say the whole college jump the fence"
The wonder that is Angelcountry
"If we're going to have a police state, at least orgainise it properly!"
Guy Outside the Chilcott Enquiry as he was led away by police for causing a 'disturbance' (thanks to LA I now know his name is Michael Culver)
The Fascist
You completely ignored the point I was making.
How else would they be chosen? You can complain about how the Queen all you want, but you're not offering an alternative. And yes, the Queen has access to advisors, and she has grown up with that looming responsability. I would say she is more qualified by that simple fact, that she was raised to lead, than many politicians.
That's the same logic that got the Nazis into power. If a majority Government did go a little bit crazy, who would stop them? They still have their term to cover, and in that time they could secure their position by forcing through extreme policies.
Unlikey, as she still wouldn't be able to actually rule, merely restrict the powers of the Government.The Queen's power is, or at least should be, merely a formality. If by some freak of nature the circumstances allowed the Queen to become our ruler, (can't believe I'm even considering this) she would have little support in the country and some other group would take power.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks