question for the brits
- Thread starter Luis G
- Start date
unclehobart
New Member
The power of the monachry has been nutted for many a long year. Its mere traditional figureheadery anymore. When queenie eats it.. Chucky-boy will land the post. Status quo.
Jeslek
Banned
Um no. You must have a king and queen in a parliamentry system!! They are the only people in the country that can fire the Prime Minister if he fucks up. Please, don't get rid of the royalty!! They are the most important counter-balance to the House of Commons. Without them and the House of Lords, a vital link will be broken with very bad results.Luis G said:
Scanty
New Member
When the queen dies, royalty will still go on, at least for a very long time. Yes, it is traditional - but this isn't a tradition that is bad in any way. Aside from things that are made falsely dramatic by the media, there is nothing that the monarchy does to worsen anyone's lives. If anything, they help. If the choice was between just having a parliament and having both parliament and monarchy - of course the latter.
I know that it is definitely not useless, especially if you consider the work they do in charity and in relations with other countries. The monarch gives more of a human 'face' in the leadership of Britain if you will, rather than just having hard-assed politicians represent the masses.
I know that it is definitely not useless, especially if you consider the work they do in charity and in relations with other countries. The monarch gives more of a human 'face' in the leadership of Britain if you will, rather than just having hard-assed politicians represent the masses.
I don't mean to offend at all, so please don't take it that way, but...
Don't you get pissed when you see how they live, and realize that they actually do very little work? The charity and foreign relations are important, but think of the money that is there in Buckingham, If it were to be sold off, and the royalty abolished, I would venture to say that you all could go the better part of a year without taxes.
Don't you get pissed when you see how they live, and realize that they actually do very little work? The charity and foreign relations are important, but think of the money that is there in Buckingham, If it were to be sold off, and the royalty abolished, I would venture to say that you all could go the better part of a year without taxes.
unclehobart
New Member
Liquidating the royals would net you about 1 nuke sub or 1/3 of a years road building budget. From what know, the royals are busy as hell people. It may not be chopping wood, but they sure dont lay around in Roman robes with people wiping thiercollective asses.
unclehobart
New Member
The Queen is the head of society. If she did not exist the Prime Minister would be the first person in the country. He and his wife would have to receive foreign ministers, and occasionally foreign princes, to give the first parties in the country; he and she would be at the head of the pageant of life; they would represent England in the eyes of foreign nations; they would represent the Government of England in the eyes of the English.
But of all nations in the world the English are perhaps the least a nation of pure philosophers. It would be a very serious matter to change every four or five years the visible head of the English world. The English are not now remarkable for the highest sort of ambition; but are remarkable for having a great deal of the lower sort of ambition and envy. The House of Commons is thronged with people who get there merely for 'social purposes', as the phrase goes; that is, that they and their families may go to parties else impossible. Members of Parliament are envied by thousands merely for this frivolous glory, as a thinker calls it. If the highest post in conspicuous life were thrown open to public competition, this low sort of ambition and envy would be fearfully increased. Politics would offer a prize too dazzling for mankind; clever base people would strive for it, and stupid base people would envy it.
Having a lasting and permanent head of state give of a tremendous aura of confidence and stability like no other. A monarch also tends to be the center of religious and moral fiber; adding a certain measure and direction to this feel of solidity. A visible head of state serves to keep a cap of humility to the offices of public service.
But of all nations in the world the English are perhaps the least a nation of pure philosophers. It would be a very serious matter to change every four or five years the visible head of the English world. The English are not now remarkable for the highest sort of ambition; but are remarkable for having a great deal of the lower sort of ambition and envy. The House of Commons is thronged with people who get there merely for 'social purposes', as the phrase goes; that is, that they and their families may go to parties else impossible. Members of Parliament are envied by thousands merely for this frivolous glory, as a thinker calls it. If the highest post in conspicuous life were thrown open to public competition, this low sort of ambition and envy would be fearfully increased. Politics would offer a prize too dazzling for mankind; clever base people would strive for it, and stupid base people would envy it.
Having a lasting and permanent head of state give of a tremendous aura of confidence and stability like no other. A monarch also tends to be the center of religious and moral fiber; adding a certain measure and direction to this feel of solidity. A visible head of state serves to keep a cap of humility to the offices of public service.
unclehobart
New Member
^ footnote: half of that is my thought melded in with a few lifted lines from 3 different sources. Sorry... closed the linkages before I thought to add them.
unclehobart
New Member
I agree with the 20 million a year spent on security and staff picked up by the government. Its just CODB for keeping your leaders free from assassins. The parts I don't like are the subsidies like 550,000 for the queens hubby... just for beng the queens hubby. The queen mum got 1 mil a year when she was alive for just being the queen mum. Add up all of the fluff salaries and you could cut the monachial budget by 1/3.
ris
New Member
the monarchy has a use but its size is a bother to me if anything. i'd rather see a norwegian or danish style monarchy - much smaller and cheaper. but the amount they do is fairly phenominal, they are in effect foreign diplomats who can go to countries that some politicians cannot.
i should mention that the monarchial counterbalance to the parliament is pretty much non-existant. the queen might have the power technically but she cannot and will not ever use it. the house of lords has more power than her. she can do a lot of stuff but in reality she can't do anything that undermines parliament.
i should mention that the monarchial counterbalance to the parliament is pretty much non-existant. the queen might have the power technically but she cannot and will not ever use it. the house of lords has more power than her. she can do a lot of stuff but in reality she can't do anything that undermines parliament.
Scanty
New Member
unc said:
Yes, I agree with that.
But if everyone has major problems with people being given too much money - money that could otherwise be put into much better causes - then there is a whole other ocean of over-paid individuals to deal with as well. I was just talking to LL about sport stars, for example. And the monarchy does way more for the good of the country than them.
Jeslek
Banned
She can and will dissolve the government if a dictator or an idiot rise to power. There is a lot of stuff she can do but will not normally do, because there isn't a situation like that. But should there ever be such a situation, she will do it. Not to mention she can fire MY prime minister. Which makes me love her very much.ris said:
