To all the Brits on this board

[lokican]

Hi I'm a very political person and have a quesiton for all the Brithish members on this board. Do you guys take the monarchy seriosuly? I mean do you respect the roayl family just becuase they are royales? In canada it's an embarassment becuase the queen is the figure head of our nation, I think it's ridicously outdates. Anywas I dont get why the British press are so fascinated with the Royale family, I say give them their privacy or even bettter do away with the monarchy and let them live normal lives. Anyways sorry for the rant intrested in your responses.

 

[Leung]

Originally posted by lokican@Apr 17 2005, 02:50 AM
Hi I'm a very political person and have a quesiton for all the Brithish members on this board. Do you guys take the monarchy seriosuly? I mean do you respect the roayl family just becuase they are royales? In canada it's an embarassment becuase the queen is the figure head of our nation, I think it's ridicously outdates. Anywas I dont get why the British press are so fascinated with the Royale family, I say give them their privacy or even bettter do away with the monarchy and let them live normal lives. Anyways sorry for the rant intrested in your responses.

[post=301248]Quoted post[/post]​

It would be a lot more interesting if they were a royale family. Fight to the death!

Just a question lokican, how old are you?

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

Originally posted by Leung@Apr 17 2005, 01:53 AM
Just a question lokican, how old are you?

According to his profile, he'll turn twenty-one next month. Maybe his misspelling of common English words like royal and because is an expression of protest against English domination. Uh ... probably not.

 

[Dr Rock]

personally I couldn't give less of a shit about them, but don't expect them to go any time soon - they're the lynchpin of the UK's only remaining national industry (tourism) and as such they're revenue. I don't see the government throwing that away in a hurry.

 

[KinkGuy]

I mean really, who doesn't enjoy a Queen.

 

[lokican]

According to his profile, he'll turn twenty-one next month. Maybe his misspelling of common English words like royal and because is an expression of protest against English domination. Uh ... probably not.

[post=301257]Quoted post[/post]​

[/quote]


Yeah sorry about that I was typing the message while I was on the phone and not really paying attention to my spelling…. I was just trying to get a British perspective on this issue of a debate I had a while ago

 

[Max]

A quick response:

1. Yes: the tabloid press focus a lot on the royal family; but in the same sort of way that they focus on Mr and Mrs David Beckham. They sell papers when they get into trouble even more than they sell them when all's well. You shouldn't read too much into it. Please don't judge us by the standards of our tabloid press ... Ok someone has to be buying them to create the market, so I know that may be a hopeless plea.

2. We have more than a few people here who are as embarrassed about the hereditary principle as you are; it is being eroded everywhere else in society (eg the removal of hereditary peers from the upper house), and the monarchy is looking increasingly isolated as a result.

3. There is of course the other side of the argument: look at the sort of Head of State we might get if we had to elect one. Do I need to give instances? As it is we have one who is apolitical by definition. She stands for continuity, and she is a link with the immediate post-war years, and partly for that reason held in much respect by that generation.

Many of us are happy with the idea of the monarch as figurehead; but that doesn't mean we need all the flumgumerry that tends to go with it.

FWIW I don't agree with the Dr Rock portrayal of the UK as a sort of time-warped theme park— the more I go elsewhere the more I know there are plenty of good things about living here.

 

[Dr Rock]

if only it WAS a time-warped theme park, that might actually be some fun. it's more like a post-industrial trailer park.

 

[dickbulge]

Well if you dump the monarchy you must elect or appoint a head of state if only to get a good seat at state funerals.

As it is now, for instance, Blair's view of the Pope's funeral was blocked by Bush's butt. Not that he hasn't had it in his face before.

 

[budday]

lokican: I can't give you the British perspective on this but having a monarch for Canada has some surprising political advantages.

The way our system is set up, the Prime Minister is NOT the head of state. He's the manager of the government. He has to sit in parliament with the rest of the elected officials and get raked over the coals by the opposition whenever something goes wrong. He has no veto powers.

Our Head of State, the Queen, chooses not to exercise her political power and remains a mere figure-head.

In the USA, the Head of State is the President. He appears before Congress only once a year to give a speech that receives a standing ovation. His political power is enormous, but he can control who his audience will be when he announces various "initiatives" and he never EVER directly takes a grilling in an open debate format in congress (as far as I know).

If Canada or Britain got rid of the monarchy, we would have to find a head of state to replace her. For us, the Head of State being non-political and a figurehead has the advantage of keeping the executive branch of government (the Prime Minister) on the hot seat whenever something goes wrong.

I am not saying we have to keep the Windsors as our Heads of State, but we do need someone. And I don't think Canadians would find a President with real political power easy to swallow. (Especially if that President had trouble swallowing pretzels... that would REALLY confuse the issue).

We could always elect a famous person to be the Head of State... a kind of popular Governor General: but how would we get the country to agree on THAT?! David Suzuki? Romeo Dallaire? Wayne Gretzky?

Britain is set up basically the same way and so I imagine they face the same problems.

 

[jonb]

Originally posted by DoubleMeatWhopper@Apr 16 2005, 06:20 PM
According to his profile, he'll turn twenty-one next month. Maybe his misspelling of common English words like royal and because is an expression of protest against English domination. Uh ... probably not.

[post=301257]Quoted post[/post]​

That reminds me of ghoti

gh as in cough
o as in women
ti as in section

You can also get

ghoughpteighbteau

gh as in hiccough
ough as in thorough
pt as in ptomaine
eigh as in neigh
bt as in debt
eau as in beau

English is a confusingly hybrid language, with 283 irregular verbs and dozens of spellings of the same phone.

 

[13788]

NelsonMuntz84: Nothing personal against them, though they are the most talentless leach's anywhere in the world, they Make George Bush and his family seem talented!

Basically they are their for the tourists, and once old Lizzy dies, there going to be problems, It wouldn't surprise me for Charlie boy never to be king and to jump straight to Willam.

 

[Leung]

Originally posted by NelsonMuntz84@Apr 19 2005, 07:13 PM
Nothing personal against them, though they are the most talentless leach's anywhere in the world, they Make George Bush and his family seem talented!

Basically they are their for the tourists, and once old Lizzy dies, there going to be problems, It wouldn't surprise me for Charlie boy never to be king and to jump straight to Willam.

[post=302110]Quoted post[/post]​

Oh god, let's not even try to punctuate!

They aren't exactly leeches as they bring in more money then they earn/are given by the state.

People are begining to respect Prince Charles, and deservably so, he does a lot of good work, he would be a good King in my eyes. I think that the public are so attached to the Queen that they can't imagine anyone else doing as good a job. The main problem is that I doubt Charles with outlive the Queen.

 

[13788]

NelsonMuntz84:

Originally posted by Leung+Apr 19 2005, 07:39 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Leung &#064; Apr 19 2005, 07:39 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-NelsonMuntz84@Apr 19 2005, 07:13 PM
Nothing personal against them, though they are the most talentless leach&#39;s anywhere in the world, they Make George Bush and his family seem talented&#33;

Basically they are their for the tourists, and once old Lizzy dies, there going to be problems, It wouldn&#39;t surprise me for Charlie boy never to be king and to jump straight to Willam.

[post=302110]Quoted post[/post]​

Oh god, let&#39;s not even try to punctuate&#33;

They aren&#39;t exactly leeches as they bring in more money then they earn/are given by the state.

People are begining to respect Prince Charles, and deservably so, he does a lot of good work, he would be a good King in my eyes. I think that the public are so attached to the Queen that they can&#39;t imagine anyone else doing as good a job. The main problem is that I doubt Charles with outlive the Queen.

[post=302125]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]

No one respects Charles&#33;&#33; what part of Britain do you live in, lol

Their a side show for a slow news week, nothing more, nothing less.

When the Queen dies, the shit will hit the fan, mark my words.

Also they must still owe money on all the gin, wine and whiskey the Queen mother drank :evilgrin:

I have nothing against them as people, I dont wish any harm on them, but day to day they are just seen as a wee show for the public and mostly for the media.

 

[Leung]

London

How can you not respect Prince Charles for all the work which he has done through the Prince&#39;s Trust?

I see no reason why Charles would not make a good King.
He is already a respected international ambassador.

I love the Queen, I think she is an amazing woman and Head of State, it will be a shame when she dies, but I cannot see any reason for "shit hitting the fan".

 

[13788]

NelsonMuntz84:

Originally posted by Leung@Apr 19 2005, 09:51 PM
London

How can you not respect Prince Charles for all the work which he has done through the Prince&#39;s Trust?

I see no reason why Charles would not make a good King.
He is already a respected international ambassador.

I love the Queen, I think she is an amazing woman and Head of State, it will be a shame when she dies, but I cannot see any reason for "shit hitting the fan".

[post=302188]Quoted post[/post]​

My granny liked the Queen, met her once, her generation remembered her during the war.

I dont mind them as I said, but I do find them a good laugh, and maybe Charles would make a good King, the problem for him is will he get to do so ? and do the public believe it ?

If you have a alot of time for them then I wont offend you, and I was mostly joking before, but when the Queen dies, and depending on when she dies, it will open up all sort of questions, and for them to last, they need the right answers.

The reason I said the &#39;shit hitting he fan&#39; is due to people viewing her family as her being the best in it, the one that people think of as being truly royal, I disagree with you in the sense that I think Charles has work to do in order to capture the publics mind in that way, and it may now happen that the side show of this wedding is now over.

You only need to look at that tv program last year about the future of the monarchy, and nearly 40% polled said they would prefer William as the next King.
I&#39;m in Scotland and to be honest, they aren&#39;t really given much thought, or held in fantastic opinion, especially from the younger generations, they need to do alot of work in the next 10-15 years, but I&#39;d be amazed if they dont know that and the wedding isn&#39;t part of that.

 

[B_DoubleMeatWhopper]

Originally posted by NelsonMuntz84@Apr 19 2005, 06:13 PM
It wouldn&#39;t surprise me for Charlie boy never to be king and to jump straight to Willam.

That can&#39;t happen if Charles outlives Elizabeth. Upon her death, he automatically becomes king. He could abdicate in favour of William before his official coronation if Parliament would accept his abdication, as in the case of Edward VIII, but he would be king until he did so. And Parliament could deny his abdication; in a parliamentary monarchy like the UK, it&#39;s not the actual monarch who holds the reigns.

 

[13788]

NelsonMuntz84:

Originally posted by DoubleMeatWhopper+Apr 19 2005, 11:25 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DoubleMeatWhopper &#064; Apr 19 2005, 11:25 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-NelsonMuntz84@Apr 19 2005, 06:13 PM
It wouldn&#39;t surprise me for Charlie boy never to be king and to jump straight to Willam.

That can&#39;t happen if Charles outlives Elizabeth. Upon her death, he automatically becomes king. He could abdicate in favour of William before his official coronation if Parliament would accept his abdication, as in the case of Edward VIII, but he would be king until he did so. And Parliament could deny his abdication; in a parliamentary monarchy like the UK, it&#39;s not the actual monarch who holds the reigns.

[post=302224]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]

It all depends when the Queen dies, if I was a betting man, I&#39;d say the Queen will go another 20 years, Charles will then be King for no more than 5, and William will take over.

The other wee point to rememeber is that the Windsors dont have a great track record of the first born son being King, throught history they have had accidents, one even playing cricket I think, it wouldn&#39;t be unthinkable for Charles not to get the throne.

 

[Dr Rock]

Originally posted by DoubleMeatWhopper+Apr 19 2005, 10:25 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DoubleMeatWhopper &#064; Apr 19 2005, 10:25 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-NelsonMuntz84@Apr 19 2005, 06:13 PM
It wouldn&#39;t surprise me for Charlie boy never to be king and to jump straight to Willam.

That can&#39;t happen if Charles outlives Elizabeth. Upon her death, he automatically becomes king.

[post=302224]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]
... unless enough people are sufficiently fed up with him to make a stink about it. the government wouldn&#39;t uphold something like the law of succession in the face of public disapproval, whether it&#39;s well-grounded or not.

 

[MASSIVEPKGO_CHUCK]

Originally posted by DoubleMeatWhopper+Apr 19 2005, 10:25 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DoubleMeatWhopper &#064; Apr 19 2005, 10:25 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-NelsonMuntz84@Apr 19 2005, 06:13 PM
It wouldn&#39;t surprise me for Charlie boy never to be king and to jump straight to Willam.

That can&#39;t happen if Charles outlives Elizabeth. Upon her death, he automatically becomes king. He could abdicate in favour of William before his official coronation if Parliament would accept his abdication, as in the case of Edward VIII, but he would be king until he did so. And Parliament could deny his abdication; in a parliamentary monarchy like the UK, it&#39;s not the actual monarch who holds the reigns.

[post=302224]Quoted post[/post]​

[/b][/quote]

Well ,the only way that ever happens is if Elizabeth passes on, and thus Charlie boy becomes King. Tho Parliament only holds so much power over the monarchies. Without a complete decision, the monarch could easily abdicate, but parliament demands alot of times on circumstances, and not just plain desire, so it makes it all the more difficult.