Just wanted to hear everyone's thoughts on a monarchy.

I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective.

Australia has a monarch, works well, she doent cost us a cent, or have any real powers, and government works ok most of the time

If I recall, Australia, Canada, Great Britain are all Parliamentary democracies. Any power held by the remaining monarchy is informal and/or symbolic. That doesn't mean the Windsor's are powerless, but they use the tools of public figures and of public sentiment. The minute Parliament chooses, they can and often do override the Monarch's wishes.

In a broader sense, if you choose to be ruled by a Monarch, as long as that choice is yours, have a ball. The more traditional view of Monarchy - divine right of kings and all that stuff - is a pretty odious form of government in today's context, but does still exist. Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, some small east Asian monarchies still function in that manner. It seems that, to survive in that form, most of these kingdoms must have some form of natural resource that stuffs the coffers of the state, which in turn are used to "buy off" the continued support of the people generally. So, if you are a Saudi citizen, not of royal birth, the fact that your house and your job are paid for and guaranteed by your king may make their rule by fiat more "acceptable." But, we should remember that where these forms of rule exist you still have people who hold power only because of bloodline and can, on any whim, exert their will at the point of a gun. Rule of law is only abided by when it serves their purpose.

From an American's standpoint, we certainly have our issues with Monarchy, broadly speaking. Not surprisingly, the principles detailed in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution pretty clearly distinguish the differences we sought in our form of governance. However, we should remember that the powers held by George III far exceeded anything we've seen from English monarchs since the early 1900's. We took odds with the behavior of pompous potentates who felt their power and wisdom were unquestionable and derived directly from God and had no issue with pursuing their every whim at gunpoint. That's never been a big hit for us Yankees. But, when you look above our northern border, you will find Canadians who, for the most part, have no issue with remaining part of the Commonwealth and look at us "southerners" as radical barbarians who had no reason to cast off the crown.

IMHO

Under a constitutional monarchy, Parliament truly has all the power.


Unless your King or Queen is having people beheaded, they have no power. Just money. And they prefer it that way as well.

...and they bring in more tourism money than Disney World ever could...!

Slenderman wrote: Under a constitutional monarchy, Parliament truly has all the power.


Unless your King or Queen is having people beheaded, they have no power. Just money. And they prefer it that way as well.

Not so sure that is true Mr. Slender, our PM (Britain's)(knobhead) has to meet the Queen every Friday (whilst parliment is sitting) to keep her informed of all current affairs, whether they're regarding the passing of laws, economics, national security etc, and she "advises" the PM on what she seems fit to. So to say she holds no power is a little wrong in my opinion.

Lesson Learnt?? wrote:

Slenderman wrote: Under a constitutional monarchy, Parliament truly has all the power.


Unless your King or Queen is having people beheaded, they have no power. Just money. And they prefer it that way as well.

Not so sure that is true Mr. Slender, our PM (Britain's)(knobhead) has to meet the Queen every Friday (whilst parliment is sitting) to keep her informed of all current affairs, whether they're regarding the passing of laws, economics, national security etc, and she "advises" the PM on what she seems fit to. So to say she holds no power is a little wrong in my opinion.

Sure, to iron out all technicalities and say "they did it". Many acknowledge how outdated the Queen's principalities are.

What are your thoughts on UKIP?

Slenderman wrote:

Lesson Learnt?? wrote:

Slenderman wrote: Under a constitutional monarchy, Parliament truly has all the power.


Unless your King or Queen is having people beheaded, they have no power. Just money. And they prefer it that way as well.

Not so sure that is true Mr. Slender, our PM (Britain's)(knobhead) has to meet the Queen every Friday (whilst parliment is sitting) to keep her informed of all current affairs, whether they're regarding the passing of laws, economics, national security etc, and she "advises" the PM on what she seems fit to. So to say she holds no power is a little wrong in my opinion.

Sure, to iron out all technicalities and say "they did it". Many acknowledge how outdated the Queen's principalities are.

What are your thoughts on UKIP?

Hmmmm...well you must follow uk media to ask that.

Interesting ideas but any real education, health, construction, environmental or economic policies? Erm...not really, if you have been following the media, are you aware that recent things publicly voiced by UKIP parliamentary candidates include:-

'Most women are S&@ts'
'Our months of severe flooding is due to the gay marriage laws' ( www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-25793358 )
Just to name a few, also Nigel Farage claims to be "one of us" but was a top city banker! One of us my ass.

For more funnies but this time from a UKIP MEP (member of European Parliment) please see here! www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/08/20/godf...women_n_3784393.html

Just my opinion!

P.S all our political parties are clones of eachother except UKIP and a few minor tree huggers and right wing nuts who are just friggin' weirdoes.

WE'RE DOOMED

Edit:- I'm sure Ronnie Biggs my be able to show more in depth knowledge of all the things I should know and I'm sure he will correct my incorrect views!

Heh, you must assume I'm an American.

Hahahah, I was purely curious! Like you said -- they seem to be the only unique party that has gained any sort of attention besides the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties. Just like how the Libertarian party has been making many leaps and bounds in an American spotlight that's filled with mostly Republican vs Democratic views.

I just like hearing the Englishman's opinion on them. Glad to see you keep up with world politics as well.

Best treatise on government, ever.

Would be interesting to see what you here about our feelings here regarding Muslims and more generally immigrants. There seems to be a worryingly growing support for far right extremist groups like the "British infidels", "Britain first", "EDL" and many more.

This is me assuming you are American?

Many over 40's here fear that in my grandchildren's life, they will have sharia law ruling the country, this isn't me being flippant, the undercurrents on the streets, in shops, pubs etc is really starting to fear Islam.

Oh yes, mustn't forget that Scotland votes on their 'independence' later this year!!!

Lesson Learnt?? wrote: Would be interesting to see what you here about our feelings here regarding Muslims and more generally immigrants. There seems to be a worryingly growing support for far right extremist groups like the "British infidels", "Britain first", "EDL" and many more.

This is me assuming you are American?

Many over 40's here fear that in my grandchildren's life, they will have sharia law ruling the country, this isn't me being flippant, the undercurrents on the streets, in shops, pubs etc is really starting to fear Islam.

Oh yes, mustn't forget that Scotland votes on their 'independence' later this year!!!

Yeah, I've seen such support growing in both the United Kingdom and in France.

I remember seeing this on BBC a while back:




Pretty crazy! I mean -- I understand why people are afraid; especially after that fatal public attack on a British soldier by two Muslim extremists in the middle of a London street back in December and everything that has happened since.

It'll be interesting to see what happens. Stricter immigration laws? Complete cut from immigration as proposed by UKIP? Or will things stay the same?

What do you think will happen?


Ah, and I assumed you assumed that I was American since you were explaining how the PM works. All good.

Longrifle wrote:
Best treatise on government, ever.

LOL.

The biggest problem with monarchy is the "mon" part. In a true monarchy, one person makes the decisions. What the UK has is a representative democracy, since the queen has no true power.

In government, the less people in power, the more chance there is for tyranny and oppression. And the us didnt revolt because if King George, we revolted because we had no representatives in parliament. Hence "taxation without representation"

If you want a laundry list of the reasons the American colonies chose to depart from George III, take a few seconds to read the Declaration of Independence. Surely, lack of representation was one reason, but the document details 28 specific actions by George III that the founders deemed unacceptable. Please note that these overwhelmingly refer to the king's failure to treat them fairly as subjects and as a free people with regard for rule of law...not because the king was costing them money. Many assume the founders focus was on preserving their power and wealth - the Declaration makes it very clear that was not the case.

More specifically, to save the effort of looking it up:

"He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."

Slenderman wrote:
Yeah, I've seen such support growing in both the United Kingdom and in France.

This isn't just in the UK and France. Germany, Denmark, Sweden, the list goes on. The far right extremists are growing in numbers all over Europe every day.

About monarchy... I'm glad our king isn't in charge. I would like to see his, and his familys immunity removed as well. They shouldn't be above the laws.

bellsaj wrote:

Slenderman wrote:
Yeah, I've seen such support growing in both the United Kingdom and in France.

This isn't just in the UK and France. Germany, Denmark, Sweden, the list goes on. The far right extremists are growing in numbers all over Europe every day.

About monarchy... I'm glad our king isn't in charge. I would like to see his, and his familys immunity removed as well. They shouldn't be above the laws.

Yeah, I saw the riots in Sweden as well. I was just listing the two countries that have actually established far right parties -- and are making progress. Not just a citizen led sort of thing.