by jamesmahon 161 Replies latest members politics
Can I just remind everybody - Sulla in particular - that the Brittish monarch has no actual power. We live in a Parliamentary Democracy.
Which was the point of my original post. It is their lack of power because they are hereditary that is one of the weaknesses of the whole political system. In my opinion of course.
Thanks jamesmahon, it was just a fleeting visit! I couldn't help but interject about the Harry thing because, as I said, I am interested in the considered observations of our colonial friends, and it seemed a little unfair to allow that prank to colour the impression of the entire monarchy. I will return to this "buffet" of intriguing debate at the earliest opportunity, and take my pick of issues to pursue!
Thanks for checking out the blog. I'm glad you found it interesting!
Cedars
Mr. Mahon - it occurs to me that you have become as obsessed with this non-tiltable windmill as Las Malvinas is in claiming the Falkland Islands for Argentina.
Slavery was abolished wasn't it? No matter what some say now, the monarchy will go at some point too. Along with capitalism.
From a comparative political science view, I see merit in a const'l monarchy. I don't see how Britain is less free than America by a constrained monarch. Americans could use someone beyond the fray. Americans have an addiction to the royal family. My concern would be the cost of maintaining the monarchy. She only pays very little tax and receives countless millions.
I also like the parliamentary vs. congressional scheme in many ways. The party in power can truly lead. America is almost in paralysis now b/c of party politics. There are down sides, of course.
It is pretty well established that the Duke of Windsor was a Nazi sympathize. I expect very shocking news to emerge with time. Hitler had in mind to succeed or reclaim the throne when England was invaded. One person cannot undo the concrete actions of many royals.
I do quite a bit of research on American history. Despite what we were told in elementary school, the Contiinental Congress enaged in negotiations to settle with England. Americans active in the cause believed that George III was a good monarch. Many, such as Washington and Franklin, were in his service. History could have turned out differently.
I was taught that there was no more vile monarch than George III. England was depicted an an absolute dictatorship. Parliament was never discussed. Most Patriots who were viewed as pro-British were Federalist, who wanted a strong central government. John Adams famously suggested that the President of the United States be addressed as "Your majesty."
Won't Charles as king be the litmus test?
Mr Woods. As obsessed as you would be if you had King Obama and his offspring representing you and your country.
Methinks you are trying to troll me by comparing me to little miss falklands.
Here is a picture for you to enjoy.
There is one main reason why I think there is an advantage in our current system.
I can rage against the decisons of my elected government but still feel patriotic and find common ground with others who hold opposite views.
During the Iraq war Americans who pointed out that it was an illegal war were made to feel unAmerican. In the UK we had no such problem.
Our troops can bitch about being sent to fight in an unwinnable war in Afghan and dragged in to do security duty at the olympics because the government failed to supervise the G4S contract but they still serve the Queen who remains aloof of the politics. Having a non-political commander in chief is very significant to the armed forces.
Its symbolic, its a bit tenuous but I think its valuable.
The English Monarchy will still be there when all of us are gone, Slimboyfat.
You, in turn, are as obsessed with communism as the Unabomber was obsessed with Ludite philosophy.
Cofty,
Here in Canada, dressing up as a Nazi would not be considered a teenage prank. It would be considered an implication of possible nazi-sympathizing on the part of the teen. We take the Holocaust quite seriously, don't you?
As for Diana's death, it is a murky area - we do not know what really happened, but one thing is clear - the Royal Family wanted her gone. That is enough for me to be suspicious as to the method of her death.
t
Excuse me.
They don't call it late capitalism for nothing.
