by jamesmahon 161 Replies latest members politics
Apparently he doesn't want to be called Charles when he is king though.
As Charles Philip Arthur George he has 4 to choose from.
The suggestion that he will be George VII was denied by palace officials who said no decision has been taken.
George (St of England!!)
Cedars old boy. Wondered when you were going to make an appearance.
Our monarchy brings stability and continuity, and is the envy of the civilized world.
Which is why they are all rushing headlong away from democracy. Got you.
Our Queen is dignified and competent, and lets the parliamentarians get on with their important work of legislating without any interference on her part, which is exactly how it should be.
Can you please explain what she is competent at doing? Admittedly she is very good at waving and keeps makers of hideous hats in business (and possibly incontinence pads). She married a racist baffoon, raised four chlidren incapable of having normal relationships and by all accounts is not very pleasant company.
And I don't want parliamentarians left to legislating without any real checks and balances. Which was the point of my original post.
Come now - you can give her a better defence than that.
james_mahon
Ok here it is.. your personal attacks on the Queen and her family to one side...
As has been pointed out before, we have a four or five year dictatorship in this country. We have a second chamber. Unelected, revising only and mostly full of ex MPs. The ruling party, especially with a majority of say 30 or 40 MPs, can do whatever the hell they please. There are no effective checks and balances.
Don't you consider little things called "General Elections" to be "checks and balances"?
I think it's a little unfair to call a duly elected government a "dictatorship" just because it gets 5 years in office rather than a few days.
I'm not saying the system is perfect, but then no democratic system is. I can think of much poorer examples of democracy (where political ineptitude and corruption runs rampant, I might add) on our own continent than the British parliamentary system.
It seems very much a case of...
Cedars
Don't listen to him Ma'am he has been up north too long.
No one ever says a republic would be perfect. Just better. And if you look at the decisions that have been made over the past, well ever, they have been forced through by a dominant government with little the commons could do to stop them let alone anywhere else.
Even if we kept the same parliamentary system, I see no reason why I should have no say over the person who represents me abroad and at important national occasions or is the face of my country. Why not have an elected monarch? They could still be called King or Queen. Why does it have to come from this one little family? It is illogical and unfair on everyone concerned and indefensible.
Oh god not you as well Cofty. Good grief.
james_mahon
Even if we kept the same parliamentary system, I see no reason why I should have no say over the person who represents me abroad and at important national occasions or is the face of my country.
Who would you prefer, this guy?
I jest, of course... but it's a semi-serious question.
Who would you rather represent Great Britain and her interests, and relentlessly turn the delicate diplomatic cogs behind closed doors week in, week out?
Cedars
relentlessly turn the delicate diplomatic cogs behind closed doors week in, week out?
Erm, someone who I voted for rather then someone who happened to be born in the role. Using that argument she might as well just have absolute power. And what on Earth does that mean anyway? 'turning the delicate diplomatic cogs behind closed doors'. Pfft. Yeah, Andrew Windsor made a really good job of that didn't he? Or how about Charles Windsor using his connections to try to stop architecture that he didn't like going up on the Thames? Most of us have to use the planning department.
Well this makes a pleasant change from debating with Americans about their healthcare or (mostly) Americans about the voices they hear in their heads.
I was under the impression that the Royalty took years of preparation to achieve the special customs, rules, and decorum.
You cannot be serious in wanting an "elected monarch".
That would be like Homer Simpson designing the Rolls-Royce.
jamesmahon
And what on Earth does that mean anyway? 'turning the delicate diplomatic cogs behind closed doors'. Pfft. Yeah, Andrew Windsor made a really good job of that didn't he? Or how about Charles Windsor using his connections to try to stop architecture that he didn't like going up on the Thames? Most of us have to use the planning department.
Again... resorting to poking fun at individual members of the royal family hardly dignifies your argument. We're all human and we all "balls it up" from time to time. This is especially obvious if our every moment is followed closely by the paparazzi.
Your implications (i.e. "Pfft.") that diplomacy isn't that important, and pretty much anyone can welcome and entertain heads of state and represent Britain and the commonwealth is baffling, although slightly predictable given that you are also of the opinion that our government is a form of "dictatorship".
I would love to see the expression on the face of a Syrian or Zimbabwean when you call them on the telephone and offer them your sympathies as someone who, being British, also lives under a dictatorial regime!?!
The one area I do agree is that this is a worthy topic for debate. I especially enjoy these sorts of debates when I know I'm on the right side, as LMSA will tell you!
Cedars
