Metropol

Isonstine wrote:I preferred you that way.

Ooooooooooh, don't!

You'll make me blush!

cwathen wrote:Yet we have an unelected head of state who is above the law (the queen cannot be charged with any criminal or civil offence) and our government is technically the queen's parliament whom she has appointed to run her land on her behalf.

Until that changes, we do not live in a democracy but effectively live under a dicator, and that is why I disagree with the monarchy.

this argument is fatally and utterly flawed. i cannot actually believe you think this.

china, the congo, the united states and france are well known modern day republics and i think most people would argue that these societies are less of a democracy than ours. most are corrupt, and flout international laws on trade and human rights. i'm not saying the united kingdom and any of the other commonwealth contries are perfect, but given the choice, i know where i'd rather live.

i think we should hold on to and cherish our monarchy.

they are imperfect, they have little idea how most of us live and how hard life is sometimes, but it's one of the few parts of this counties character and culture we have left. you'll miss it when it's gone.

Did you know that all swans in the country belong to the queen? If you are found guilty of killing a Swan you can by law be sent to the Tower. Okay you're not likely to be sent to the tower but apparently this law hasn't or hadn't been changed when i was told about this.

i think the current system is right - it's good to have a politically neutral ambassador for the country such as her madge. she's a great woman, long may she reign.

*gets out the flag*

Nick Harvey wrote:

Isonstine wrote:I preferred you that way.

Ooooooooooh, don't!

You'll make me blush!

A wonderful come back, and one that restores my faith in you Mr Harvey.

this argument is fatally and utterly flawed. i cannot actually believe you think this

I was just stating facts. It is true that our head of state is unelected. It is also true that they are above the law - because the law and the entire legal system and associated paraphanalia is the monarch's property - it's their mechanism for controlling their subjects. The fact that we *effectively* live in a real democracy and that *effectively* the queen has no real power only serves to underline the pointlessness of the monarchy.

Officially, the queen rules the country. In practice, she doesn't. Yet as long as the monarchy exists, our country is not able to officially hold the status of what it effectively is. This is madness. Fine, keep the royal family if you will, but stop trying to pretend in 2006 that the queen is in charge of the country.

china, the congo, the united states and france are well known modern day republics and i think most people would argue that these societies are less of a democracy than ours. most are corrupt, and flout international laws on trade and human rights. i'm not saying the united kingdom and any of the other commonwealth contries are perfect, but given the choice, i know where i'd rather live.

So other countries get it wrong, that means democracy itself is a flawed concept? And it means it's better for us to continue to have an unelected head of state?

they are imperfect, they have little idea how most of us live and how hard life is sometimes, but it's one of the few parts of this counties character and culture we have left. you'll miss it when it's gone.

Interesting that you say *when* it's gone. So you acknowledge yourself then that although the queen is the head of state and ruler of the country and the government is appointed by her, you know that really the government is in charge and the queen is powerless (despite 'reigning' over us) to prevent her 'subordinates' from enforcing the abolition of her own position? Surely this must spell out to you how irrelevant the monarchy is now?

i think the current system is right - it's good to have a politically neutral ambassador for the country such as her madge. she's a great woman, long may she reign.

I never said that the queen isn't a great woman who hasn't poured her heart and soul into representing this country. However, I feel she's something of a unique person in a largely dysfunctional family who wouldn't be the tremendous asset to our country that she is. If the queen had abdicated 10 years ago and we were now living 'under' the 'regin' of King Charles III, I doubt there would be anything like as much sentimentality to hold onto the monarchy as there is. And as much as I don't think Charlie is such a terrible person, I think from recent news events it's clear that he's anything but politically neutral, as are any of the other candidates for successing the queen.

cwathen wrote:

this argument is fatally and utterly flawed. i cannot actually believe you think this

I was just stating facts. It is true that our head of state is unelected. It is also true that they are above the law - because the law and the entire legal system and associated paraphanalia is the monarch's property - it's their mechanism for controlling their subjects. The fact that we *effectively* live in a real democracy and that *effectively* the queen has no real power only serves to underline the pointlessness of the monarchy.

Officially, the queen rules the country. In practice, she doesn't. Yet as long as the monarchy exists, our country is not able to officially hold the status of what it effectively is. This is madness. Fine, keep the royal family if you will, but stop trying to pretend in 2006 that the queen is in charge of the country.

but look around you... there is no true democracy. in theory it's a great concept, but it doesn't work.

i don't know of a democracy in this world which truely represent all facets of it's society and is completely accountable to its people. it just doesn't happen. america claims to be a democracy with 'free speech', but look at it. there is great povity, racism and corruption a thousand times worse than in the uk.

and if we got rid of the queen, what would we have instead? an 'elected dictatorsip', surely? again, take a look at the states - would we be any better off?

when i look around, i see nothing different between those countries with elected and non-elected heads of state, and like i've said many of these societies happen to be much, much worse.

Given the choice, who would you rather have as the head of state, be they elected or unelected?

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
Anthony Charles Lynton Blair

I'm neither a fervent royalist, or an anti-monarchy republican, but I know who I'd choose!

DJGM wrote:Given the choice, who would you rather have as the head of state, be they elected or unelected?

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
Anthony Charles Lynton Blair

I'm neither a fervent royalist, or an anti-monarchy republican, but I know who I'd choose!

Choosing between those two specific people, of course I'd go for the queen. But that's in this particular case involving this particular monarch combined with this particular prime minister. If, in the middle of WW2, you had to chose between George VI and Winston Churchill, would you still be so quick to favour the monarch?

I'd still argue that Tony Blair, despite being someone I have little time for, has a greater claim to the position of head of state than the queen does, even if I do recognise that the present queen portrays a somewhat better image than the present prime minister.

That we have a brilliant, but unelected, head of state now and an elected alternative which pales in comparison does not alter my belief that, in principle, it is better to be able to elect your head of state.

Again, I do ask those with pro-monarchy views to genuinely ask themselves whether they favour it because Queen Elizabeth II does such a darn good job or whether they genuinely favour the system itself. If it was abolished tomorrow, I'd miss the queen, but I wouldn't remotely miss the monarchy.

Most of Britains population have never known life without Elizabeth II on the throne.

She's always been there solid as a rock through the countries darkest and happiest times.

The only gripe I have with the Royals is that none of them have an official residence in Wales, whereas Scotland and England have dozens.

The Prince of WALES lives in Gloucestershire and in Cornwall. Is Charles just too scared to have a pad over the border?

Monmouthshire is suitably regal with its wooded valleys, rivers, ruined abbeys and castles (which were used to slaughter the Kings armies in the middle ages! )

Jamez wrote:The Prince of WALES lives in Gloucestershire and in Cornwall. Is Charles just too scared to have a pad over the border?

IIRC Charles doesn't have a residence in Cornwall either.