For or against the Monarch
Posted: Sat 22 Apr, 2006 21.19
A gentler topic from me now. It's topical too - should we have a monarchy? Please vote and also add comments if you like.
Page 1 of 3
Posted: Sat 22 Apr, 2006 21.36
I don't see why not. It gets the tourists in and without it, Britain wouldn't really Britain as we've had royalty for centuries.
Posted: Sat 22 Apr, 2006 21.48
Yes i'm in favour all the while the queen is sovereign, Her and the Princess Royal are the only members of the Windsor family i have any respect for.
Posted: Sat 22 Apr, 2006 21.53
I don't mind royalty or the idea behind it, as mentioned it rakes in loads for tourism. And Charles almost came across as human in his message to ma-ma the other day.
The problem I have really is with the Queen. Ok, she's 80 and does a fair number of events but would it hurt for her to be briefed or bother to look up some basic info?
Like asking Wogan how many years he's been at the BBC - she should have at least bothered to find out and ask something vaguely more interesting. The Radio 1 and 1Xtra guys I could understand but sportsmen, veteran entertainers, people who the public know and respect, she always comes across like she doesn't have a bloody clue!
The problem I have really is with the Queen. Ok, she's 80 and does a fair number of events but would it hurt for her to be briefed or bother to look up some basic info?
Like asking Wogan how many years he's been at the BBC - she should have at least bothered to find out and ask something vaguely more interesting. The Radio 1 and 1Xtra guys I could understand but sportsmen, veteran entertainers, people who the public know and respect, she always comes across like she doesn't have a bloody clue!
Posted: Sat 22 Apr, 2006 22.05
The French make more money out of their dead Royals than we do with the living onesAntz wrote:I don't see why not. It gets the tourists in and without it, Britain wouldn't really Britain as we've had royalty for centuries.
Posted: Sat 22 Apr, 2006 22.39
Oh, my goodness!Asa wrote:The problem I have really is with the Queen. Ok, she's 80 and does a fair number of events but would it hurt for her to be briefed or bother to look up some basic info?
Like asking Wogan how many years he's been at the BBC - she should have at least bothered to find out and ask something vaguely more interesting.
The humourphobia of TV Forum comes right across to here.
In case you hadn't noticed, you dimwitted little twit, that original line was, actually, the Queen making a bijou jokette. She IS allowed to, you know.
The Royal Family are among the best briefed people in the world when it comes to meeting people.
As I understand it, Her Majesty DOES need the briefings, even though her mother had an enormous capacity to actually remember people without any outside assistance.
The Queen Mother used to be waited on by my ex-mother-in-law when she visited Wiltshire for Cheltenham each year. She always remembered the names of ALL the temporary staff, without any crib notes, whatsever.
The "banter" (sorry Katherine) between Her Majesty and Mr Wogan yesterday was purely a continuation of the original line of "I'm a TOG" from the initial conversation in the morning.
Posted: Sat 22 Apr, 2006 22.46
It's an easy mistake to make. I didn't catch the humour either.Nick Harvey wrote:Oh, my goodness!Asa wrote:The problem I have really is with the Queen. Ok, she's 80 and does a fair number of events but would it hurt for her to be briefed or bother to look up some basic info?
Like asking Wogan how many years he's been at the BBC - she should have at least bothered to find out and ask something vaguely more interesting.
The humourphobia of TV Forum comes right across to here.
In case you hadn't noticed, you dimwitted little twit, that original line was, actually, the Queen making a bijou jokette. She IS allowed to, you know.
Depends how you read it/hear it.
Posted: Sun 23 Apr, 2006 00.29
I think it's because most of this forum aren't old enough to listen to radio2 yet
Posted: Sun 23 Apr, 2006 01.13
I'm more than happy to laugh at jokes, and indeed the often amusing interjections you provide. But frankly just lately you have become more rude than ever. Get off your high horse and just go back to making the funny remarks. I preferred you that way.Nick Harvey wrote:Oh, my goodness!Asa wrote:The problem I have really is with the Queen. Ok, she's 80 and does a fair number of events but would it hurt for her to be briefed or bother to look up some basic info?
Like asking Wogan how many years he's been at the BBC - she should have at least bothered to find out and ask something vaguely more interesting.
The humourphobia of TV Forum comes right across to here.
In case you hadn't noticed, you dimwitted little twit, that original line was, actually, the Queen making a bijou jokette. She IS allowed to, you know.
The Royal Family are among the best briefed people in the world when it comes to meeting people.
As I understand it, Her Majesty DOES need the briefings, even though her mother had an enormous capacity to actually remember people without any outside assistance.
The Queen Mother used to be waited on by my ex-mother-in-law when she visited Wiltshire for Cheltenham each year. She always remembered the names of ALL the temporary staff, without any crib notes, whatsever.
The "banter" (sorry Katherine) between Her Majesty and Mr Wogan yesterday was purely a continuation of the original line of "I'm a TOG" from the initial conversation in the morning.
Posted: Sun 23 Apr, 2006 03.47
Should we have a monarchy? Well the present queen is of course a wonderful, commited ambassador for our country and I would never like to see it scrapped whilst she is still around. However I am opposed in principal to the monarchy and would rather see it put to bed once the present queen dies/abdicates.
We criticise countries run by the regimes of dictators and have forcibly changed Iraq into a country which (alledgedly anyway) has a democratically elected leader answerable to the people (even if it seems like something of a pipe dream).
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.
I'm not sold on the tourist argument either - people don't come to actually see the royal family; apart from anything else the chances are too slim (in 23 years of living the closest I got to the queen was 30 feet away from her, and even then that has only happened the one time, apart from that I've never seen her except on TV). People come here to see the furniture of royalty - the buildings etc. These buildings would still be there without a royal family, and the lack of one would enable them to be opened up way beyond the level which presently happens; as was noted earlier the French monarchy still brings in the tourists 200 years after it's abolition.
I'd let the queen run out her 'reign', then call it a day. A monarchy (at least one on the scale of hours) cannot (and imo should not) continue to have a place in the 21st century.
If it does continue, it needs reform. It's present form is so rooted in the past that the issues which might crop up with it are huge (i.e. the monarch is the head of the church of England. It's entirely on the cards that the day will come when we have a non-Christian monarch. What happens then? The three immediate changes I would make is remove the monarch from the position of head of state and give that position to the elected prime minister, stop the government (and associated justice machinery such as prisons) from being 'HM' government - it should belong to the people, not the queen. And most significantly remove the monarch's immunity from prosecution. If these changes were made, I'd much more readily tolerate it.
We criticise countries run by the regimes of dictators and have forcibly changed Iraq into a country which (alledgedly anyway) has a democratically elected leader answerable to the people (even if it seems like something of a pipe dream).
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.
I'm not sold on the tourist argument either - people don't come to actually see the royal family; apart from anything else the chances are too slim (in 23 years of living the closest I got to the queen was 30 feet away from her, and even then that has only happened the one time, apart from that I've never seen her except on TV). People come here to see the furniture of royalty - the buildings etc. These buildings would still be there without a royal family, and the lack of one would enable them to be opened up way beyond the level which presently happens; as was noted earlier the French monarchy still brings in the tourists 200 years after it's abolition.
I'd let the queen run out her 'reign', then call it a day. A monarchy (at least one on the scale of hours) cannot (and imo should not) continue to have a place in the 21st century.
If it does continue, it needs reform. It's present form is so rooted in the past that the issues which might crop up with it are huge (i.e. the monarch is the head of the church of England. It's entirely on the cards that the day will come when we have a non-Christian monarch. What happens then? The three immediate changes I would make is remove the monarch from the position of head of state and give that position to the elected prime minister, stop the government (and associated justice machinery such as prisons) from being 'HM' government - it should belong to the people, not the queen. And most significantly remove the monarch's immunity from prosecution. If these changes were made, I'd much more readily tolerate it.
Posted: Sun 23 Apr, 2006 12.19
Thankyou Pete, thankyou. People keep telling me to listen to Radio2. I'm in denial.Hymagumba wrote:I think it's because most of this forum aren't old enough to listen to radio2 yet