The Queen's 80th Birthday

doormat · Postby **doormat** » Mon Apr 24, 2006 11:27 pm

Ah. A Communist. Right.

I do so love a receptive audience. :roll:

Stewsburntmonkey · Postby **Stewsburntmonkey** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 12:23 am

edd8990 wrote:Also I'm a communist. So being ruled over by birthright is annoying.

Unless you enjoy very formal parties I doubt you will ever be "ruled over by birthright". I don't like the idea of true monarchies. I don't think birthright is any way to choose who runs the country. I do however like the idea of seperating the Head of State from the realm of politics (as much as can be done). I think having a single figurehead for the nation for 50+ years at a time is a very nice idea.

Darksun · Postby **Darksun** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 11:06 am

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:
edd8990 wrote:Also I'm a communist. So being ruled over by birthright is annoying.

Unless you enjoy very formal parties I doubt you will ever be "ruled over by birthright". I don't like the idea of true monarchies. I don't think birthright is any way to choose who runs the country. I do however like the idea of seperating the Head of State from the realm of politics (as much as can be done). I think having a single figurehead for the nation for 50+ years at a time is a very nice idea.

I still think it'd be better if the Osbournes were the Royal Family

edd8990 · Postby **edd8990** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 8:05 am

Stewsburntmonkey wrote:Unless you enjoy very formal parties I doubt you will ever be "ruled over by birthright". I don't like the idea of true monarchies. I don't think birthright is any way to choose who runs the country. I do however like the idea of seperating the Head of State from the realm of politics (as much as can be done). I think having a single figurehead for the nation for 50+ years at a time is a very nice idea.

None political ruler, maybe. 50+ years, no way. Someone like Charles ruling over us for 50 years makes me sad

coolsi · Postby **coolsi** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 11:17 am

edd8990 wrote:
Stewsburntmonkey wrote:Unless you enjoy very formal parties I doubt you will ever be "ruled over by birthright". I don't like the idea of true monarchies. I don't think birthright is any way to choose who runs the country. I do however like the idea of seperating the Head of State from the realm of politics (as much as can be done). I think having a single figurehead for the nation for 50+ years at a time is a very nice idea.
None political ruler, maybe. 50+ years, no way. Someone like Charles ruling over us for 50 years makes me sad :(

Why? It's not like the royal family has any powers anyway, it seems like you're complaining for complaining's sake here.

Stewsburntmonkey · Postby **Stewsburntmonkey** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 4:15 pm

I'd hardly calll what the Monarch does these days as "ruling", more like presiding. As coolsi says they don't really have any significant power at this point (which is what makes them so well suited to be the Head of State).

doormat · Postby **doormat** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 9:06 pm

Exactly so. The armed forces and civil service of the USA report directly to the president, who a) has power, and b) has a mandate to use that power, and c) is a political animal.

The armed forces and civil service of the UK report to the Crown, who has no power, no mandate, and no political ambition.

If the President went nuts, he could conquer america, or at least plunge it into civil war. If the queen went nuts, she couldn't conquer the UK. No one person can rule by decree in the UK, while the President issues a surprising number of decrees, all of which is perfectly legal because he's elected, but one has to question how desireable it is to give one man that much power...

Long Live Her Majesty in my opinion!

edd8990 · Postby **edd8990** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 1:51 pm

coolsi wrote:Why? It's not like the royal family has any powers anyway, it seems like you're complaining for complaining's sake here.

The monarch represents Britain. Whatever the head of state does is unconscously linked by the majority of people with what the country represents whether it does or not. That is not a role that should be given to someone by birthright.

doormat · Postby **doormat** » Mon May 01, 2006 12:59 am

All hail, President Beckham!

What you seem to miss, edd, is that the Queen does what she's told. She's a living flag. Hence "we" - one is Elizabeth, the other is "The Queen", and never the twain shall meet. She entertains who she's told to, reads the speach that the PM writes for her, and signs the laws that the people enact.

An elected figurehead-of-state could do whatever they liked, make polical statements, undermine govenment policy or whatever, and if anyone told them to stop, they'd just say "I have a mandate! Everyone voted, so I have a mandate equal to the whole of the House of Commons, and greater than any individual MP! I can do what I want!"

Free copies of Victoria's latest single for all!

Seriously, I'd emigrate. :wink:

Stewsburntmonkey · Postby **Stewsburntmonkey** » Mon May 01, 2006 1:54 am

edd8990 wrote:
coolsi wrote:Why? It's not like the royal family has any powers anyway, it seems like you're complaining for complaining's sake here.
The monarch represents Britain. Whatever the head of state does is unconscously linked by the majority of people with what the country represents whether it does or not. That is not a role that should be given to someone by birthright.

You think electing them would do better? You would rather the face of the United Kingdom be Tony Blair? I am constantly mortified by having Bush as the face of the US.

The Queen's 80th Birthday

Who is online