Home

TheSinner.net

Monarchy aye or nay?

This message board is for discussing anything in any way remotely connected with St Andrews, the University or just anything you want. Welcome!

Monarchy aye or nay?

Postby Guest on Sat Mar 05, 2011 7:15 pm

Yes or no to monarchy?
Guest
 

Re: Monarchy aye or nay?

Postby RedCelt69 on Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:59 pm

If you give your position and/or why you're asking the question (which will have some saying "aye" and, unsurprisingly, some saying "nay") it will give people more motivation to answer a random question from a random person.

Just saying.
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and celt
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed

Red Celt's Blog
RedCelt69
User avatar
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:28 pm

Re: Monarchy aye or nay?

Postby LonelyPilgrim on Sun Mar 06, 2011 12:29 am

Maybe.
Man is free; yet we must not suppose that he is at liberty to do everything he pleases, for he becomes a slave the moment he allows his actions to be ruled by passion. --Giacomo Casanova
LonelyPilgrim
 
Posts: 1266
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 5:49 am
Location: Nevada, USA

Re: Monarchy aye or nay?

Postby jequirity on Sun Mar 06, 2011 5:09 pm

I choose Buzz Lightyear!

Image
jequirity
 
Posts: 228
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 10:49 am

Re: Monarchy aye or nay?

Postby RepublicanSam on Mon Mar 07, 2011 2:50 am

Nay.

I believe that every single person in a nation should be realistically able to aspire to hold the highest office in their democracy. Under any monarchy, this is not possible because the highest office in the land is the throne, which as we all know, cannot be ascended except by the inheritance of the privilege by accident of birth.

Under any monarchy, citizens must always be beneath a monarch; therein lies the defining characteristic of a monarch which separates him/her from an elected President in a Republic. A President is one of the people; a monarch is a ruler of people.

There is no room for equality of opportunity under a monarchy. I believe in equality of opportunity for every citizen. I therefore do not believe in monarchy.
RepublicanSam
 

Re: Monarchy aye or nay?

Postby Spike on Mon Mar 07, 2011 1:23 pm

I'm going to make an assumption here and assume that you are an American.

Tell me, when can the Muslim African American lesbian single mother expect to become president?
From Rock to Opera
Spike
User avatar
 
Posts: 287
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 12:57 am
Location: Glasgow

Re: Monarchy aye or nay?

Postby RedCelt69 on Mon Mar 07, 2011 5:42 pm

This is one way of looking at a constitutional monarchy:-

Image

You could (perhaps) extend the metaphor, including the judiciary as the rubber seal between the pot and the lid, but meh... it works well in simplicity.

Think of the queen as a rarely-used pressure valve on a pressure cooker. She's the head of state, but a figurehead with powers that (pretty-much) are never used, but the important point is that they can be used should the need arise. Parliament runs the country but, while the army is controlled by the government, it belongs to the monarch.

If you block-off the pressure valve, the pot explodes. If you remove it, you get a face full of steam. We don't run the risk of getting a Saddam Hussein or a Colonel Gadaffi (who both came from "humble" backgrounds, which would make RepublicanSam very happy indeed).

Besides which... I'd sooner have a David Cameron who lost-the-least-rather-than-won power than a President Cameron.

And the difference between "citizen" and "subject" is a farcical one, which seems to only matter to Americans who think that they removed their monarchy. They didn't, they just renamed the position (Presidents are treated like royalty within the US). And, as for power-by-birth, ask yourself if George W Bush would have become president if he was a mechanic from Idaho rather than the son of a previous president.
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and celt
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed

Red Celt's Blog
RedCelt69
User avatar
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:28 pm

Re: Monarchy aye or nay?

Postby jollytiddlywink on Mon Mar 07, 2011 7:27 pm

I'm all in favour of keeping the monarchy. Not because it always prevents dictatorships (one need only look at Mussolini who was given his powers by the King of Italy... although interestingly, the King then dismissed Mussolini from power in 1943, and Mussolini went), but because it is very firmly woven into British constitutional practice. It is tied into the Anglican Church, and is part and parcel of making the United Kingdom the United Kingdom. This is not just about having to change the name of the country if we were no longer a 'Kingdom', but rather an issue of the way that Scotland and England were joined. They are now joined by a Treaty, but were first joined by royal union. In any case, parts of the Treaty that first joined Scotland and England concern the Monarch and the Monarchy. I am entirely lacking any sort of legal knowledge as to the repercussions likely if the King or Queen heading the state called the United Kingdom were to be abolished, but I would guess that, at the very least, there would be some thorny issues concerning the continuing existence of the UK in its current format.
jollytiddlywink
 
Posts: 297
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2008 12:23 am

Re: Monarchy aye or nay?

Postby RedCelt69 on Mon Mar 07, 2011 9:21 pm

jollytiddlywink wrote:Not because it always prevents dictatorships (one need only look at Mussolini who was given his powers by the King of Italy...

This isn't 1930s Italy.

Stating the obvious, I know, but just because a monarch gave power to a dictator doesn't mean that it can happen with every monarchy.
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and celt
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed

Red Celt's Blog
RedCelt69
User avatar
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:28 pm

Re: Monarchy aye or nay?

Postby LonelyPilgrim on Tue Mar 08, 2011 1:37 am

Hey! Not all of us Americans are rapid* anti-monarchists. I personally find the opinion, frequently held by my country-people, that the technical ability of any citizen to rise to power is the fundamental Good of a society. I doubt you'd find many serious political philosophers who would suggest as much.

That one black, Muslim, single mother on welfare from Akron, Ohio could theoretically become president one day matters a hell of a lot less to me than that most such people are struggling to feed their families week-to-week.

*or rabid ones, even. I left the typo in because it makes me think that anti-monarchists are sometimes comparable to fast-zombies...
Man is free; yet we must not suppose that he is at liberty to do everything he pleases, for he becomes a slave the moment he allows his actions to be ruled by passion. --Giacomo Casanova
LonelyPilgrim
 
Posts: 1266
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 5:49 am
Location: Nevada, USA

Re: Monarchy aye or nay?

Postby Gubbins on Tue Mar 08, 2011 9:27 am

Let us also not forget that the Queen's role is not purely political, but also as a figurehead of the nation (and of 15 others, including Canada, Australia and New Zealand). The monarchy provides an a-politic moral compass, which is respected and listened to: can you imagine many people watching the President's Christmas Message, presented by David Cameron, for example? In more base terms, the Monarchy (particularly this year) also provides a huge economic draw to this country from tourism, merchanising, etc.
...then again, that is only my opinion.
Gubbins
 
Posts: 1210
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 5:56 pm

Re: Monarchy aye or nay?

Postby Haunted on Tue Mar 08, 2011 3:22 pm

Defenders of the monarchy: When Prince "not a fucking clue in the world" Charles ascends to the throne, will you still be defending this institution?

The only reason I'm not an out and out republican just now is because QE2 is a rather superb head of state. Her fuck-wit of a son however, is a monumental disaster waiting to happen.
Hereditary titles are all well and good until someone spawns an utter moron (think Christopher Monckton, aren't you incredibly happy knowing that he isn't a lord because we got rid of the hereditary peers system?)
Genesis 19:4-8
Haunted
User avatar
 
Posts: 3171
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:05 am

Re: Monarchy aye or nay?

Postby RedCelt69 on Tue Mar 08, 2011 3:55 pm

Haunted wrote:Defenders of the monarchy: When Prince "not a fucking clue in the world" Charles ascends to the throne, will you still be defending this institution?


I'm not a defender of the monarchy. There are, however, much worse systems of governance out there. I'm neither a royalist or a republican. The part of me that appreciates the benefits of monarchy does, however, rather hope that Charles will be skipped-over in the succession... whether by choice (I doubt it) or legal (he's married to a divorcee), faith-based (head of all faiths, indeed?) or public outrage at his incompetence.

Elizabeth may well be the last monarch of this realm. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but (as the Chinese ill-wisher might say) we're certainly living in interesting times.

Also, Rupert Murdoch is a staunch republican. My ethos is nearly always anti-Murdoch (regardless of the situation involved). Not because I base my choices around non-Murdochism but, rather, because he is the spawn of Satan.
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and celt
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed

Red Celt's Blog
RedCelt69
User avatar
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:28 pm

Re: Monarchy aye or nay?

Postby macgamer on Tue Mar 08, 2011 10:03 pm

My views on the monarchy accord with everything that RedCelt69 has written so far on the topic. This is quite a novel situation indeed.
"Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to fit the vision, instead we are always changing the vision."
- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, 1908
macgamer
User avatar
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:08 pm

Re: Monarchy aye or nay?

Postby Gubbins on Tue Mar 08, 2011 11:14 pm

Haunted wrote:Defenders of the monarchy: When Prince "not a fucking clue in the world" Charles ascends to the throne, will you still be defending this institution?

What makes you think he has "not a fucking clue in the world"? Granted, the first word that springs to mind may not be "charismatic", and he may not be a natural public figure, but that never stopped - say - George VI. Most people alive only consider the Queen to be so "regal" because we haven't lived through another monarch.

I have to say he's never a figure I've particularly warmed to, but he probably has more clue about the real world than your average MP, or your average Lord, for that matter. You only have to look as far as the Prince's Trust for that one. And while I may not agree entirely with many of his views on the subject, he got hold of the reins (or should that be reigns?) of the environmentalism bandwagon before it even was a bandwagon. He also successfully runs a successful business out of the Duchy of Cornwall, and the voluntary income tax he pays from it covers 1/4 of the finances for the entire Monarchy's Civil List. He may have some unusual ideas when it comes to medicine and architecture, but surely that warrants having more of a "fucking clue" (and is certainly more harmless) than illicitly renting your family's houses at taxpayer's expense. Let's face it, that's your Presidential alternative.
...then again, that is only my opinion.
Gubbins
 
Posts: 1210
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 5:56 pm

Re: Monarchy aye or nay?

Postby Haunted on Wed Mar 09, 2011 3:00 pm

Gubbins wrote:What makes you think he has "not a fucking clue in the world"?


Do grant that I am being hyperbolic. Yes he's an environmentalist, but he blames the rise of secularism and atheism for climate change. Yes the Princes Trust does good work, so does the DofE.
It's fair to say though that this man has had access to some of the best education that is to be had is it not? And yet all he has to show is a B in A-level history and a C in French.
Also, whilst anyone who believes in magic qualifies for "not having a fucking clue in my book" he believes in some extra specially serious shite like homoeopathy and crystal healing and other 'alternative' medicines. Do you remember his alternative medicine charity got shut down for fraud? He's an anti scientific moron and shouldn't be granted the role of head of state just because he emerged from the right cunt.

Some people put it better than I can
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-ha ... 45113.html

EDIT: Here's one. If Charles had been born with some form of severe mental disability/retardation should he still automatically become the head of state for the UK? Where do you draw the line??
Genesis 19:4-8
Haunted
User avatar
 
Posts: 3171
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:05 am

Re: Monarchy aye or nay?

Postby RedCelt69 on Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:27 pm

It is silly (to put it mildly) that the queen is wrongly heralded as a good monarch... because she's the only one we've known? There's more to her than that. Granted, I don't share her beliefs (to put it mildly) but she sees her position as God-granted and, in that respect, she sees it as her duty to act accordingly. Looking at her potential successors, Elizabeth truly can be described as the last of her kind.

Our (possible) future head of state:-

Camilla: I know it would revive me. I can't bear a Sunday night without you.

Charles: Oh, God.

Camilla: It's like that programme Start the Week. I can't start the week without you.

Charles: I fill up your tank!

Camilla: Yes, you do

Charles: Then you can cope.

Camilla: Then I'm all right

Charles: What about me? The trouble is I need you several times a week.

Camilla: Mmmm, so do I. I need you all the week. All the time.

Charles: Oh. God. I'll just live inside your trousers or something. It would be
much easier!


Camilla: (laughing) "what are you going to turn into, a pair of knickers?

Both laugh

Camilla: Oh, You're your'e going to come back as a pair of knickers.

Charles: Or, God forbid a Tampax. Just my luck! (Laughs)

Camilla: You are a complete idiot (Laughs) Oh, what a wonderful idea.

Charles: My luck to be chucked down the lavatory and go on and on forever
swirling round on the top, never going down.


Camilla: (Laughing) Oh, Darling!

Charles: Until the next one comes through.

Camilla: Oh, perhaps you could come back as a box.

Charles: What sort of box?

Camilla: A box of Tampax, so you could just keep going.

Charles: That's true.

Camilla: Repeating yourself...(Laughing) Oh, darling I just want you now.

Charles: Do You?

Camilla: Mmmmm

Charles: So do I!


Of course, every possible monarch of previous eras might have had similarly embarassing conversations with their mistresses, but Charles managed to get caught. Which makes him rather special; and not in a good way. The Camillagate Tapes
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and celt
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed

Red Celt's Blog
RedCelt69
User avatar
 
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:28 pm

Re: Monarchy aye or nay?

Postby Haunted on Wed Mar 09, 2011 11:48 pm

RedCelt69 wrote:Camilla tapes

Wow
Genesis 19:4-8
Haunted
User avatar
 
Posts: 3171
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 2:05 am

Re: Monarchy aye or nay?

Postby LonelyPilgrim on Thu Mar 10, 2011 11:27 pm

Oh come now, haven't we all had similarly inane and embarrassing conversations with lovers? Right? RIGHT???
Man is free; yet we must not suppose that he is at liberty to do everything he pleases, for he becomes a slave the moment he allows his actions to be ruled by passion. --Giacomo Casanova
LonelyPilgrim
 
Posts: 1266
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 5:49 am
Location: Nevada, USA

Re: Monarchy aye or nay?

Postby Hennessy on Fri Mar 11, 2011 1:01 pm

Pains me to say it but Redcelt has probably made the best argument for the monarchy in that little picture of a pot with a release valve. That's why we should keep the monarchy in that sense, I believe. Consider the firewall of public scrutiny that hits every cabinet minister when they take office or make decisions. Nothing controversial can be done without a judicial review these days. Could you imagine a British President who wouldn't disgrace us any more than the potential line of succession of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha?

The tedium of listening to the news of the Royal Wedding every morning would be eclipsed by a Presidential scandal of some sort, especially if it had a sexual aspect like the Bill Clinton scandal. We'd never get over that. Not us, not the British, with our excruciating obsession for the tabloid sex antics of our political masters. Every morning BBC 24 would run taglines like "Breaking News: Prime Minister's semen found on intern's shirt" to digest breakfast to, along with nauseating time-lines and diagrams of the scandal. The Sun would run defamatory material alleging he/she was an under-age illegal immigrant. Prince Andrew's current troubles would pale into insignificance compared to the Head of State getting a blowjob from an employee. We'd outdo the American coverage of BC getting a BJ by miles. I shudder to think of a future where I might have to live through rolling coverage of that.

As for the "anyone should be able to reach the top" argument, what kind of political leader would prefer the ceremonial and largely powerless role of a president who takes on the monarch's duties? The fact is if we do have a Black/LGBT/Catholic/other definable politically active minority Prime Minister their achievement will have been far greater and more valuable than winning a presidential election in large part due to the novelty of their background rather than their proven experience or even their potential. (:cough cough: Barack Obama :cough cough:).

So yeah keep em. We can laugh at the Americans when their democratic experiment implodes sometime after the Tea Party agenda reaches the White House. I'm thinking most of the North-Eastern states would prefer some kind of secession/re-admittance to the Empire deal to living in a country run by Sarah Palin.
The Sinner.
"Apologies in advance for pedantry."
Hennessy
User avatar
 
Posts: 1012
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:08 pm

Next

Return to The Sinner's Main Board

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests

cron