Monarchy or No Monarchy

[noachianite]

Before you vote think of the benefits, the protection of the freedom; if the Crown fall off Britain it could easly fall into the hands of a totalitarian, communist parties etc. Everything is underthe Crown, the mail, the police, the courts, civil servents. What if it were all to be gone? OH MY!!

[Peace-Phoenix]

You don't really know much about the way our constitutional monarchy works do you?

[noachianite]

LOL I do its just I made this after a few wines. But I wasnt drunk just to tipsy to put actually correct things. By the way did you vote for the British Republic.

[Piney]

Before you vote think of the benefits, the protection of the freedom; if the Crown fall off Britain it could easly fall into the hands of a totalitarian, communist parties etc. Everything is underthe Crown, the mail, the police, the courts, civil servents. What if it were all to be gone? OH MY!!

Would all of the land and estates in The National Trust be refunded to the Winsdors/ Saxe-Golgatha's

[lifelovefun]

No Monarchy and No Government!!! Free the People!!!

[Peace-Phoenix]

LOL I do its just I made this after a few wines. But I wasnt drunk just to tipsy to put actually correct things. By the way did you vote for the British Republic.Yes I did, and though I'll accept that the monarchy does provide some symbolic rallying point guarding against political extremes, it's quite clear that the monarchy in no way affects the daily functioning of institutions such as the mail, the police etc etc. I'm not saying the monarchy is totally irrelevant, and it's not top of my list of political problems, but it is, I feel, unnecessary and we would be better served by an elected head of state and, equally, an elected upper chamber in Parliament....

[noachianite]

Very interesting Mr Pheonix, I see here you have summed up the Constitutional Monarchy of the United Kingdom quite well. However I disagree with any elected head of state anywhere in the world, as I see the Monarchy doesnt effect my daily life I fail to see how a less traditional less conservitive (not Tory, as in traditional) Head of State would effect my daily life. I live by two rules when it comes to the Monarchy and I come to the same conclusions everytime:

Do I want somebody who WANTS the job.

OR

Somebody who HAS TO HAVE the job.


The other being:

The Constiutional Monarchy is not about; What I want to do with my country, it about what I need to do for my country.

As you can see I being a man of tradition would choose the Monarchy if the cross roads ever came. I admire you opinion though.

[blinkin]

I dont live in the uk, but my family still does,
I as a U.K citzen born overseas, ....well I FEEL that its important on only a symbolic level.

canada where I live now, and was born. we are still "technicaly" under the rulle of the queen, we still have a governer general...who is a complete waste of skin and money.
she serves only a traditional role as head of state to the queen, although she does hold power over our governments laws, she holds none. if she was to over throw any of our laws we would simpky remove her of power.

The same I feel for the queen though I think she may have more of role in britian then the governer general in canada. if not politically, morally and figurativly. I do not know though do british folk raised in england feel a loyalty to the queen?
even if she holds no power this feeling of loyality and respect.....well is that not her sole purpose? to hold that position of respect?
I do not think she is "needed" persay, though I do admire her position in our minds.

[Bilby]

What about the idea of an elected royal family? They could do the job for a five year term.

[hailtothekingbaby]

What about the idea of an elected royal family? They could do the job for a five year term.The whole point of a monarchy is that the title of King or Queen or Prince etc. is only to be acquired though inheritance. An electable royal family isn't much less possible than dividing by zero.

And because of that, I am against monarchy, because even though the title is mainly symbolical these days, those in power should always be chosen by the people.

I'm Dutch though (I'll leave voting in the poll to the Englishmen and -women), so this isn't really a complaint against the English royal family per se, but still, nobody deserves a place at the head of a state unless they're elected by the people it is to govern, in the Netherlands as well as anywhere in the world.

[Piney]

What about the idea of an elected royal family? They could do the job for a five year term.




http://t1.images.live.com/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=1248130900660&id=591f43a31de307524b0885aeeb13d0dc

[noachianite]

I dont live in the uk, but my family still does,
I as a U.K citzen born overseas, ....well I FEEL that its important on only a symbolic level.

canada where I live now, and was born. we are still "technicaly" under the rulle of the queen, we still have a governer general...who is a complete waste of skin and money.
she serves only a traditional role as head of state to the queen, although she does hold power over our governments laws, she holds none. if she was to over throw any of our laws we would simpky remove her of power.

The same I feel for the queen though I think she may have more of role in britian then the governer general in canada. if not politically, morally and figurativly. I do not know though do british folk raised in england feel a loyalty to the queen?
even if she holds no power this feeling of loyality and respect.....well is that not her sole purpose? to hold that position of respect?
I do not think she is "needed" persay, though I do admire her position in our minds.I feel a huge loyalty to my Monarch who ever they be. I think it brings an honourable sign of national pride and identity.

Also I dissagree that the Monarchies functions are only traditional (they are mostly symbolic yes...) and I except that the Monarch plays no 'political' role, however alot resides on the Monarch. I noted somebody put

"if she was to over throw any of our laws we would simpky remove her of power."

This is not so here in the United Kingdom, the Queen is expected not to reject an act of Parliment however if she feel the Government is in any way threatning the freedom or Constitutional role of our Kingdom she will intervene. Canada holding the continuation of the Crown plays an important role in the Commonwealth of Nations, unity, trade etc all of this could prehaps exist without the Crown, but the Crown is involvd and Canadas continuation of holding the Crown supports the Commonwealth of Nations.

I see the Monarchy as protecting our freedom from any outside intuding force. Long may it last.

[L.A.Matthews]

The monarchy is a load of shit. They do nothing for me, or my country, that I'm aware of, and act as an old memento of a bygone Empire. They are the figure heads of tyranny and invasion.

Basically 'we'll civilize you savages, steal your resources, and claim the money. Cheers!'

[ripple]

They bring in a lot of tourists with money, which keeps a lot of people in jobs.

I reckon I should be the next sucessor, not Charles or Wills. Id bring in even more tourists with my eccentric weirdness. Id knock down Buckingham palace and build a big earthship in its place. Id also bring in a national day of red, where you had to wear all red or else face being hung, drawn and quartered. The videos of the exectutions would be sold online to liveleak..turning tyranny into a profitable business ...the possibilities are endless!

[Peace-Phoenix]

They bring in a lot of tourists with money, which keeps a lot of people in jobs.
Classic argument, classic fallacy. Britain would not lose out on tourism revenue if we were to abolish the monarchy. In fact, if you were to open the former royal sites to visitors all year round, you would probably stand to gain. France and Russia lost nothing when their monarchs lost their heads and tourists continue to flock to the Palace of Versailles and the Winter Palace....

[lithium]

Also I dissagree that the Monarchies functions are only traditional (they are mostly symbolic yes...) and I except that the Monarch plays no 'political' role, however alot resides on the Monarch. I noted somebody put

"if she was to over throw any of our laws we would simpky remove her of power."

This is not so here in the United Kingdom, the Queen is expected not to reject an act of Parliment however if she feel the Government is in any way threatning the freedom or Constitutional role of our Kingdom she will intervene.The last time a monarch refused to give royal assent to an act of parliament was Queen Anne in 1707. If the reigning monarch tried to veto something democratically passed by the houses of parliament she would be over-ruled quicker than you can say "pointless elitist sham"...

[noachianite]

The monarchy is a load of shit. They do nothing for me, or my country, that I'm aware of, and act as an old memento of a bygone Empire. They are the figure heads of tyranny and invasion.

Basically 'we'll civilize you savages, steal your resources, and claim the money. Cheers!'Awwww somebody doesnt know very much about the Monarchy so they. LOL the beer in the picture kinda gives that away.

[noachianite]

Classic argument, classic fallacy. Britain would not lose out on tourism revenue if we were to abolish the monarchy. In fact, if you were to open the former royal sites to visitors all year round, you would probably stand to gain. France and Russia lost nothing when their monarchs lost their heads and tourists continue to flock to the Palace of Versailles and the Winter Palace....I acknowlage that we recieve money rom the Monarchy, however that is not what it is here for, HM does not swear oaths and vows to get some Amercian taking photos of her. It is all apart of the political system in which our Kingdom runs, and you have to admit....ot works pretty well.

By the way the reason we dont have a writen Constituttion is because our society is based on traditition, including the Monarchy.

[ripple]

I still think I should be king. King Ripple of Great Britain. Id give the newspapers something to write about, no more Paris Hilton stories..another benefit.

[blinkin]

you read about paris in the U.K as well?.....my god!

[noachianite]

I still think I should be king. King Ripple of Great Britain. Id give the newspapers something to write about, no more Paris Hilton stories..another benefit.LOL Well I dont think that will happen any time soon, unless ofcourse you are found out to be the sucessor when the whole Royal family was to be killed. Hoever there is an estimated 800 Royal family members on the sucessor line.

[noachianite]

Her Majesty's Governments response to the abolishion of the Monarchy:

"The Monarchy is a vital element of our constitution, and personifies both national and commonwealth unity. As a result of a long process of evolution, during which the Monarch's absolute power has been progressively reduced, The Sovereign acts on the advice of Her Ministers. Britain is governed by Her Majesty's government in the name of The Queen. The Government fully supports the Monarchy and the continuation of the Crown."


Suck on that Republicans.

[L.A.Matthews]

Awwww somebody doesnt know very much about the Monarchy so they. LOL the beer in the picture kinda gives that away.

Ho-ho-ho! Aren't you a funny little cunt? Don't question my intelligence by the fact you can see alcohol in my signature, because frankly that means shit. So, you don't want to question me intelligently, but you'd rather point out something in the attempt to say 'Hahaha! Look at him! He knows fuck all!' You'll get nowhere in life if you try and point out the flaws of others, when you think their intelligence is deemed obsolete to yours.

:nopity:

[verseau_miracle]

I cant stand the people. They look odd, sound odd and are stinking rich for no valid reason at all

Stick your words about economy and crowns and British pride, i dont care, its not right

[phoenix_indigo]

Ho-ho-ho! Aren't you a funny little cunt? Don't question my intelligence by the fact you can see alcohol in my signature, because frankly that means shit. So, you don't want to question me intelligently, but you'd rather point out something in the attempt to say 'Hahaha! Look at him! He knows fuck all!' You'll get nowhere in life if you try and point out the flaws of others, when you think their intelligence is deemed obsolete to yours.

:nopity:i couldn't agree more with you, Luke.
besides the fact that the first two sentences in this response made me laugh. :)

[noachianite]

Ho-ho-ho! Aren't you a funny little cunt? Don't question my intelligence by the fact you can see alcohol in my signature, because frankly that means shit. So, you don't want to question me intelligently, but you'd rather point out something in the attempt to say 'Hahaha! Look at him! He knows fuck all!' You'll get nowhere in life if you try and point out the flaws of others, when you think their intelligence is deemed obsolete to yours.

:nopity:Well most reasonbly intellgent people dont use 'f**k' and 'c**t' in thier come back sentances, because they can think of better proper words to say. ANd as for pheonix_indigo, I wasnt even talking to you so but out you. As for me I have control over my language and actions and dont flip out like a cocky retrebate. Anyways if I was alittle to harsh on you please be a man and except my most humble apologies.

[L.A.Matthews]

Hahaha! You think that swearing makes you stupid? Some of the most intelligent men and women in the world swear. It's just another word, and you're the stupid one for thinking they're unintelligent. Pfft! Also, what the bloody hell does 'retrebate' mean? It isn't even a word, and it was so forcefully shoved into that response that it only shows your lack of knowledge of the English language (how long did it take you to think up that word, including a definition?). Don't get high and mighty on an internet forum, because you don't know who you're talking to.

Also, Phoenix can say whatever the hell she wants because this is a forum which attracts the whole purpose of being able to give opinions; she was just giving hers, like I was giving mine. You think I'm stupid? Well, I think you're a cunt for making an assumption about me (Oooo! Isn't it a vicious circle?). End of.

But please, do tell me how the monarchy has effected me personally and exactly what they do for my country?

Oh, and I accept your apology, but I don't have to apologise back. So don't expect me to.

[hailtothekingbaby]

Her Majesty's Governments response to the abolishion of the Monarchy:

"The Monarchy is a vital element of our constitution, and personifies both national and commonwealth unity. As a result of a long process of evolution, during which the Monarch's absolute power has been progressively reduced, The Sovereign acts on the advice of Her Ministers. Britain is governed by Her Majesty's government in the name of The Queen. The Government fully supports the Monarchy and the continuation of the Crown."


Suck on that Republicans.What does that prove to be sucked on by the republicans? So the Government supports the monarchy. That doesn't mean the general population has to do so too.

[Peace-Phoenix]

ANd as for pheonix_indigo, I wasnt even talking to you so but out you.Butting out would rather defeat the purpose of a public forum....

[noachianite]

What does that prove to be sucked on by the republicans? So the Government supports the monarchy. That doesn't mean the general population has to do so too.It is worthy of republican sucking, because it means that the Monarchy is staying so Republicans will be mad.

[hailtothekingbaby]

I don't think anyone was expecting the monarchy to be abandoned in favour of a republic any time soon, not even the people who are wishing so.

[noachianite]

Hahaha! You think that swearing makes you stupid? Some of the most intelligent men and women in the world swear. It's just another word, and you're the stupid one for thinking they're unintelligent. Pfft! Also, what the bloody hell does 'retrebate' mean? It isn't even a word, and it was so forcefully shoved into that response that it only shows your lack of knowledge of the English language (how long did it take you to think up that word, including a definition?). Don't get high and mighty on an internet forum, because you don't know who you're talking to.

Also, Phoenix can say whatever the hell she wants because this is a forum which attracts the whole purpose of being able to give opinions; she was just giving hers, like I was giving mine. You think I'm stupid? Well, I think you're a cunt for making an assumption about me (Oooo! Isn't it a vicious circle?). End of.

But please, do tell me how the monarchy has effected me personally and exactly what they do for my country?

Oh, and I accept your apology, but I don't have to apologise back. So don't expect me to.Very well, still there is no need for cursing. But if you wish. And please dont insult my knowlage of the English language, retrebate was a typo, it was meant to say retrobate: 1. A morally unprincipled person.
, however if YOUR knowlage of the English language was sufficient you would have noticed that, and my dyslexia doesnt effect my knowlage of the English language.

Bythe way I wasnt apologising for judging you I was apologising if you were offended. JUST MY OPINION AS YOU SEEM TO BE IN SUPPORT OF.

Ok enough of the Tom-foolery. The Monarchy does not effect your day-to-day life niether does fishing or tennis but doesnt mean they are wrong. Politics rarly effects peoples day-to-day life but we still are in support of it (unless you are an Anarchist). The Monarchy provides a vital role in the Commonwealth of Nations, which is bound by oath by the Queen because of its colonial decents. She also plays a vital role in the Constitution (thus Constitutional Monarchy) Her Majesty has to sign to Acts of Parliment which could with the modern Governemnt could indeed be corrupt. People say "If she was to ever refuse an Act of Parliment, we would simply abolish the Monarchy" alow me to make a small sernario (SP):

Parliment agrees without referendum from the British public, to replace GB Pound Sterling with the European Union Euro. Most people are agianst this and so is Her Majesty. She refuses the Act of Parliement (because the now corrupt House of Lords has excepted it by this point) and the Euro scheme is stopped. The Pound Sterling is continued as the Kingdoms currency. The people are happy, the Monarch is happy because her people are and the Ministers are angry. EVERYONE is Happy. The End

As you can see the Monarchy is worth the keeping, we could easly get rid of them, section them off onto a private estate where they live normal lives of no particular importance....BUt why bother.

[noachianite]

I cant stand the people. They look odd, sound odd and are stinking rich for no valid reason at all

Stick your words about economy and crowns and British pride, i dont care, its not rightMa'am they are rich for a very valid reason. The Monarch has to pay nearly three times as much tax as the average British citizen. SHe also has a Palace to maintain. If you have a very demanding job, you deserve a very demanding wage. CAPEESH. The QUeen since the beginnig of her riegn in 1952 has NEVER had a single day offf work. I think she deserves a pretty good amount of money. People complained when Windsor Castle went alight and we were made to pay tax for it. IT COST AN AVERAGE OF 3PENCE PER PERSON hardly a lump some of our wages, and plus the Queen had to pay an average of 6 POUNDS compared to us.

Sounds like you are a bit of a Snob to judge people by how they look and sound. Just a hunch!

[L.A.Matthews]

Very well, still there is no need for cursing. But if you wish. And please dont insult my knowlage of the English language, retrebate was a typo, it was meant to say retrobate: 1. A morally unprincipled person.
, however if YOUR knowlage of the English language was sufficient you would have noticed that, and my dyslexia doesnt effect my knowlage of the English language.

Bythe way I wasnt apologising for judging you I was apologising if you were offended. JUST MY OPINION AS YOU SEEM TO BE IN SUPPORT OF.

Ok enough of the Tom-foolery. The Monarchy does not effect your day-to-day life niether does fishing or tennis but doesnt mean they are wrong. Politics rarly effects peoples day-to-day life but we still are in support of it (unless you are an Anarchist). The Monarchy provides a vital role in the Commonwealth of Nations, which is bound by oath by the Queen because of its colonial decents. She also plays a vital role in the Constitution (thus Constitutional Monarchy) Her Majesty has to sign to Acts of Parliment which could with the modern Governemnt could indeed be corrupt. People say "If she was to ever refuse an Act of Parliment, we would simply abolish the Monarchy" alow me to make a small sernario (SP):

Parliment agrees without referendum from the British public, to replace GB Pound Sterling with the European Union Euro. Most people are agianst this and so is Her Majesty. She refuses the Act of Parliement (because the now corrupt House of Lords has excepted it by this point) and the Euro scheme is stopped. The Pound Sterling is continued as the Kingdoms currency. The people are happy, the Monarch is happy because her people are and the Ministers are angry. EVERYONE is Happy. The End

As you can see the Monarchy is worth the keeping, we could easly get rid of them, section them off onto a private estate where they live normal lives of no particular importance....BUt why bother.

The word is REPROBATE!

But anyway, why should the nation's money go to an elitist family? What do they do other than act as a symbol of the Empire and it's tyranny? They have no importance to me, or Wales, in anyway...Just like tennis.

[noachianite]

The word is REPROBATE!

But anyway, why should the nation's money go to an elitist family? What do they do other than act as a symbol of the Empire and it's tyranny? They have no importance to me, or Wales, in anyway...Just like tennis.The Monarchy may not effect you; there for if all your concern is for yourself then be it so, and I see your point about Elitist and Imperialist features, however they play an important role in the functioning of British politics

People-House of Commons-HOuse of Lords-Monarch etc

It is all apart of the way things work democrtically and Monarchically. All this the Monarch serves as a symbol of identity, you may say that the those things dont matter. BUt in the scale of things they do, we cant go on in life only living off things that actually matter, we smoke but we its not important, we do it because we like to. We have to have things which spruce things up, in a political argumtent this is false, but in this argument i believe it is valid. I love to see my Monarch in all thier glory standing before the people, what I wouldnt like to see is a British George Bush standing up in a a suit shouting "Killl the Jews". Republics suck.

[lithium]

Parliment agrees without referendum from the British public, to replace GB Pound Sterling with the European Union Euro. Most people are agianst this and so is Her Majesty. She refuses the Act of Parliement (because the now corrupt House of Lords has excepted it by this point) and the Euro scheme is stopped. The Pound Sterling is continued as the Kingdoms currency. The people are happy, the Monarch is happy because her people are and the Ministers are angry. EVERYONE is Happy. The EndThe reason a monarch has not attempted to exercise such a right for 300 years is because in practice no such right exists. The Commons and the House of Lords are the highest offices of political power, the queen can in theory advise the PM but her role is otherwise entirely symbolic, she has no right to refuse the bidding of Parliament, and rightly so - I would not trust the judgement of an unaccountable, inbred and somewhat senile pensioner to make a decision of any importance on my behalf...

[verseau_miracle]

Ma'am they are rich for a very valid reason. The Monarch has to pay nearly three times as much tax as the average British citizen. SHe also has a Palace to maintain. If you have a very demanding job, you deserve a very demanding wage. CAPEESH. The QUeen since the beginnig of her riegn in 1952 has NEVER had a single day offf work. I think she deserves a pretty good amount of money. People complained when Windsor Castle went alight and we were made to pay tax for it. IT COST AN AVERAGE OF 3PENCE PER PERSON hardly a lump some of our wages, and plus the Queen had to pay an average of 6 POUNDS compared to us.

Sounds like you are a bit of a Snob to judge people by how they look and sound. Just a hunch! Demanding job...palace to maintain...you are JOKING right!?!

Also, i didnt realise believing it is wrong that some old bat and her family members were given heaps of money for doing absolutely nothing of much use while millions suffer and starve made anyone a snob

(But no doubt youll have some retort to that which of course cancels out my whole point. But naturally, it wont really)

[noachianite]

The reason a monarch has not attempted to exercise such a right for 300 years is because in practice no such right exists. The Commons and the House of Lords are the highest offices of political power, the queen can in theory advise the PM but her role is otherwise entirely symbolic, she has no right to refuse the bidding of Parliament, and rightly so - I would not trust the judgement of an unaccountable, inbred and somewhat senile pensioner to make a decision of any importance on my behalf...I see your point and it is some what valid, however that right does exist in the Constitution even though it is unlikly it will ever happen. I STROGNLY dissagree with you when you go onto say:

"I would not trust the judgement of an unaccountable, inbred and somewhat senile pensioner to make a decision of any importance on my behalf"

Her Majesty is the most politically experienced person on this earth, she has the best mental and physical health care and her judgements/advise to 11 Prime Minister and have always been for the benifit of our Island Nation. The Prime Minister often acts on behalf of Her Majesty. Acording to most mainstream knowlage sources the Queen by Constitutional right is classed as the most politically powerful figure head on earth.

Wikipedia: "Constitutionally, the Queen is an ESSENTIAL part of the legislative process of her Realms. IN PRACTICE, much of the Queen's role in the legislative process is ceremonial, as her RESERVE powers are rarely exercised." But she still holds the right to use them.

ALthough wikipedia says: "IN PRACTICE, she personally EXERCIES virtually no political executive power." Again She still holds the Constitutional right to.

[noachianite]

Demanding job...palace to maintain...you are JOKING right!?!

Also, i didnt realise believing it is wrong that some old bat and her family members were given heaps of money for doing absolutely nothing of much use while millions suffer and starve made anyone a snob

(But no doubt youll have some retort to that which of course cancels out my whole point. But naturally, it wont really)Correct I will, and Incorrect it will. The Queen is Patron of these Charities:


The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_to_Protect_Rural_England_%28CPRE%29)
Canadian Medical Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Medical_Association)
The Kennel Club (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kennel_Club)
NSPCC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSPCC)
Royal Architectural Institute of Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Architectural_Institute_of_Canada)
Queen Elizabeth Hospital for Children (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_Hospital_for_Children)
The Royal School of Church Music (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_School_of_Church_Music)
The Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge (SPCK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPCK))
The Boys' Brigade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys%27_Brigade)
Queens' College, Cambridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queens%27_College%2C_Cambridge)
Visitor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visitor) of Christ Church, Oxford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_Church%2C_Oxford)
Visitor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visitor) of Westminster School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_School)
And donator to over 18 more. And you think she does nothing for her job, you really have got to one of the most narrowminded unpolitically educated people I have ever came across. AND I CAN GOD-DARN WELL SAY WHAT EVER I WANT SO DONT GO SAYING,,,,EHHHH YOU CANT SAY THAT ABOUT ME!!

[verseau_miracle]

Correct I will, and Incorrect it will. The Queen is Patron of these Charities:




The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_to_Protect_Rural_England_%28CPRE%29)
Canadian Medical Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Medical_Association)
The Kennel Club (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kennel_Club)
NSPCC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSPCC)
Royal Architectural Institute of Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Architectural_Institute_of_Canada)
Queen Elizabeth Hospital for Children (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_Hospital_for_Children)
The Royal School of Church Music (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_School_of_Church_Music)
The Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge (SPCK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPCK))
The Boys' Brigade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys%27_Brigade)
Queens' College, Cambridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queens%27_College%2C_Cambridge)
Visitor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visitor) of Christ Church, Oxford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_Church%2C_Oxford)
Visitor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visitor) of Westminster School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_School)
And donator to over 18 more. And you think she does nothing for her job, you really have got to one of the most narrowminded unpolitically educated people I have ever came across. AND I CAN GOD-DARN WELL SAY WHAT EVER I WANT SO DONT GO SAYING,,,,EHHHH YOU CANT SAY THAT ABOUT ME!!
Uhh...calm down buddy, why would i say that? Go and listen to some relaxing music or something

[noachianite]

Uhh...calm down buddy, why would i say that? Go and listen to some relaxing music or somethingActually I think I'll go and do just that...thanks for reminding me.

[L.A.Matthews]

Oof! You've got some real insecurity's. Try to calm down more and accept other peoples opinions, rather than forcing your own on them. That's how you turn into a nationalist, especially with your love of the 'Queen and Country'.

[lithium]

I honestly can't work out if he is joking - if so, it's a very clever parody of a certain kind of pompous conservatism:D

[noachianite]

To be honest I really dont know who the dickens your talking about.

[Power_13]

I honestly can't work out if he is joking - if so, it's a very clever parody of a certain kind of pompous conservatism:DWe'll know in a second if he insults me for being a scruffy unwashed urchin child from the great rolling fields and coal mines of Yorkshire *stands up and holds t'flatcap over t'eart* :D At least then he and Sal will have something in common. :tongue:

(edit) Actually I was quite enjoying this thread before the insults started. I guess that's the way of things, though. Bloody shame.

[noachianite]

We'll know in a second if he insults me for being a scruffy unwashed urchin child from the great rolling fields and coal mines of Yorkshire *stands up and holds t'flatcap over t'eart* :D At least then he and Sal will have something in common. :tongue:

(edit) Actually I was quite enjoying this thread before the insults started. I guess that's the way of things, though. Bloody shame.I was enjoying it aswell until everyone seemed to just start ganging up on me, I apologised to the cursing L.A Mathews he accepted my apology (he still ows me one for the comments on my unability to spell caused by dyslexia) and we continued the debate on the Monarchy. Until he and someother people (I.e you and Lithium and someothers) started making comments about me being conservitive and somekind of snob. Just let it go. Respect me for my political beliefes and my religious beliefes....I find the prospect of Anarchism proposterous but I dont make inapropriate comments about them. Or under United Kingdom Law I have privlages to shut this entire forum down for bullying or disscrimination. We wouldnt want that to happen would we...now lets get on with the debate and lay off me.

[verseau_miracle]

Wha? Im lost now. Is this whole thing a joke? Im slow

[L.A.Matthews]

Hahaha! I owe you no apology. Dyslexia isn't a short-sweet excuse for stupidity. The fact that you used the word 'unability' makes me actually think that you're just another alter-ego of Ron. And, to be honest, the very fact that you love the Queen and the Monarch is enough to make you Conservative. No left-winger I know are Pro-Monarch.

Or under United Kingdom Law I have privlages to shut this entire forum down for bullying or disscrimination. We wouldnt want that to happen would we...now lets get on with the debate and lay off me.

...

If there was some kind of expression or emotion I could show over the internet for being totally stunned with the capability of someone's stupidity, believe me, now is that very moment! But by all means, have a go!:) After all, I don't think there were laws like that when the crown took over India, was there?:) So take full advantage of them now.:)

[Power_13]

(I.e you and Lithium and someothers) started making comments about me being conservitive and somekind of snob.You need thicker skin, dude. People take the piss out of people here, I've been called an uncultured swine a couple of times here, never done any harm. Likewise, I've called Sal all sorts of words that he's had to give me the correct spellings and definitions for (bloody brainiac).

Oh crap, I just thought. We so totally need to get you and Aladdin into a debate (if you're not the same person, which I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt about for the moment). That'd be like sending matter and antimatter towards each toher at terminal velocity or some such scientific nonsense :D


Or under United Kingdom Law I have privlages to shut this entire forum down for bullying or disscrimination. We wouldnt want that to happen would we...now lets get on with the debate and lay off me.Um. I'm really trying to think of a halfwit reply to that, but you've beaten me at it. :(

[noachianite]

I am a Conservitive and I am proud of it. And now is the time for me to make an anoucment; the Monarchy may be gone by 2009. Those of you who are Republican will be happy. Although the other new functions that come with it you may not like. There will be no mre Prime Minister and no more British Parliment, Gordon Brown will be the last PM. After the death of Queen Elizabeth II there will be no more Monarchs, because the United Kingdom will be abolished and all 40 something counties will be abolished. The Nation of England will be lost and will be given a new name. Britain will be controlled by an un-British-elected parliment held in Brussels. Instead of a Constitutional Monarchy and Parlimentary Democracy, Britain will become a European Police State controlled by European Union Police. The European Union has been giving these orders to the three major prties for years now and this could happen. There is nothing in its way. Republicans....you have your wish, but I am sure you expected other sacrifices right?

Which do you prefer: This we have now with the continuation of the Crown, or that, a militia controlled state ran by facists in another country.

[Power_13]

Which do you prefer: This we have now with the continuation of the Crown, or that, a militia controlled state ran by facists in another country.Or neither. Or, in fact, both. Weren't there a couple of Royals who supported Hitler, or at least sympathised with him?

We all know about the activities of the Duke of Windsor (the former Edward VIII). One of the main reasons why he was forced to abdicate was his close relationship with Hitler’s government. Even as late at 1970 the Duke of Windsor was saying that he “never thought Hitler was such a bad chap”. After all, he was anti-communist wasn’t he?

[L.A.Matthews]

I am a Conservitive and I am proud of it. And now is the time for me to make an anoucment; the Monarchy may be gone by 2009. Those of you who are Republican will be happy. Although the other new functions that come with it you may not like. There will be no mre Prime Minister and no more British Parliment, Gordon Brown will be the last PM. After the death of Queen Elizabeth II there will be no more Monarchs, because the United Kingdom will be abolished and all 40 something counties will be abolished. The Nation of England will be lost and will be given a new name. Britain will be controlled by an un-British-elected parliment held in Brussels. Instead of a Constitutional Monarchy and Parlimentary Democracy, Britain will become a European Police State controlled by European Union Police. The European Union has been giving these orders to the three major prties for years now and this could happen. There is nothing in its way. Republicans....you have your wish, but I am sure you expected other sacrifices right?

Which do you prefer: This we have now with the continuation of the Crown, or that, a militia controlled state ran by facists in another country.

....Pfft! Shutup, you mong.

[noachianite]

....Pfft! Shutup, you mong.God bless you L.A Mathews, God bless you is all I can say to you. "To fault is human, to forgive is divine"

[L.A.Matthews]

God bless you L.A Mathews, God bless you is all I can say to you. "To fault is human, to forgive is divine"
Well I consider myself no more than human. I don't know what the FUCK you consider yourself!

[noachianite]

Human I consider myself also Mr L. A. Mathews. Now please stop. Stop with the insults just coment on the Monarchy or leave this thread.

I am guessing you cursed at me because you thought I made that news about the police state up, well:

http://thewestminsternews.co.uk/

I also have the issue of this new newspaper here with me now.

[noachianite]

Or neither. Or, in fact, both. Weren't there a couple of Royals who supported Hitler, or at least sympathised with him?Thats a good point Power_13 but you get bad people anywhere, in Royal families, Popes, and yes even Presidents: Sadam Husaein, Adolf Hitler, Kim Sun How, the presidents name of Zimbawe what ever his name is.

[L.A.Matthews]

Why should we support bad people unless we were bad people ourselves?

[noachianite]

Why should we support bad people unless we were bad people ourselves?But not all the Royals are bad people, just that man, like anywhere or an institutions you will find bad people. Like Sadam Husein for example (excuse spelling of President). I think you are more likly to find a power-hungry, warmongering 'bad President than Royal. In the lscale of it alll; most of the Royals are just releatives like ours with no Constitutional purpose, excpet for that few like the Prince of Wales (butt Wales being a Pricipality he plays an important role)

[L.A.Matthews]

So what makes them so special?

[noachianite]

So what makes them so special?Nothing really, they arent special, they are just simply relatives of the Monarch who have no importance with the Constitution or Govenrment systems what so ever. The Monarch is the only memeber of the Royal Family that matters.

[L.A.Matthews]

So what makes the Monarch so special? Why can't I get lots of money for nothing?

[lord advisor]

Ok, Im a little concerned as to why my fellow Englishmen believe that the Monarchy,should be abolished. To many things in this country are 'new.' We allowed Blair to step in and modernize everything. The Monarchy is not just a revenue for tourism, but has constitutional 'and' ceremonial duties and obligations. The two are not intertwined. The head of state, theoretical and nominal source of executive, judicial and legislative power in the UK is the British monarch, currently Queen Elizabeth II. The British Sovereign possesses many hypothetical powers, including the right to choose any British citizen to be her Prime Minister and the right to call and dissolve Parliament whenever she wishes. However, in accordance with the current unmodified constitution, the Prime Minister is the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons, and Parliament is dissolved at the time suggested by the PM. The monarch retains the ability to deny giving a bill Royal Assent! which all know was practiced this last year. Other royal powers called royal prerogative, such as patronage to appoint ministers and the ability to declare war, are exercised by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, with the consent of the Queen. the royal prerogatives are as follow:

* The appointment and dismissal of ministers;
* The dissolution of parliament and the calling of elections;
* Clemency and pardon;
* The award of dignities and honors;
* The declaration of war;
* The declaration of an emergency;
* The grant of Charters of Incorporation;
* The minting of coinage;
* The issue and revocation of passports;
* The expulsion of a foreign national from the United Kingdom;
* The creation of new common law courts;
* The creation of new universities;
* The appointment of bishops and archbishops in the Church of England;
* The printing of the authorized Church of England version of the Bible;
* The publication of all statutes, legislative instruments and Orders-in-Council; existing and new
* The exercise of jurisdiction over numerous Royal foundations of all kinds;
* The appointment of Royal Commissions and Officers for any purposes.
* The choice of the numbering of monarchs
* The accreditation of diplomats;
* The granting of Sovereign Immunity;
* The negotiation of treaties.
* The power to order a subject not to leave the realm;
* Crown ownership of wild unmarked white swans swimming in open and common waters
* Crown ownership of royal fish, meaning sturgeons, dolphins, porpoises and whales
If a time came to pass, for instance, when a law threatened the freedom or security of her subjects and citizens, the Queen could decline royal assent, free as she is from the eddies of party politics. Furthermore, armed removal of her by Parliament or Government would be impossible, as the Monarch remains commander-in-chief of the armed forces, who swear an oath of allegiance to her.

The thing that bothers me most about this discussion, is the subject of the cost to maintain our most sacred institute. The Crown Estate is not owned by the monarch personally, but is an inalienable possession of the Crown, and passes from one Sovereign to the next. During modern times, the profits surrendered from the Crown Estate have greatly exceeded the Civil List and Grants-in-Aid provided to the monarch. For example, surplus from the Crown Estate produced approximately £184.8 million for the Treasury during the financial year 2003/04, whereas parliamentary funding for the Monarchy was approximately £36.8 million during the same period. These funds include the Civil List, Annuities, Grants in Aid, and funding paid directly by government departments.
This Means the Monarch is prepaid at the beginning of the year and shovels out 5 times more than what she received. This year the Privy Purse( Queen's Funds including the 7 million she personally recieves) received about 110,000,000 pounds. The Crown Estate put out 180,000,000 pounds.

I, Lord James Cole Francis Marquess of Northumberland swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.

Also one last thing, WE need a head of state that will not act on the interest a political party, but one whom will act in the best interest of Our kingdom and its citizens. The Monarch is a perfect example of this. While fulfilling Her constitutional obligations she continues to be politically neutral.


(GOD SAVE THE QUEEN)

-BY COMMAND OF HER MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY-

[lithium]

The monarch retains the ability to deny giving a bill Royal Assent! which all know was practiced this last year.Excuse me? This power was last used in 1707, it has not been used in 300 years because in practice the monarch has no such right to refuse assent against the wishes of the government. Royal assent is a purely symbolic part of the legislative process, similarly royal prerogratives are practiced by the government "in the name of the monarch" on a purely symbolic basis, she has no right to actually do these things herself and if a monarch tried to declare war or appoint or dismiss her own choice of Prime Minister (unlikely in the first instance) we would undoubtedly codify laws to enshrine the protection of accountable democratic process.


Also one last thing, WE need a head of state that will not act on the interest a political party, but one whom will act in the best interest of Our kingdom and its citizens. The Monarch is a perfect example of this. While fulfilling Her constitutional obligations she continues to be politically neutral. The only good argument for having a non-political head of state, but even if we needed such a figurehead it still does not follow that this should be an hereditary monarch granted such privelege on the basis of lineage rather than merit or achievement. The post would be served equally well by an elected or appointed non-partisan head of state, perhaps one who serves for a period or even the remainder of a lifetime in a purely symbolic capacity, someone everyone knows and respects and who the country can unite behind, someone like Noel Edmonds.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/img/galleries/topofthepops/EdmondsBBC_243x350.jpg

[Quoth the Raven]

Wait, what? People still CARE about the monarchy?
I say just leave the fuckers alone and let 'em inbreed themselves into extinction. Problem solved.

[djbelkin]

I have had enough of the monarchy, whenever I go to their house to visit I find they are really snobby and send shit loads of police to stop me from walking up the path to meet them. Not very neighbourly at all is it - perhaps they should fuck off back to germany where they bullong

That bloke harry could do with a few pints and a slap round the face by a decent tart with big tits to wake him up - seems to be sucking his thumb a lot

[Bilby]

There are some Tories who think that the Royal Family should be privatized ie Buckhouse PLC.

[themnax]

as a 'yank' i must confess a certain degree of ignorance in these matters, but:

wouldn't it be possible to support the institution of some sort of monarchy as an aditional political check and balance, WITHOUT it having to remain so tastelessly austentatious?

(i do get the distinct impression that the younger generations of royal decendents have no great love for having to live that way, that quite possibly none ever did, and have always pretty much tried to spend as much of thier lives OUT of the public eye as possibly to avoid, when not being called upon to perform ritual formalities, in order to as much as possible, avoid having to)

=^^=
.../\...

[noachianite]

Ok, Im a little concerned as to why my fellow Englishmen believe that the Monarchy,should be abolished. To many things in this country are 'new.' We allowed Blair to step in and modernize everything. The Monarchy is not just a revenue for tourism, but has constitutional 'and' ceremonial duties and obligations. The two are not intertwined. The head of state, theoretical and nominal source of executive, judicial and legislative power in the UK is the British monarch, currently Queen Elizabeth II. The British Sovereign possesses many hypothetical powers, including the right to choose any British citizen to be her Prime Minister and the right to call and dissolve Parliament whenever she wishes. However, in accordance with the current unmodified constitution, the Prime Minister is the leader of the largest party in the House of Commons, and Parliament is dissolved at the time suggested by the PM. The monarch retains the ability to deny giving a bill Royal Assent! which all know was practiced this last year. Other royal powers called royal prerogative, such as patronage to appoint ministers and the ability to declare war, are exercised by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, with the consent of the Queen. the royal prerogatives are as follow:

* The appointment and dismissal of ministers;
* The dissolution of parliament and the calling of elections;
* Clemency and pardon;
* The award of dignities and honors;
* The declaration of war;
* The declaration of an emergency;
* The grant of Charters of Incorporation;
* The minting of coinage;
* The issue and revocation of passports;
* The expulsion of a foreign national from the United Kingdom;
* The creation of new common law courts;
* The creation of new universities;
* The appointment of bishops and archbishops in the Church of England;
* The printing of the authorized Church of England version of the Bible;
* The publication of all statutes, legislative instruments and Orders-in-Council; existing and new
* The exercise of jurisdiction over numerous Royal foundations of all kinds;
* The appointment of Royal Commissions and Officers for any purposes.
* The choice of the numbering of monarchs
* The accreditation of diplomats;
* The granting of Sovereign Immunity;
* The negotiation of treaties.
* The power to order a subject not to leave the realm;
* Crown ownership of wild unmarked white swans swimming in open and common waters
* Crown ownership of royal fish, meaning sturgeons, dolphins, porpoises and whales
If a time came to pass, for instance, when a law threatened the freedom or security of her subjects and citizens, the Queen could decline royal assent, free as she is from the eddies of party politics. Furthermore, armed removal of her by Parliament or Government would be impossible, as the Monarch remains commander-in-chief of the armed forces, who swear an oath of allegiance to her.

The thing that bothers me most about this discussion, is the subject of the cost to maintain our most sacred institute. The Crown Estate is not owned by the monarch personally, but is an inalienable possession of the Crown, and passes from one Sovereign to the next. During modern times, the profits surrendered from the Crown Estate have greatly exceeded the Civil List and Grants-in-Aid provided to the monarch. For example, surplus from the Crown Estate produced approximately £184.8 million for the Treasury during the financial year 2003/04, whereas parliamentary funding for the Monarchy was approximately £36.8 million during the same period. These funds include the Civil List, Annuities, Grants in Aid, and funding paid directly by government departments.
This Means the Monarch is prepaid at the beginning of the year and shovels out 5 times more than what she received. This year the Privy Purse( Queen's Funds including the 7 million she personally recieves) received about 110,000,000 pounds. The Crown Estate put out 180,000,000 pounds.

I, Lord James Cole Francis Marquess of Northumberland swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.

Also one last thing, WE need a head of state that will not act on the interest a political party, but one whom will act in the best interest of Our kingdom and its citizens. The Monarch is a perfect example of this. While fulfilling Her constitutional obligations she continues to be politically neutral.


(GOD SAVE THE QUEEN)

-BY COMMAND OF HER MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY-THANKYOUUUUUUU!!!!!!!

[noachianite]

Excuse me? This power was last used in 1707, it has not been used in 300 years because in practice the monarch has no such right to refuse assent against the wishes of the government. Royal assent is a purely symbolic part of the legislative process, similarly royal prerogratives are practiced by the government "in the name of the monarch" on a purely symbolic basis, she has no right to actually do these things herself and if a monarch tried to declare war or appoint or dismiss her own choice of Prime Minister (unlikely in the first instance) we would undoubtedly codify laws to enshrine the protection of accountable democratic process.

The only good argument for having a non-political head of state, but even if we needed such a figurehead it still does not follow that this should be an hereditary monarch granted such privelege on the basis of lineage rather than merit or achievement. The post would be served equally well by an elected or appointed non-partisan head of state, perhaps one who serves for a period or even the remainder of a lifetime in a purely symbolic capacity, someone everyone knows and respects and who the country can unite behind, someone like Noel Edmonds.

Actually Yes the Monarch does have Constitutional right to refuse assent to Law,shes just not 'suppose to'. With my recent visits to Parliment this week I spoke with a Constitutional Lawyer whom explained to me the function of the Monarch which does include her to refuse assent if nessicery. FOr instance: If the Prime Minister were to postpone a General Election during peacetime the Monarch would have constitutional right to refuse the postponement. Also the Monarch is very functional in todays Government through her weekly meetings with the Prime Minister where she can advise him/her, the Monarch can also at anytime refuse to dissolve Parliment if need be and can also be of an advantage point (on account of her mass political knowlage) if their is an 50-50 election and no party is desided; this happened in 1974.

[Roffa]

(i do get the distinct impression that the younger generations of royal decendents have no great love for having to live that way, that quite possibly none ever did, and have always pretty much tried to spend as much of thier lives OUT of the public eye as possibly to avoid, when not being called upon to perform ritual formalities, in order to as much as possible, avoid having to)
oh yes, they totally hate being unbelievably wealthy without having to lift a finger, and having more totty than you could shake a mace at lining up to shag them.

[noachianite]

Heres the thing. Politics isnt the be-all and end-all of all the Nations thought, the Monarch is un-political MOST of the time, so there for providing a figure head which is not being fought over or having banners put about saying VOT FOR CHARLES or VOTE FOR WILLIAM. Its just nice knowing that there is someone who we can be united under thats istn making unachievable promises or arguing with the oposition, thus the word UNITED. We are not United under a Prime Minister or a Democratically elected leader, because some people want this person and others dont, some are left-wing some are right-wing. With the Monarchy is is niether left nor right, Labour nor Conservitive. People have no choice about the Monarchy they might not agree but there is nothing they can do, thus we are all United by this Figure Head because its not voteable. There is no opisition. Example, Wikipedia Monarchism in Canada:

Further it is stated that the Crown is a fundamentally unbiased institution, and its apolitical nature enables the Queen, or her vice-regal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice-regal)federal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation) system.
representative, to not only represent all Canadians, regardless of age, race, gender, income, or political leanings (again demonstrating a democratic nature), but also to be a non-partisan figure who can act as an effective intermediary between Canada's various levels of government and political parties - an indispensable feature in a federal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation) system.

UNITED THE MONARCHY STANDS.

[Quoth the Raven]

Heres the thing. Politics isnt the be-all and end-all of all the Nations thought, the Monarch is un-political MOST of the time, so there for providing a figure head which is not being fought over or having banners put about saying VOT FOR CHARLES or VOTE FOR WILLIAM. Its just nice knowing that there is someone who we can be united under thats istn making unachievable promises or arguing with the oposition, thus the word UNITED. We are not United under a Prime Minister or a Democratically elected leader, because some people want this person and others dont, some are left-wing some are right-wing. With the Monarchy is is niether left nor right, Labour nor Conservitive. People have no choice about the Monarchy they might not agree but there is nothing they can do, thus we are all United by this Figure Head because its not voteable. There is no opisition.

UNITED THE MONARCHY STANDS.
Wait, the monarch isn't conservative?
"BREAKING NEWS: Pope is not a Catholic! More at 11"

[noachianite]

Thats actually quite funny mate, that made me laugh with the whole Pope and whatknot. What I meant was that the Queen is Conservitive but shes techinquely not aloud to anounce she is and is ofcourse not aloud to vote for Conservitive Party (seems so its her Government but...).

[Quoth the Raven]

Thats actually quite funny mate, that made me laugh with the whole Pope and whatknot. What I meant was that the Queen is Conservitive but shes techinquely not aloud to anounce she is and is ofcourse not aloud to vote for Conservitive Party (seems so its her Government but...).
If she's not allowed to be political, then what's the point? In an absence of politics she can only exist as a figurehead, and a fairly ineffectual one at that.
The monarchy is like the laws prohibiting gay sex - offensive to the modern palate and completely unnecessary.

[noachianite]

If she's not allowed to be political, then what's the point? In an absence of politics she can only exist as a figurehead, and a fairly ineffectual one at that.
The monarchy is like the laws prohibiting gay sex - offensive to the modern palate and completely unnecessary.In my post which you first posted to I said she was uninvolved "MOST of the time". And besides just because shes absent from expressing political idealolgies that doesnt mean she is unnesicery, thats the point of being united because she is not bias towards one political side, it doesnt mean she isnt politically bias but because we are compulsary ingnorant of her ideals, it unites us because she is all neuteral.

[IlUvMuSIc]

Right. I had my answer nearly finished and then my Internet explorer goes and bloody RESTARTS!! AGAIN!! so annoying. Anyhoo, heres the overview.

The monarchy has mucked up before and I cant believe it wont again. This is why i wont want just a monarchy.
The prime ministers and republic have mucked up and seem to be on a roll. So just as bad as the monarchy though people have the power to get rid of them even if they wont. The republic isnt going to work if people wont vote for the best candidate.
How did gordon brown get there anyway - wasnt there a vote??

I dont trust the PM so its nice to have someone pensioner she may be to be checking up on him. If we do get in trouble with our Gov then its reassuring to have someone to fall back on. (not literally of course ;))

Im not even going to bother going into Dyslexia since i know L.A. Matthews has a thing with spelling and the other guy spelt something wrong. But dyslexia isnt easy and you cant blame him for making typos or getting the word wrong.

[noachianite]

Right. I had my answer nearly finished and then my Internet explorer goes and bloody RESTARTS!! AGAIN!! so annoying. Anyhoo, heres the overview.

The monarchy has mucked up before and I cant believe it wont again. This is why i wont want just a monarchy.
The prime ministers and republic have mucked up and seem to be on a roll. So just as bad as the monarchy though people have the power to get rid of them even if they wont. The republic isnt going to work if people wont vote for the best candidate.
How did gordon brown get there anyway - wasnt there a vote??

I dont trust the PM so its nice to have someone pensioner she may be to be checking up on him. If we do get in trouble with our Gov then its reassuring to have someone to fall back on. (not literally of course ;))

Im not even going to bother going into Dyslexia since i know L.A. Matthews has a thing with spelling and the other guy spelt something wrong. But dyslexia isnt easy and you cant blame him for making typos or getting the word wrong.You make a good point about the Monarchy. Your right about her checking up on the PM, in their weekly meetings. By the way vote Monarchy on the poll!!

[IlUvMuSIc]

Too late. Republic beats Monarchy plus id rather have Gordon Brown than William or Harry. Sorry but at least you get a choice in Republic that is providing its not fixed.

[Piney]

Gotta love Harry. He's inherited his mum's penchant for tabloid headlines.

[noachianite]

:party:Gotta love Harry. He's inherited his mum's penchant for tabloid headlines.

[IlUvMuSIc]

I dont like either of em... Is Harry in the Army or is that William??

What newspaper could resist a young, out and about, heir to the throne...

[nerthus]

What about the idea of an elected royal family? They could do the job for a five year term.haha that's a great idea. just a normal family... imagine it.:)


the monarchy is a useless anachronism. why are they still around? to be honest it think it makes very little difference whether they're there or not,as they pretty much have no say over anything. they're just some people with lots of money. the idea of a british republic is cool though!