What is the purpose of a Queen/King ?
-
Those all sound like excellent points. Thanks! :) I have only one comment and this is strictly my opinion: If I were a taxpayer in the UK it would really bug me that the King/Queen is living so lavishly on my money simply as a "birth right". Technically they don't have to do anything.
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
Mike Mullikin wrote: Technically they don't have to do anything They have all sorts of duties they must perform, they are not merely a face on our currency. As to the expense, who am I to care? I get what I want out of the system and put in what I am required to - seems pretty fair to me.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
Pro wrestling is entertainment for the unentertained unentertainable.
-
Living in a Republic, I can't get the interest to be a subject of a Queen/King. For example, I don't get why someone would deserve something because he's born in a certain family. Because quiet half of the countries forming the European Union are still kingdoms, I suppose there's a reason to keep such an archaic habit, don't I ? So I came to find To end up this way Feeling like I'm God Feeling there's no way KoRn, "No Way"
I think that monarchs are more likely to be honest people than politicians. Politicians are bad by default, and a monarch has 50% chances to be good ;P :beer:
-
In the uk, its was interesting a while ago when the previous 10 prime ministers met. They revealed that the queen was very knowledgable and helped provide continuity from one PM to the next in terms of the 'insider' information and guidance. Her opinion is genuinely sought after by them. Also, she was the only person in the ocuntry Margaret Thatcher was scared of ! In addition, if you watched the jubilee celebrations, you would have seen that good royalty can bring a nation together in ways politicians can't. Elaine (flag waving fluffy tigress) Would you like to meet my teddy bear ?
Trollslayer wrote: you would have seen that good royalty can bring a nation together in ways politicians can't If I remember well, wasn't UK the first of us to execute its king ? ;) So I came to find To end up this way Feeling like I'm God Feeling there's no way KoRn, "No Way"
-
There's no reason whatsoever to keep our royal family apart from historical/patriotic and tourism reasons. Our Queen has very limited power, only making important decisions in very rare cases.
8
SIMON WALTON
SONORK ID 100.10024Our royal family (especially the Queen) is still very important. not so much for the running of the country, but for providing this necessary beast known as continuality (sp? word?). During the last world war the Monarchy were responsible for much of the raised moral or our country's citizens both at home and abroad - they stayed, standing tall with their heads raised high saying "give us your best shot". Sure royalism was bigger back then but even now the effect would be the same (moral spreads like the plague). It is the same thing many Americans have sought after 11/9 and found either through their patriotism to their flag or through their collective ego. We just have a slightly different approach to it all, but the basic cause and effect are ultimately the same. Outside of that the Monarchy is still a valued symbol for the Commonwealth and all that she stands for, and I hope we retain them for a long time to come.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
Pro wrestling is entertainment for the unentertained unentertainable.
-
Karl wrote: (and costly) Yep. I'd say they are. My guess is it's more for nostalgic reason Regards, Brian Dela :-)
I knew the "money argument" would work with an Anglo-saxon audience ;) So I came to find To end up this way Feeling like I'm God Feeling there's no way KoRn, "No Way"
-
I think that monarchs are more likely to be honest people than politicians. Politicians are bad by default, and a monarch has 50% chances to be good ;P :beer:
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote: Politicians are bad by default Isn't that kinda generalising a lot Regards, Brian Dela :-)
-
I knew the "money argument" would work with an Anglo-saxon audience ;) So I came to find To end up this way Feeling like I'm God Feeling there's no way KoRn, "No Way"
:-D
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
Pro wrestling is entertainment for the unentertained unentertainable.
-
I think that monarchs are more likely to be honest people than politicians. Politicians are bad by default, and a monarch has 50% chances to be good ;P :beer:
Out of curiosity, by what measurement does a monarch have a "50% chance ot be good"? Historically, monarchs have a pretty dismal record.
-
Our royal family (especially the Queen) is still very important. not so much for the running of the country, but for providing this necessary beast known as continuality (sp? word?). During the last world war the Monarchy were responsible for much of the raised moral or our country's citizens both at home and abroad - they stayed, standing tall with their heads raised high saying "give us your best shot". Sure royalism was bigger back then but even now the effect would be the same (moral spreads like the plague). It is the same thing many Americans have sought after 11/9 and found either through their patriotism to their flag or through their collective ego. We just have a slightly different approach to it all, but the basic cause and effect are ultimately the same. Outside of that the Monarchy is still a valued symbol for the Commonwealth and all that she stands for, and I hope we retain them for a long time to come.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
Pro wrestling is entertainment for the unentertained unentertainable.
David Wulff wrote: During the last world war the Monarchy were responsible for much of the raised moral or our country's citizens both at home and abroad... That's funny, in all the writings of WWII, the English monarch doesn't make an appearance of import; rather the leadership players were Winston Churchill and FDR. (That England won the Battle of Britain may have played a part. (sarcasm))
-
Living in a Republic, I can't get the interest to be a subject of a Queen/King. For example, I don't get why someone would deserve something because he's born in a certain family. Because quiet half of the countries forming the European Union are still kingdoms, I suppose there's a reason to keep such an archaic habit, don't I ? So I came to find To end up this way Feeling like I'm God Feeling there's no way KoRn, "No Way"
Why in the world does Australian and New Zealand still recognize the queen as having any sovereign authority, even if muted? (I'm still not sure what power the queen has in either country--if not mistaken, New Zealand has someone [elected?] who represents the queen.)
-
Those all sound like excellent points. Thanks! :) I have only one comment and this is strictly my opinion: If I were a taxpayer in the UK it would really bug me that the King/Queen is living so lavishly on my money simply as a "birth right". Technically they don't have to do anything.
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
Mike Mullikin wrote: I have only one comment and this is strictly my opinion: If I were a taxpayer in the UK it would really bug me that the King/Queen is living so lavishly on my money simply as a "birth right". Technically they don't have to do anything. In the greater scheme of things, the amount the royal family brings in through tourism at least offsets the amount of money it costs to keep them in place. At the very most, I'd save about £0.01 per year if we didn't have a royal family. I'm not going to get too uptight about that. I don't really see that they benefit me too much either, but what the heck. As long as more than 50% of the country wants them (polls rarely show less than 70% support), I'm happy enough for them to be there. Paul
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: I have only one comment and this is strictly my opinion: If I were a taxpayer in the UK it would really bug me that the King/Queen is living so lavishly on my money simply as a "birth right". Technically they don't have to do anything. In the greater scheme of things, the amount the royal family brings in through tourism at least offsets the amount of money it costs to keep them in place. At the very most, I'd save about £0.01 per year if we didn't have a royal family. I'm not going to get too uptight about that. I don't really see that they benefit me too much either, but what the heck. As long as more than 50% of the country wants them (polls rarely show less than 70% support), I'm happy enough for them to be there. Paul
Paul Riley wrote: In the greater scheme of things, the amount the royal family brings in through tourism at least offsets the amount of money it costs to keep them in place. I suppose I've never thought about going to the UK to see the royals (or wanting to see them when I've been there on business), so I never thought about the tourism money. Sounds like their paying their own way in a fashion so my comment is now NULL. ;P
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
-
Paul Riley wrote: In the greater scheme of things, the amount the royal family brings in through tourism at least offsets the amount of money it costs to keep them in place. I suppose I've never thought about going to the UK to see the royals (or wanting to see them when I've been there on business), so I never thought about the tourism money. Sounds like their paying their own way in a fashion so my comment is now NULL. ;P
Mike Mullikin :beer: You can't really dust for vomit. Nigel Tufnel - Spinal Tap
Mike Mullikin wrote: so my comment is now NULL OMG - you say that too! I had to explain myself to a friend when I said something to that effect: they had no idea. ;)
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
Pro wrestling is entertainment for the unentertained unentertainable.
-
David Wulff wrote: During the last world war the Monarchy were responsible for much of the raised moral or our country's citizens both at home and abroad... That's funny, in all the writings of WWII, the English monarch doesn't make an appearance of import; rather the leadership players were Winston Churchill and FDR. (That England won the Battle of Britain may have played a part. (sarcasm))
Joe Woodbury wrote: That's funny, in all the writings of WWII, the English monarch doesn't make an appearance of import; rather the leadership players were Winston Churchill and FDR. I know, but that doesn't really mean anything. I never experienced the war or times of low moral (or high for the matter) so I can only speak from what I myself have been shown and told by my grandparents generation, but the Queen Mother (now deceased) had the same effect during the Blitz as if GWB had stood up on the 12/9 last year, raised his middle finger to the world*, and exclaimed: "fuck you". * in public anyway - it's not like he doesn't behind closed doors :~ Diana, (aka Princess Paparazi), was the modern day equivlalent that in turn my parents generation connected with, and if they let William leapfrog over Phillip when the time comes I suspect a new Monarch for my generation will be "born". That's the part the Monarchy still has to play IMHO.
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
Pro wrestling is entertainment for the unentertained unentertainable.
-
Out of curiosity, by what measurement does a monarch have a "50% chance ot be good"? Historically, monarchs have a pretty dismal record.
I am guessing you didn't spot the razz at the end of his statement?
David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk
Pro wrestling is entertainment for the unentertained unentertainable.
-
Living in a Republic, I can't get the interest to be a subject of a Queen/King. For example, I don't get why someone would deserve something because he's born in a certain family. Because quiet half of the countries forming the European Union are still kingdoms, I suppose there's a reason to keep such an archaic habit, don't I ? So I came to find To end up this way Feeling like I'm God Feeling there's no way KoRn, "No Way"
They can be easily converted into festive lamppost ornaments.;P Computers allow you to make more mistakes than any other invention, with the possible exception of handguns and tequila.
-
Out of curiosity, by what measurement does a monarch have a "50% chance ot be good"? Historically, monarchs have a pretty dismal record.
Joe Woodbury wrote: Out of curiosity, by what measurement does a monarch have a "50% chance ot be good"? Well, if we agree that 50% of all people are bad and 50% are good, than a monarch has 50% to fall into each category. However, I would say that 99.99999....% of all politicians are bad, so a president has 0.0000..1% chance to be honest. Joe Woodbury wrote: Historically, monarchs have a pretty dismal record. How did you come to this conclusion? AFAIK Hitler wasn't a monarch, and neither was Stalin, nor is Sadam Husein. :beer:
-
Living in a Republic, I can't get the interest to be a subject of a Queen/King. For example, I don't get why someone would deserve something because he's born in a certain family. Because quiet half of the countries forming the European Union are still kingdoms, I suppose there's a reason to keep such an archaic habit, don't I ? So I came to find To end up this way Feeling like I'm God Feeling there's no way KoRn, "No Way"
It's historical, and it's good for tourism. I'm not sure about the history of other countries, but here in England, it has (despite what the republicans might say :) ) brought the country a wealth of history (good and bad) and a wealth of artifacts (castles, jewels, paintings, museums). The quest to solve the latitude problem was solved by after a reward was offered by Charles II (I think). These days it's good for business, and I'd say it is probably difficult to become a republic (despite Tony Blair trying otherwise) because of all the laws. After all the Queen here still has the power to dissolve parliament permanently. I suppose centuries ago they did actually lead their troops into battle, so they kind of fought their way there in a medieval style coup. :) B.
-
Joe Woodbury wrote: Out of curiosity, by what measurement does a monarch have a "50% chance ot be good"? Well, if we agree that 50% of all people are bad and 50% are good, than a monarch has 50% to fall into each category. However, I would say that 99.99999....% of all politicians are bad, so a president has 0.0000..1% chance to be honest. Joe Woodbury wrote: Historically, monarchs have a pretty dismal record. How did you come to this conclusion? AFAIK Hitler wasn't a monarch, and neither was Stalin, nor is Sadam Husein. :beer:
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote: than a monarch has 50% to fall into Equiprobability seems very optimistic to me ! So I came to find To end up this way Feeling like I'm God Feeling there's no way KoRn, "No Way"
-
They can be easily converted into festive lamppost ornaments.;P Computers allow you to make more mistakes than any other invention, with the possible exception of handguns and tequila.
What a bad taste ! Excellent ! :laugh: So I came to find To end up this way Feeling like I'm God Feeling there's no way KoRn, "No Way"