What is the purpose of a Queen/King ?
-
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"
-
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: in all the writings of WWII, the English monarch doesn't make an appearance of import Not exactly. For example, the bombing of Buckingham Palace during the Blitz and the solidarity shown by and to the Royal Family was an important episode of the moral fluctuation of british people. Another thing could be the role the King has had to stop his ex-King brother Edward, who were a fascist and tried to help Germany. It's quiet anectodic, I know, but History is made of them :) Joe Woodbury wrote: (That England won the Battle of Britain may have played a part. (sarcasm)) Do you mean the Polish and the Czech ? (unfair sarcasm) So I came to find To end up this way Feeling like I'm God Feeling there's no way KoRn, "No Way"
-
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"
-
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: 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. You're kidding right? King Henry II King John King Henry VIII King Louis King Louis XIV Queen Mary (daughter of Henry VIII) This is just a small sampling from England and France, should I list the Czars and the rest of Europe?
-
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))
I believe Hitler described the Queen aka Queen Mother as "the most dangerous person in Britain" because of the moral effect she had on the populace. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
-
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.)
Joe Woodbury wrote: if not mistaken, New Zealand has someone [elected?] who represents the queen.) Yeah, NZ has a Governor General who is not elected by the people, but nominated by the government and apointment sanctioned by the Queen. The Governor General has the powers of the Head of State, and the Prime minister the position of head of Governmemt. To change the system would cost money and could possibly give us a worse system. Australia Has a Governor General, and each of the states has Governors or Governor Generals as well as seperate constitutions. If the Australia Commonwealth became a republic, technically the states could keep their Governors etc as well. Also technically Australian states have the right to ceed from Australia as well I believe. But in reality the Monarchy has no input into day to day business and public desire for retaining them is lowering. Regardz Colin J Davies
Sonork ID 100.9197:Colin
You are the intrepid one, always willing to leap into the fray! A serious character flaw, I might add, but entertaining. Said by Roger Wright about me.
-
Many countries with monarchs would say that they are symbols of the countries' heritage. In the past, European kings were the country. A country's border extended as far as the king was sovereign. In fact, there were some who wanted to make George Washington the first king of the United States. Luckily for all us Americans he refused. By not seeking a 3rd term, he was essentially the first person ever to completely voluntarily give up power. "What would this country be without this great land of our?" -Ronald Reagan
Naresh Karamchetty wrote: In fact, there were some who wanted to make George Washington the first king of the United States. Luckily for all us Americans he refused. This is very true. If he had accepted, the US would have crumbled when he died. Unfortunately, we have (within the past 100 years or so) insisted on making the President into a king-type figure. The position today has a LOT more power over the legislature than it did originally. I think much of this happenned during the depression of the 1930's. -- Russell Morris "Have you gone mad Frink? Put down that science pole!"
-
Folklore! A King/Queen had very little power nowadays. In Belgium we had this incident where the King refused to sign a law on abortion. So they moved him aside for 3 days, and got the law through without him. New and improved: kwakkelflap.com "When I hear of Schrödinger's cat, I reach for my gun." - Stephen Hawking
The only reason of existance of our royal family is probably that they're a good source of inspiration of our local cabaretier (is this correct English?), Geert Hoste. Dutch-speaking people who don't know him can take a look at www.geerthoste.be[^]. Enjoy life, this is not a rehearsal !!!