This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
OK, the thread about the Queen has inevitably drawn the republicans out of the woodwork.
Given that a Head of State should, ideally, be apolitical who would YOU like to see as Head of State?
Post edited at 10:56
In reply to FesteringSore:
David Attenborough with Brian Blessed as his deputy.
David Attenborough with Brian Blessed as his deputy.
Post edited at 10:57
25
1
In reply to lummox:
Hmmm, I suppose if I had republican sympathies(I don't) I might go along with that.
Hmmm, I suppose if I had republican sympathies(I don't) I might go along with that.
1
1
In reply to FesteringSore:
Someone who considered themselves suitable, stood and won a democratic election
Someone who considered themselves suitable, stood and won a democratic election
20
3
7
In reply to Pedro50:
Given the success of brexit and boaty mcboatface, you seriously think this is a good idea? We'd be better off appointing the winner of strictly...
Contenders from a public vote?
Jeremy Clarkson
Simon Cowell
Joanna Lumley
Adele
Robbie Williams
Louise Rednapp
David Beckham
Given the success of brexit and boaty mcboatface, you seriously think this is a good idea? We'd be better off appointing the winner of strictly...
Contenders from a public vote?
Jeremy Clarkson
Simon Cowell
Joanna Lumley
Adele
Robbie Williams
Louise Rednapp
David Beckham
14
1
3
1
In reply to Pedro50:
Maybe they aren't so annoyed with the establishment?
It would make me laugh of we elected the queen though!
> I see your point but it works in Eire
Maybe they aren't so annoyed with the establishment?
It would make me laugh of we elected the queen though!
Post edited at 11:16
5
In reply to jonnie3430:
Oh I think people in the republic are very unhappy with the Establishment. Do a quick google of AIB and relationships with TDs for a start.
Oh I think people in the republic are very unhappy with the Establishment. Do a quick google of AIB and relationships with TDs for a start.
2
In reply to FesteringSore:
Interesting question
Are you aware that Washington envisaged a non-political president ? Or at least one not connected to political parties. Of course the first election after him was conducted by different factions who slowly coalesced into parties. Maybe Trump - with only very loose connections to the Republican party - should be seen as the embodiment of Washington's idea.
If we want an apolitical head of state then there must be little or no power associated with the role, so is there really any point ? Maybe take the opportunity to have a radical rethink of our constitutional structure and get rid of the other anachronisms at the same time
Interesting question
Are you aware that Washington envisaged a non-political president ? Or at least one not connected to political parties. Of course the first election after him was conducted by different factions who slowly coalesced into parties. Maybe Trump - with only very loose connections to the Republican party - should be seen as the embodiment of Washington's idea.
If we want an apolitical head of state then there must be little or no power associated with the role, so is there really any point ? Maybe take the opportunity to have a radical rethink of our constitutional structure and get rid of the other anachronisms at the same time
2
In reply to FesteringSore:
arnold schwarzenegger, but only if he is first rebuilt as an actual cyborg.
arnold schwarzenegger, but only if he is first rebuilt as an actual cyborg.
2
3
2
In reply to FesteringSore:
Anybody elected on merit and not as a result of their nasty and unscrupulous ancestors. And of course we'll have a quite separate Head of State for Scotland please. Alasdair Gray will do nicely.
Anybody elected on merit and not as a result of their nasty and unscrupulous ancestors. And of course we'll have a quite separate Head of State for Scotland please. Alasdair Gray will do nicely.
4
2
4
2
4
2
In reply to FesteringSore:
Out of curiosity, who do you think could have done a better job than the Queen over the same time period?
Out of curiosity, who do you think could have done a better job than the Queen over the same time period?
4
2
In reply to jonnie3430:
But it's not a job is it. It's an unearned privilege.
> Out of curiosity, who do you think could have done a better job than the Queen over the same time period?
But it's not a job is it. It's an unearned privilege.
20
11
In reply to alastairmac:
I admire your optimism, thinking that Alasdair Gray will be alive long enough to see an independent Scotland. I do remember in the run-up to the referendum thinking he'd be my pick. Sadly, the question of an elected head of state never seemed to enter the debate.
I'd like Helena Kennedy. She always seems quite sensible and authoritative.
> Anybody elected on merit and not as a result of their nasty and unscrupulous ancestors. And of course we'll have a quite separate Head of State for Scotland please. Alasdair Gray will do nicely.
I admire your optimism, thinking that Alasdair Gray will be alive long enough to see an independent Scotland. I do remember in the run-up to the referendum thinking he'd be my pick. Sadly, the question of an elected head of state never seemed to enter the debate.
I'd like Helena Kennedy. She always seems quite sensible and authoritative.
2
5
2
2
In reply to Pedro50:
Probably Nigel Farage then
> Someone who considered themselves suitable, stood and won a democratic election
Probably Nigel Farage then
2
1
In reply to Pedro50:
But it would be for a president. So who could have done better than the Queen?
> But it's not a job is it. It's an unearned privilege.
But it would be for a president. So who could have done better than the Queen?
3
3
2
1
In reply to Pedro50:
Have you seen who and what has been voted for this year? While Queenie ia still with us, she'd get my vote. A loyal lady who has caused no scandals in her long reign.
Now when it becomes Charlies turn...that might be a different matter!
Just because she is there due to privilege, it doesn't mean she shouldn't be there.
I dread to think what idiot the British public would vote in, we'd be an even bigger laughing stock than we currently are!
Have you seen who and what has been voted for this year? While Queenie ia still with us, she'd get my vote. A loyal lady who has caused no scandals in her long reign.
Now when it becomes Charlies turn...that might be a different matter!
Just because she is there due to privilege, it doesn't mean she shouldn't be there.
I dread to think what idiot the British public would vote in, we'd be an even bigger laughing stock than we currently are!
12
2
In reply to jonnie3430:
Nobody. As others have pointed out on numerous occasions the Queen is in an unenviable situation.
OK she leads a privileged life style but she has, for over sixty years, undertaken her duties diligently and with a sense of responsibility that shames not only politicians but other heads of state. It is well known that the thirteen prime ministers that have served during her reign have all held her in the highest esteem and valued her wise counselling.
I do not doubt that there have been times when she's felt like saying "I've had enough" however her sense of duty has prevailed.
I believe that Prince Charles, when his time comes, will carry out what is expected of him with equal aplomb but the Queen will be missed.
> Out of curiosity, who do you think could have done a better job than the Queen over the same time period?
Nobody. As others have pointed out on numerous occasions the Queen is in an unenviable situation.
OK she leads a privileged life style but she has, for over sixty years, undertaken her duties diligently and with a sense of responsibility that shames not only politicians but other heads of state. It is well known that the thirteen prime ministers that have served during her reign have all held her in the highest esteem and valued her wise counselling.
I do not doubt that there have been times when she's felt like saying "I've had enough" however her sense of duty has prevailed.
I believe that Prince Charles, when his time comes, will carry out what is expected of him with equal aplomb but the Queen will be missed.
9
9
1
5
1
In reply to FesteringSore:
An accomplished civil servant could do it, someone an earned reputation for apolitical service.
For those of us who don't feel the need to fawn over relics of a bygone era, these questions aren't too hard.
> Given that a Head of State should, ideally, be apolitical who would YOU like to see as Head of State?
An accomplished civil servant could do it, someone an earned reputation for apolitical service.
For those of us who don't feel the need to fawn over relics of a bygone era, these questions aren't too hard.
8
3
In reply to FesteringSore:
If the idea is an apolitical head of state to smile, shake hands and open things we should go for an actor and make it a four year job so we can swap over before they get too old.
Helen Mirren would do a better Queen of England than the actual Queen.
and Sean Connery for King of Scotland.
If the idea is an apolitical head of state to smile, shake hands and open things we should go for an actor and make it a four year job so we can swap over before they get too old.
Helen Mirren would do a better Queen of England than the actual Queen.
and Sean Connery for King of Scotland.
5
6
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
I've already covered this with Lord Brian of the Blessed.
Plus, if the people he meets are feeling a bit down, he can just give them a great beardy bear hug.
I've already covered this with Lord Brian of the Blessed.
Plus, if the people he meets are feeling a bit down, he can just give them a great beardy bear hug.
2
In reply to Mike Stretford:
That's a pretty good description of a senior civil servant.
> For those of us who don't feel the need to fawn over relics of a bygone era, these questions aren't too hard.
That's a pretty good description of a senior civil servant.
1
2
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Yeah right. Loves the place so much he won't even live here.
> and Sean Connery for King of Scotland.
Yeah right. Loves the place so much he won't even live here.
5
8
In reply to girlymonkey:
Whoever Murdoch tells them to, if recent events are anything to go by.
> I dread to think what idiot the British public would vote in, we'd be an even bigger laughing stock than we currently are!
Whoever Murdoch tells them to, if recent events are anything to go by.
12
1
1
In reply to jonnie3430:
We could just as easily have ended up with the Nazi sympathising Duke of Windsor as King for life.
No sensible republican system would appoint a head of state for life so 'over the same time period' is irrelevant.
> Out of curiosity, who do you think could have done a better job than the Queen over the same time period
We could just as easily have ended up with the Nazi sympathising Duke of Windsor as King for life.
No sensible republican system would appoint a head of state for life so 'over the same time period' is irrelevant.
10
In reply to jonnie3430:
You can't answer such a question, but there are 65m other people eligible to apply.
What are the chances that we just-so-happened to have the best person for the job born in to that role?
> Out of curiosity, who do you think could have done a better job than the Queen over the same time period?
You can't answer such a question, but there are 65m other people eligible to apply.
What are the chances that we just-so-happened to have the best person for the job born in to that role?
8
3
In reply to Shani:
A lot higher than if we left it to the public to vote for whoever Murdoch wanted in place.
> What are the chances that we just-so-happened to have the best person for the job born in to that role?
A lot higher than if we left it to the public to vote for whoever Murdoch wanted in place.
6
5
In reply to GrahamD:
Or in the case of the USA, whoever Mr Putin wants in place.....
> A lot higher than if we left it to the public to vote for whoever Murdoch wanted in place.
Or in the case of the USA, whoever Mr Putin wants in place.....
Post edited at 14:50
6
In reply to girlymonkey:
Some Australians may disagree with your last point.
> Have you seen who and what has been voted for this year? While Queenie ia still with us, she'd get my vote. A loyal lady who has caused no scandals in her long reign.
Some Australians may disagree with your last point.
5
In reply to JayPee630:
A head of state reinforces the principle that the government is not the state.
> No Head of State is needed.
A head of state reinforces the principle that the government is not the state.
5
1
In reply to rogerwebb:
330 million quid a year well spent then
> A head of state reinforces the principle that the government is not the state.
330 million quid a year well spent then
4
In reply to FesteringSore:
Prince Andrew ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-HAAAAAAAAA
> ....Given that a Head of State should, ideally, be apolitical who would YOU like to see as Head of State?
Prince Andrew ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-HAAAAAAAAA
2
In reply to Mr Lopez:
I made no comment about how much a head of state should cost or be chosen.
> 330 million quid a year well spent then
I made no comment about how much a head of state should cost or be chosen.
In reply to Mr Lopez:
Yes. How many stable countries are there where the HoS is also head of government. The US and France are the it.two which come to mind.
> 330 million quid a year well spent then
Yes. How many stable countries are there where the HoS is also head of government. The US and France are the it.two which come to mind.
In reply to jonnie3430:
Beckham out of that lot...he'd do ok
> Given the success of brexit and boaty mcboatface, you seriously think this is a good idea? We'd be better off appointing the winner of strictly...
> Contenders from a public vote?
> Jeremy Clarkson
> Simon Cowell
> Joanna Lumley
> Adele
> Robbie Williams
> Louise Rednapp
> David Beckham
Beckham out of that lot...he'd do ok
In reply to jonnie3430:
You forgot Nigel Farage.
> Given the success of brexit and boaty mcboatface, you seriously think this is a good idea? We'd be better off appointing the winner of strictly...
> Contenders from a public vote?
> Jeremy Clarkson
> Simon Cowell
> Joanna Lumley
> Adele
> Robbie Williams
> Louise Rednapp
> David Beckham
You forgot Nigel Farage.
In reply to Pedro50:
Privilege?! Looks like a bloody nightmare to me. I'm no monarchist but I reckon the Queen, at least, has worked her bollocks off all her life, out of a sense of duty and responsibility.
The monarchy is certainly a complete anachronism in this day and age, but they have mostly done a decent job adapting in recent years and the majority of the public is still in favour I believe. Surprisingly it seems UKC is broadly in favour as well - knock me down with a feather!
I reckon they pay their way in sales of tea towels and other tourist tat anyway.
Agree with others though, can't stand royal correspondents - I remember Dawn French doing a great parody of one years ago.
> But it's not a job is it. It's an unearned privilege.
Privilege?! Looks like a bloody nightmare to me. I'm no monarchist but I reckon the Queen, at least, has worked her bollocks off all her life, out of a sense of duty and responsibility.
The monarchy is certainly a complete anachronism in this day and age, but they have mostly done a decent job adapting in recent years and the majority of the public is still in favour I believe. Surprisingly it seems UKC is broadly in favour as well - knock me down with a feather!
I reckon they pay their way in sales of tea towels and other tourist tat anyway.
Agree with others though, can't stand royal correspondents - I remember Dawn French doing a great parody of one years ago.
Post edited at 06:45
6
In reply to Pedro50:
Did you vote remain for the EU by any chance, just curious?
> Someone who considered themselves suitable, stood and won a democratic election
Did you vote remain for the EU by any chance, just curious?
1
1
In reply to Big Ger:
No not forgotten, just preparing his room in the Tower.
> You forgot Nigel Farage.
No not forgotten, just preparing his room in the Tower.
1
In reply to Pedro50:
Thought so. Ironic though. You called for a democratic process for someone as head of state, yet you voted to stay in an establishment that appoints it's head that you have no democratic process to change, challenge or remove.
So you want a democratic process for a head of state that effectively does nothing, but you want free reign for rich elite to vote, without challenge, whoever they want in that can change a lot in your day to day life?
Thought so. Ironic though. You called for a democratic process for someone as head of state, yet you voted to stay in an establishment that appoints it's head that you have no democratic process to change, challenge or remove.
So you want a democratic process for a head of state that effectively does nothing, but you want free reign for rich elite to vote, without challenge, whoever they want in that can change a lot in your day to day life?
3
8
In reply to Bootrock:
Despite all the faults of the EU (which I acknowledge) I thought it better on balance to remain. The monarchy is a less complex issue and we could do without it. Just my HO
Despite all the faults of the EU (which I acknowledge) I thought it better on balance to remain. The monarchy is a less complex issue and we could do without it. Just my HO
2
1
In reply to Pedro50:
Fair enough. And how does one challenge it when it no longer has your nations interest at heart?
And why not have a democratic system in place that you can vote for, and have a voice in, without being drowned in a huge constituencies?
I am sure we could have a system like that, couldn't we? Almost like a smaller EU, except it's actual democracy. Like a national Government or something?
Now that's a crazy idea.
> Despite all the faults of the EU (which I acknowledge) I thought it better on balance to remain. The monarchy is a less complex issue and we could do without it. Just my HO
Fair enough. And how does one challenge it when it no longer has your nations interest at heart?
And why not have a democratic system in place that you can vote for, and have a voice in, without being drowned in a huge constituencies?
I am sure we could have a system like that, couldn't we? Almost like a smaller EU, except it's actual democracy. Like a national Government or something?
Now that's a crazy idea.
3
5
2
1
In reply to Pedro50:
Or the seats given to SNP or UKIP?
It's not perfect, it needs a lot of work. But we can't focus on it with the EU ubdermining, overwriting and getting in our way with it.
I already have 3 corrupt governments governing me, I would like to reduce that number so we can work on a system that's less flawed.
> Oh yes democracy. Like the Greens getting one seat for 1,157,613 votes.
Or the seats given to SNP or UKIP?
It's not perfect, it needs a lot of work. But we can't focus on it with the EU ubdermining, overwriting and getting in our way with it.
I already have 3 corrupt governments governing me, I would like to reduce that number so we can work on a system that's less flawed.
3
3
In reply to Andy Dines:
Sure she did. Started in the mines at 14 doing 12 hour shifts 6 days a week. Then at 16 when the mines closed she moved out and started labouring in building sites carrying bricks and concrete for minimum wage. After having the first child at 22 she was forced to take a second job harvesting in a farm from dawn till dusk during the weekends to be able to buy clothes and food for the kids and pay the rent and bills of her 1 bedroom basement flat in Hull and 2 hours of heating a day in winter and support Phillip's alcohol dependance, all this while juggling childcare.
> Privilege?! Looks like a bloody nightmare to me. I'm no monarchist but I reckon the Queen, at least, has worked her bollocks off all her life, out of a sense of duty and responsibility.
Sure she did. Started in the mines at 14 doing 12 hour shifts 6 days a week. Then at 16 when the mines closed she moved out and started labouring in building sites carrying bricks and concrete for minimum wage. After having the first child at 22 she was forced to take a second job harvesting in a farm from dawn till dusk during the weekends to be able to buy clothes and food for the kids and pay the rent and bills of her 1 bedroom basement flat in Hull and 2 hours of heating a day in winter and support Phillip's alcohol dependance, all this while juggling childcare.
8
7
In reply to Mr Lopez:
You do realise you've missed the point, don't you? The queen can't help the accident of her birth. She has untold wealth and could quite easily live a life of luxurious indolence (the popular caricature of Princess Margaret springs to mind although I'm not sure of the accuracy). Yet she has chosen a path of remarkable dedication and duty for two working lifetimes. Perhaps she fears her son is not up to the job; perhaps her respect for her unique birthright compels her to justify her status; perhaps she justs loves hard work and making a contribution to the state. All I know is I can think of few harder working Britons and I'm grateful that she takes her job so seriously.
> Sure she did. Started in the mines at 14 doing 12 hour shifts 6 days a week. Then at 16 when the mines closed she moved out and started labouring in building sites carrying bricks and concrete for minimum wage. After having the first child at 22 she was forced to take a second job harvesting in a farm from dawn till dusk during the weekends to be able to buy clothes and food for the kids and pay the rent and bills of her 1 bedroom basement flat in Hull and 2 hours of heating a day in winter and support Phillip's alcohol dependance, all this while juggling childcare.
You do realise you've missed the point, don't you? The queen can't help the accident of her birth. She has untold wealth and could quite easily live a life of luxurious indolence (the popular caricature of Princess Margaret springs to mind although I'm not sure of the accuracy). Yet she has chosen a path of remarkable dedication and duty for two working lifetimes. Perhaps she fears her son is not up to the job; perhaps her respect for her unique birthright compels her to justify her status; perhaps she justs loves hard work and making a contribution to the state. All I know is I can think of few harder working Britons and I'm grateful that she takes her job so seriously.
8
1
In reply to Mr Lopez:
Absolutely. If Andy was starting out as a front-line nurse in A&E or a copper, trying to buy a house and pay the bills etc.... I'm sure he'd opt for 'monarch' as a preferable career path.
Absolutely. If Andy was starting out as a front-line nurse in A&E or a copper, trying to buy a house and pay the bills etc.... I'm sure he'd opt for 'monarch' as a preferable career path.
4
3
In reply to BnB:
I am a pragmatist on this issue.I have too many overseas business visitors who come and vist me up north and then go to London to see Buckingham palace,changing of the guard( if they can) and the Hof P.The last lot were a month ago from Japan/Korea. I have had a party of 12 Russians even go down.
its a huge money spinner for UK. We should lap it up and smile. Its all a big tourist con filling up our coffers imho.easliy the best way of looking at it and laughing.
I am a pragmatist on this issue.I have too many overseas business visitors who come and vist me up north and then go to London to see Buckingham palace,changing of the guard( if they can) and the Hof P.The last lot were a month ago from Japan/Korea. I have had a party of 12 Russians even go down.
its a huge money spinner for UK. We should lap it up and smile. Its all a big tourist con filling up our coffers imho.easliy the best way of looking at it and laughing.
4
In reply to neilh:
We can still have the pageantry and ceremony in a republic. People visit historic buildings and attend historical cultural events all the time.
I question the 'huge money spinner' line. Any figures probably ignore the self enrichment practices and reputational damage by royals like Andrew Windsor.
"its a huge money spinner for UK. We should lap it up and smile. Its all a big tourist con filling up our coffers imho.easliy the best way of looking at it and laughing."
Not really what you'd hope of a modern, progressive country. We perform in fancy dress to entertain foreign visitors. Is conning really now a British value?
We can still have the pageantry and ceremony in a republic. People visit historic buildings and attend historical cultural events all the time.
I question the 'huge money spinner' line. Any figures probably ignore the self enrichment practices and reputational damage by royals like Andrew Windsor.
"its a huge money spinner for UK. We should lap it up and smile. Its all a big tourist con filling up our coffers imho.easliy the best way of looking at it and laughing."
Not really what you'd hope of a modern, progressive country. We perform in fancy dress to entertain foreign visitors. Is conning really now a British value?
Post edited at 10:42
4
4
In reply to Shani:
You are selling to the outside world what they consider to be British values.
Modern is not what they buy into.
If they wanted modern they may just as well go to Shanghai
You are selling to the outside world what they consider to be British values.
Modern is not what they buy into.
If they wanted modern they may just as well go to Shanghai
1
In reply to jonnie3430:
Oh we certainly are. But the presidency is looked at somewhat as a popularity contest, but one more serious.
What I mean is, its not about celebrity or policy, but about someone who will be popular and will, sorry for the cliché, but speak with the tone of the nation. Take our last three
Michael D Higgins: Current prez. Extremely popular with a very long career in public service with left wing politics. Probably most well known outside of Ireland for this tirade against an american Tea Partier: youtube.com/watch?v=B5OWRRJh-PI&
Mary McAleese: From a Northern Ireland family who were burned out of their home her election worried some that she may give the presidency a sectarian bent, she quickly dispelled that and began hosting Northern Irish Protestant organisations at her residency. Went on to do immesurable work in normalising relations after the good friday agreement
Mary Robinson: Revolutionised the role of president after a lifetime as a human rights lawyer, championing controversial progressive causes such as contraception and figting against Irelands constitutional prohibition on abortion . Went on to become UN high commisioner of human rights.
Essentially we see the President similar to your Queen. Above politcs and should speak with the voice of the nation and often the conscience of the nation. But the difference is theres only one of them, not an extended family of hundreds, and we get to pick them.
> I see your point but it works in Eire
> Maybe they aren't so annoyed with the establishment?
Oh we certainly are. But the presidency is looked at somewhat as a popularity contest, but one more serious.
What I mean is, its not about celebrity or policy, but about someone who will be popular and will, sorry for the cliché, but speak with the tone of the nation. Take our last three
Michael D Higgins: Current prez. Extremely popular with a very long career in public service with left wing politics. Probably most well known outside of Ireland for this tirade against an american Tea Partier: youtube.com/watch?v=B5OWRRJh-PI&
Mary McAleese: From a Northern Ireland family who were burned out of their home her election worried some that she may give the presidency a sectarian bent, she quickly dispelled that and began hosting Northern Irish Protestant organisations at her residency. Went on to do immesurable work in normalising relations after the good friday agreement
Mary Robinson: Revolutionised the role of president after a lifetime as a human rights lawyer, championing controversial progressive causes such as contraception and figting against Irelands constitutional prohibition on abortion . Went on to become UN high commisioner of human rights.
Essentially we see the President similar to your Queen. Above politcs and should speak with the voice of the nation and often the conscience of the nation. But the difference is theres only one of them, not an extended family of hundreds, and we get to pick them.
Post edited at 10:53
8
In reply to Bootrock:
A Republic of England, and separate Republics for Scotland and Wales? It's not that crazy but it is pretty radical.
Problem is, in the Republic of England, large parts of the country would feel they didn't have 'a voice', as you put it, so we'd have to split in to smaller nations.
So we'd end up with a handful of smaller nations making up these Isles, were people felt adequately represented. Problem then would be we wouldn't have much influence globally. We'd probably need to group together with other nations on these Isles and across the the Channel. We'd probably need to make some concessions to get into this club, but it would probably be worth it to enjoy the benefits of a greater union.
So no not crazy, but bold thinking , I like it!
> Fair enough. And how does one challenge it when it no longer has your nations interest at heart?
> And why not have a democratic system in place that you can vote for, and have a voice in, without being drowned in a huge constituencies?
> I am sure we could have a system like that, couldn't we? Almost like a smaller EU, except it's actual democracy. Like a national Government or something?
> Now that's a crazy idea.
A Republic of England, and separate Republics for Scotland and Wales? It's not that crazy but it is pretty radical.
Problem is, in the Republic of England, large parts of the country would feel they didn't have 'a voice', as you put it, so we'd have to split in to smaller nations.
So we'd end up with a handful of smaller nations making up these Isles, were people felt adequately represented. Problem then would be we wouldn't have much influence globally. We'd probably need to group together with other nations on these Isles and across the the Channel. We'd probably need to make some concessions to get into this club, but it would probably be worth it to enjoy the benefits of a greater union.
So no not crazy, but bold thinking , I like it!
3
In reply to Mr Lopez:
Its a convincing argument but I just cant get behind it unless its printed on a bus
> 330 million quid a year well spent then
Its a convincing argument but I just cant get behind it unless its printed on a bus
8
In reply to neilh:
And some of the outside world are laughing at us still ruled over by a monarch. I understand because we do the same to North Korea.
We can keep much of the stuff they buy in to. I want to get rid of only the role if monarch.
Ever visited the beautiful and historical parts of Italy or France? No monarch required.
> You are selling to the outside world what they consider to be British values.
And some of the outside world are laughing at us still ruled over by a monarch. I understand because we do the same to North Korea.
> Modern is not what they buy into.
We can keep much of the stuff they buy in to. I want to get rid of only the role if monarch.
> If they wanted modern they may just as well go to Shanghai
Ever visited the beautiful and historical parts of Italy or France? No monarch required.
2
1
In reply to Shani:
Soft power.
The Uk stuffs France and Italy on this issue. Take simple Harry Potter and look at the global influence of that, what has Italy or France produced in recent years which are comparable.Look at the way London is portrayed as part of that image.Its all interlinked.
Well worth a read of Dominic Sandbrooks book on this.
Soft power.
The Uk stuffs France and Italy on this issue. Take simple Harry Potter and look at the global influence of that, what has Italy or France produced in recent years which are comparable.Look at the way London is portrayed as part of that image.Its all interlinked.
Well worth a read of Dominic Sandbrooks book on this.
1
In reply to FesteringSore:
Well the obvious choice would be me. I've considered the various options and honestly, I think I'm easily up to it.
I'm not saying I'd be loads better than her maj, though I've got the waving from the wrist action pretty well sorted, but I'd be a f*ck of a lot cheaper.
Well the obvious choice would be me. I've considered the various options and honestly, I think I'm easily up to it.
I'm not saying I'd be loads better than her maj, though I've got the waving from the wrist action pretty well sorted, but I'd be a f*ck of a lot cheaper.
1
In reply to MG:
I very much doubt it is a distant monarchy that keeps Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, and anywhere from Fiji to India on a stable footing. How much of an issue did Liz have with Apartheid exactly?
Some might even find it perplexing that a figure of extraordinary wealth and resources (accumulated under less than auspicious circumstances) should have any over-arching authority over democratically elected leaders. If anything, its just an additional cause of internal disagreement and angst, particularly destabilising for indigenous populations who are still pretty pissed off by what colonialism resulted in. But we mustn't let that get in the way of a somewhat pervasive feeling in Britain that the world is much better off for having experienced such benevolence, grace and superiority.
All that perpetuates the arrangement is the populations either can't be bothered getting rid of the historical and largely irrelevant anachronism, or find the quaint notion comforting to cling on to.
> Yes. How many stable countries are there where the HoS is also head of government. The US and France are the it.two which come to mind.
I very much doubt it is a distant monarchy that keeps Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, and anywhere from Fiji to India on a stable footing. How much of an issue did Liz have with Apartheid exactly?
Some might even find it perplexing that a figure of extraordinary wealth and resources (accumulated under less than auspicious circumstances) should have any over-arching authority over democratically elected leaders. If anything, its just an additional cause of internal disagreement and angst, particularly destabilising for indigenous populations who are still pretty pissed off by what colonialism resulted in. But we mustn't let that get in the way of a somewhat pervasive feeling in Britain that the world is much better off for having experienced such benevolence, grace and superiority.
All that perpetuates the arrangement is the populations either can't be bothered getting rid of the historical and largely irrelevant anachronism, or find the quaint notion comforting to cling on to.
Post edited at 11:27
2
1
In reply to neilh:
Don't you find something a bit creepy that we would continue to gift someone this much power and wealth, simply because they're possibly good for "branding" and "tourism"?
The court seems out on whether the actual individuals underlying this (Liz, Harry, Charles, etc) are so relevant to that tourist dollar. Would everyone stop coming to look at Buckingham Palace if the queen was in an old-folks home, Harry working as a stock-broker, and various royal children made subject to the normal recruitment and selection guidelines the rest of the UK population adheres to?
I reckon the monarchy must laugh themselves to sleep each night when thinking everything from the rules of the press to the upkeep of their housing is, and will continue to be, gifted to them by luck of birth.
Don't you find something a bit creepy that we would continue to gift someone this much power and wealth, simply because they're possibly good for "branding" and "tourism"?
The court seems out on whether the actual individuals underlying this (Liz, Harry, Charles, etc) are so relevant to that tourist dollar. Would everyone stop coming to look at Buckingham Palace if the queen was in an old-folks home, Harry working as a stock-broker, and various royal children made subject to the normal recruitment and selection guidelines the rest of the UK population adheres to?
I reckon the monarchy must laugh themselves to sleep each night when thinking everything from the rules of the press to the upkeep of their housing is, and will continue to be, gifted to them by luck of birth.
4
3
In reply to Shani:
We've just voted not to be one of those. Get with the message
> Not really what you'd hope of a modern, progressive country.
We've just voted not to be one of those. Get with the message
6
2
In reply to BnB:
She could not live a life of 'luxury indolence', she knows full well the pantomime would have folded years ago if she did. They do enough to keep the family business going. During the most major event of her time as monarch, her initial public reaction drew strong criticism, it's no secret politicians of the time gave guidance.
> You do realise you've missed the point, don't you? The queen can't help the accident of her birth. She has untold wealth and could quite easily live a life of luxurious indolence (the popular caricature of Princess Margaret springs to mind although I'm not sure of the accuracy). Yet she has chosen a path of remarkable dedication and duty for two working lifetimes.
She could not live a life of 'luxury indolence', she knows full well the pantomime would have folded years ago if she did. They do enough to keep the family business going. During the most major event of her time as monarch, her initial public reaction drew strong criticism, it's no secret politicians of the time gave guidance.
2
2
In reply to neilh:
Absolutely agree. You could add in the BBC and institutions like UK (University) education, possibly even the NHS, our legacy in the Olympics. Look at individuals like David Attenborough (and the impact of Planet Earth 2), Brian Cox, Stephen Hawking....
All have NOTHING to do with the Queen and nothing dependent on Monarchy.
Thanks for the recommendation.
> Soft power.
> The Uk stuffs France and Italy on this issue. Take simple Harry Potter and look at the global influence of that, what has Italy or France produced in recent years which are comparable.Look at the way London is portrayed as part of that image.Its all interlinked.
Absolutely agree. You could add in the BBC and institutions like UK (University) education, possibly even the NHS, our legacy in the Olympics. Look at individuals like David Attenborough (and the impact of Planet Earth 2), Brian Cox, Stephen Hawking....
All have NOTHING to do with the Queen and nothing dependent on Monarchy.
> Well worth a read of Dominic Sandbrooks book on this.
Thanks for the recommendation.
3
1
In reply to David Martin:
Turism in Egypt has been all but decimated since the last Pharaoh died, and there's no tourism industry to speak of in France or the US apparently
Turism in Egypt has been all but decimated since the last Pharaoh died, and there's no tourism industry to speak of in France or the US apparently
6
1
In reply to David Martin:
1) Liz hasnt been HoS of SA since the 1960s
2) The whole point of a constitutional monarchy (or apolitical president) is they are above politics. Sure a monarchy might be an anachronism and I can see why people might object on that basis, but claiming they have "over-arching" power is nonsense, and entirely misses the reason for keeping them - that political power doesn't equate with the state.
1) Liz hasnt been HoS of SA since the 1960s
2) The whole point of a constitutional monarchy (or apolitical president) is they are above politics. Sure a monarchy might be an anachronism and I can see why people might object on that basis, but claiming they have "over-arching" power is nonsense, and entirely misses the reason for keeping them - that political power doesn't equate with the state.
2
1
In reply to Shani:
No, we should aim to be like other modern progressive democracies. Japan, Norway, Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Australia, New Zealand or Canada, perhaps.
> Not really what you'd hope of a modern, progressive country.
No, we should aim to be like other modern progressive democracies. Japan, Norway, Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Australia, New Zealand or Canada, perhaps.
Post edited at 11:54
2
In reply to Bootrock:
This must be one of the craziest arguments of all time. The EU has bugger all to do with the problems of the UK constitution like the monarchy and house of Lords. The EU couldn't care less if we addressed them. It isn't the EU getting in the way of modernizing our constitution it is the London establishment that finds the undemocratic historical anomalies like the House of Lords convenient and the little Englander pensioners that want to restore the 1950s. The same people that want out of the EU.
If you want to look at where the really bad decisions have been made over the last 20 years or so it has been Wesminster. The genius of the Brexit campaign has been to blame the EU for pretty much everything Westminster does wrong.
> It's not perfect, it needs a lot of work. But we can't focus on it with the EU ubdermining, overwriting and getting in our way with it.
This must be one of the craziest arguments of all time. The EU has bugger all to do with the problems of the UK constitution like the monarchy and house of Lords. The EU couldn't care less if we addressed them. It isn't the EU getting in the way of modernizing our constitution it is the London establishment that finds the undemocratic historical anomalies like the House of Lords convenient and the little Englander pensioners that want to restore the 1950s. The same people that want out of the EU.
If you want to look at where the really bad decisions have been made over the last 20 years or so it has been Wesminster. The genius of the Brexit campaign has been to blame the EU for pretty much everything Westminster does wrong.
7
3
In reply to Bootrock:
You still don't seem to understand how the EU works very well, but I guess it doesn't matter now in these brave Brexit days does it!
You still don't seem to understand how the EU works very well, but I guess it doesn't matter now in these brave Brexit days does it!
4
3
In reply to sensibleken:
I'm a bit embarrassed that my knowledge of Irish politics is so poor but how does that all work with Irish citizens from the North? I understand that it is the case that anyone born on the island of Ireland can have Irish citizenship, but is it normal for people to be involved in Irish politics when resident in NI? Are there even constituencies represented in the Dail for Northern Ireland? Or do people like McAleese move to the south and become deputies or whatever to start being active in Irish politics?
> Mary McAleese: From a Northern Ireland family who were burned out of their home her election worried some that she may give the presidency a sectarian bent, she quickly dispelled that and began hosting Northern Irish Protestant organisations at her residency. Went on to do immesurable work in normalising relations after the good friday agreement
I'm a bit embarrassed that my knowledge of Irish politics is so poor but how does that all work with Irish citizens from the North? I understand that it is the case that anyone born on the island of Ireland can have Irish citizenship, but is it normal for people to be involved in Irish politics when resident in NI? Are there even constituencies represented in the Dail for Northern Ireland? Or do people like McAleese move to the south and become deputies or whatever to start being active in Irish politics?
1
In reply to David Martin:
I think most Commonwealth Countries don't have the Queen as their head of state: Aus, NZ and Canada are I believe the exceptions in this case. Not sure about the Caribbean states, I know their legal systems still end up in London at the Privy Council or whatever it is, but I think their presidents are their HoSs.
> I very much doubt it is a distant monarchy that keeps Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, and anywhere from Fiji to India on a stable footing. How much of an issue did Liz have with Apartheid exactly?
I think most Commonwealth Countries don't have the Queen as their head of state: Aus, NZ and Canada are I believe the exceptions in this case. Not sure about the Caribbean states, I know their legal systems still end up in London at the Privy Council or whatever it is, but I think their presidents are their HoSs.
In reply to FesteringSore:
It's remarkable in 2016 that there is still so much forelock-tugging respect for the monarchy. The institution is an embarrassing anachronism that has no place in a modern democracy. A family of self interested billionaires, heavily subsidised by working tax payers, that have done nothing for the common good other than inherit titles and wealth. They're meaningless and irrelevant.
It's remarkable in 2016 that there is still so much forelock-tugging respect for the monarchy. The institution is an embarrassing anachronism that has no place in a modern democracy. A family of self interested billionaires, heavily subsidised by working tax payers, that have done nothing for the common good other than inherit titles and wealth. They're meaningless and irrelevant.
10
8
In reply to alastairmac:
If that were true you'd have a point. Unfortunately your prejudice clouds your vision. The Queen in particular is a massive asset to British business, which, in case you're equally blind to the process of wealth creation, is a cornerstone of your "common good".
> It's remarkable in 2016 that there is still so much forelock-tugging respect for the monarchy. The institution is an embarrassing anachronism that has no place in a modern democracy. A family of self interested billionaires, heavily subsidised by working tax payers, that have done nothing for the common good other than inherit titles and wealth. They're meaningless and irrelevant.
If that were true you'd have a point. Unfortunately your prejudice clouds your vision. The Queen in particular is a massive asset to British business, which, in case you're equally blind to the process of wealth creation, is a cornerstone of your "common good".
4
6
In reply to alastairmac:
yes; and its so common, i'm sure you'll have no difficulty in pointing us to an example of it.
> It's remarkable in 2016 that there is still so much forelock-tugging respect for the monarchy.
yes; and its so common, i'm sure you'll have no difficulty in pointing us to an example of it.
4
1
In reply to alastairmac:
You are obviously Shani's sock puppet.
> It's remarkable in 2016 that there is still so much forelock-tugging respect for the monarchy. The institution is an embarrassing anachronism that has no place in a modern democracy. A family of self interested billionaires, heavily subsidised by working tax payers, that have done nothing for the common good other than inherit titles and wealth. They're meaningless and irrelevant.
You are obviously Shani's sock puppet.
In reply to BnB:
The assertion that the monarchy is "good for business" has no basis in fact. It's a meaningless assertion which is frequently made to justify the tax breaks and subsidies enjoyed by the Windsor family. Possibly with the exception of businesses involved in the arms trade in the middle east. A motivated, knowledgeable and democratically elected head of state would send a much more positive message about the UK being a country looking forward and not looking backwards. And my views aren't based on any prejudice directed at individuals. Simply a deep objection to the celebration of a family and an institution that represents inequality, unfairness, unearned privilege and an unwillingness to embrace modern democracy.
The assertion that the monarchy is "good for business" has no basis in fact. It's a meaningless assertion which is frequently made to justify the tax breaks and subsidies enjoyed by the Windsor family. Possibly with the exception of businesses involved in the arms trade in the middle east. A motivated, knowledgeable and democratically elected head of state would send a much more positive message about the UK being a country looking forward and not looking backwards. And my views aren't based on any prejudice directed at individuals. Simply a deep objection to the celebration of a family and an institution that represents inequality, unfairness, unearned privilege and an unwillingness to embrace modern democracy.
11
3
In reply to BnB:
Yeah - Amazon, Facebook and Google all struggled without a US monarch.
Germany also struggling....
> If that were true you'd have a point. Unfortunately your prejudice clouds your vision. The Queen in particular is a massive asset to British business, which, in case you're equally blind to the process of wealth creation, is a cornerstone of your "common good".
Yeah - Amazon, Facebook and Google all struggled without a US monarch.
Germany also struggling....
Post edited at 13:28
5
1
In reply to TobyA:
It is normal to some extent in that there is significant cross border co-operation on many matters. Politically Sinn Fein are the only all Ireland party and Gerry Adams has been MP, TD and MLA. Fianna Fail have also touted running candidates in Northern Ireland a few times but its yet to materialise.
There are no constituencies for the North in the republic, but that being said the fact that Irish citizens may be resident in the UK is considered for the Upper house of the Senate and unofficially in the representation of the president. These are more a matter of convention than law.
McAleese herself moved south at an early age as she was burned out of her house by loyalist mobs. Gerry Adams moved south when he was elected to the Dail in 2011. There is the expectation that anyone working in a representative constituency is resident there.
So officially its viewed as all by separate countries but due to historical, cultural, familial and plain practical purposes the relationship is much more fluid than it would be between two other neighbouring countries, in fact it wouldn't be amiss to say that most wouldn't even view us as separate countries.
> I'm a bit embarrassed that my knowledge of Irish politics is so poor but how does that all work with Irish citizens from the North? I understand that it is the case that anyone born on the island of Ireland can have Irish citizenship, but is it normal for people to be involved in Irish politics when resident in NI? Are there even constituencies represented in the Dail for Northern Ireland? Or do people like McAleese move to the south and become deputies or whatever to start being active in Irish politics?
It is normal to some extent in that there is significant cross border co-operation on many matters. Politically Sinn Fein are the only all Ireland party and Gerry Adams has been MP, TD and MLA. Fianna Fail have also touted running candidates in Northern Ireland a few times but its yet to materialise.
There are no constituencies for the North in the republic, but that being said the fact that Irish citizens may be resident in the UK is considered for the Upper house of the Senate and unofficially in the representation of the president. These are more a matter of convention than law.
McAleese herself moved south at an early age as she was burned out of her house by loyalist mobs. Gerry Adams moved south when he was elected to the Dail in 2011. There is the expectation that anyone working in a representative constituency is resident there.
So officially its viewed as all by separate countries but due to historical, cultural, familial and plain practical purposes the relationship is much more fluid than it would be between two other neighbouring countries, in fact it wouldn't be amiss to say that most wouldn't even view us as separate countries.
Post edited at 13:23
3
2
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
youtube.com/watch?v=nKLcD6FcLZc&
> yes; and its so common, i'm sure you'll have no difficulty in pointing us to an example of it.
youtube.com/watch?v=nKLcD6FcLZc&
1
In reply to Shani:
Yep. I hear China and India are struggling as well without the "massive asset" of a centuries old monarchy .......as they continue to buy up most of the UK's infrastructure, major manufacturing industries and utilities.
Yep. I hear China and India are struggling as well without the "massive asset" of a centuries old monarchy .......as they continue to buy up most of the UK's infrastructure, major manufacturing industries and utilities.
3
1
In reply to alastairmac:
All of which rather suggests you should be careful what you wish for.
> Yep. I hear China and India are struggling as well without the "massive asset" of a centuries old monarchy .......as they continue to buy up most of the UK's infrastructure, major manufacturing industries and utilities.
All of which rather suggests you should be careful what you wish for.
3
In reply to TobyA:
Mary McAleese worked in the Republic of Ireland for most of her adult life I believe and most of her professional accomplishments were based there so that is how she became involved in politics down south.
Although anyone from the north can have Irish citizenship there are no constituencies for the Dail in NI although there is a campaign currently, mostly by Sinn Fein, to extend voting right for the Irish president to citizens in the North.
Gerry Adams is currently a TD for Louth, interestingly when he won that seat he was also the MP for West Belfast at Westminster and as he resigned that seat he became the Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead under parliamentary rules. I think he had to be resident in Louth for a certain period of time before he could run for election there but it was a few years ago and I can't really remember fully.
Mary McAleese worked in the Republic of Ireland for most of her adult life I believe and most of her professional accomplishments were based there so that is how she became involved in politics down south.
Although anyone from the north can have Irish citizenship there are no constituencies for the Dail in NI although there is a campaign currently, mostly by Sinn Fein, to extend voting right for the Irish president to citizens in the North.
Gerry Adams is currently a TD for Louth, interestingly when he won that seat he was also the MP for West Belfast at Westminster and as he resigned that seat he became the Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead under parliamentary rules. I think he had to be resident in Louth for a certain period of time before he could run for election there but it was a few years ago and I can't really remember fully.
1
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
What about our tax payer funded BBC consistently giving more coverage to the Windsors than to the 13 million people in the UK judged to be living in poverty?
What about our tax payer funded BBC consistently giving more coverage to the Windsors than to the 13 million people in the UK judged to be living in poverty?
2
1
In reply to Shani:
lol, i was thinking more of on here, or in wider public life, not the backwaters of someone's obscure youtube channel....
with only 13000-odd views, too- given that cats falling off sofas can clock up over half a million hits
youtube.com/watch?v=DxNqThnF8NY&
the evidence of widespread servility to our rulers seems pretty thin.
lol, i was thinking more of on here, or in wider public life, not the backwaters of someone's obscure youtube channel....
with only 13000-odd views, too- given that cats falling off sofas can clock up over half a million hits
youtube.com/watch?v=DxNqThnF8NY&
the evidence of widespread servility to our rulers seems pretty thin.
In reply to alastairmac:
obsequious servility?
or focus group-led, 'give the public what it wants', bread and circuses-type distraction?
i'm sure you think you know
obsequious servility?
or focus group-led, 'give the public what it wants', bread and circuses-type distraction?
i'm sure you think you know
1
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
There are plenty of grovelling bauble collectors in society looking for rank, status and titles. Look at the honours list for example. Cash for titles is rife.
> lol, i was thinking more of on here, or in wider public life, not the backwaters of someone's obscure youtube channel....
There are plenty of grovelling bauble collectors in society looking for rank, status and titles. Look at the honours list for example. Cash for titles is rife.
Post edited at 14:27
4
3
In reply to Shani:
so you say, so you say.
but the claim wasn't that some people seek status; it was that many of those of 'lower' status were 'forelock tuggers', abasing themselves before their 'betters'.
if its such a pervasive phenomenon then evidence of it must be everywhere.
mustn't it?
so you say, so you say.
but the claim wasn't that some people seek status; it was that many of those of 'lower' status were 'forelock tuggers', abasing themselves before their 'betters'.
if its such a pervasive phenomenon then evidence of it must be everywhere.
mustn't it?
2
1
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Just remind me where i said this?
> so you say, so you say.
> but the claim wasn't that some people seek status; it was that many of those of 'lower' status were 'forelock tuggers', abasing themselves before their 'betters'.
Just remind me where i said this?
1
In reply to ajsteele and sensibleken:
Thank you very much folks! I knew Adams was (is?) in the Dail, so I guess that's where I got the idea that maybe there were some constituencies on the North, but at the same time it seemed very unlikely that the UK would have ever been able to accept this, particularly back in the dark days pre-Good Friday and the Anglo-Irish agreement, so it makes more sense about him at least sometimes living in the South.
There aren't many examples around the world of transborder politics like this worldwide, there are local govt. examples for towns that straddle the Swedish-Finnish border for example, but they still have problems that even if the bin men can cross the border to pick up the rubbish, the police still can't and you get taxed differently depending on what side of the town you live!
I should obviously read the Irish politics wik pages when I get some time over Xmas. Thanks again.
Thank you very much folks! I knew Adams was (is?) in the Dail, so I guess that's where I got the idea that maybe there were some constituencies on the North, but at the same time it seemed very unlikely that the UK would have ever been able to accept this, particularly back in the dark days pre-Good Friday and the Anglo-Irish agreement, so it makes more sense about him at least sometimes living in the South.
There aren't many examples around the world of transborder politics like this worldwide, there are local govt. examples for towns that straddle the Swedish-Finnish border for example, but they still have problems that even if the bin men can cross the border to pick up the rubbish, the police still can't and you get taxed differently depending on what side of the town you live!
I should obviously read the Irish politics wik pages when I get some time over Xmas. Thanks again.
1
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Here's a program on it:
youtube.com/watch?v=KHf3BdtuFKk&
But if you asking for evidence; you think people make videos of people supplicating before the queen?
I'd direct you to Royal Variety performances as a starter.
> if its such a pervasive phenomenon then evidence of it must be everywhere.
Here's a program on it:
youtube.com/watch?v=KHf3BdtuFKk&
But if you asking for evidence; you think people make videos of people supplicating before the queen?
I'd direct you to Royal Variety performances as a starter.
Post edited at 14:42
2
In reply to Shani:
well, my reply was originally to alistairmac's post at 12:53, where he refers to 'forelock tugging respect for the monarchy'- and i challenged him to provide some examples of this. since you then took up the challenge on his behalf, it seemed fair to assume that you shared his views; apologies if this assumption is wrong, but if so, why did you reply...?
> Just remind me where i said this?
well, my reply was originally to alistairmac's post at 12:53, where he refers to 'forelock tugging respect for the monarchy'- and i challenged him to provide some examples of this. since you then took up the challenge on his behalf, it seemed fair to assume that you shared his views; apologies if this assumption is wrong, but if so, why did you reply...?
1
1
In reply to Shani:
lifestyle schedule filler, next thing you'll be linking to Judge Rinder as an example of how our courts aren't functioning properly...
not my sort of thing, i'm not a big Royalist, i'll leave you to it.
the thing is, alistair made reference not just to 'respect' or 'politeness', but to 'forelock tugging respect'. i assume the two extra words were important, and they certainly change the connotations of the claim.
i also think they invalidate it. i was more looking for him to produce examples of people he had come across who exhibited this, or some other sort of slavish adulation for the aristocracy, that led him to form the view that this 'forelock tugging respect' was a big enough issue out there to make a point about it.
i've never come across it, and if you're hunting youtube for daytime tv shows and obscure royalist channels with no one watching, then i'm guessing you haven't either
there is plenty wrong with our constitutional settlement at present, and our quality of governance is, in my view, inadequate. we need proper PR, we need proper reform of the house of lords. the identity of our ceremonial head of state is well down my list of concerns. i suspect it is for the vast majority of people in this country too, who may well share my concerns that a political establishment that made this a priority would probably be doing it as a distraction from more important matters...
> Here's a program on it:
lifestyle schedule filler, next thing you'll be linking to Judge Rinder as an example of how our courts aren't functioning properly...
> But if you asking for evidence; you think people make videos of people supplicating before the queen?
> I'd direct you to Royal Variety performances as a starter.
not my sort of thing, i'm not a big Royalist, i'll leave you to it.
the thing is, alistair made reference not just to 'respect' or 'politeness', but to 'forelock tugging respect'. i assume the two extra words were important, and they certainly change the connotations of the claim.
i also think they invalidate it. i was more looking for him to produce examples of people he had come across who exhibited this, or some other sort of slavish adulation for the aristocracy, that led him to form the view that this 'forelock tugging respect' was a big enough issue out there to make a point about it.
i've never come across it, and if you're hunting youtube for daytime tv shows and obscure royalist channels with no one watching, then i'm guessing you haven't either
there is plenty wrong with our constitutional settlement at present, and our quality of governance is, in my view, inadequate. we need proper PR, we need proper reform of the house of lords. the identity of our ceremonial head of state is well down my list of concerns. i suspect it is for the vast majority of people in this country too, who may well share my concerns that a political establishment that made this a priority would probably be doing it as a distraction from more important matters...
1
1
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
For me the forelock tugging isn’t literal but is evident. The fact that there is an etiquette to meeting the queen - over and above the courtesy which you'd show to any other person - says it all. Weird given it is extended on a basis of lineage, not merit.
But hey, anyone feeling so inclined, knock yourselves out.
For me the forelock tugging isn’t literal but is evident. The fact that there is an etiquette to meeting the queen - over and above the courtesy which you'd show to any other person - says it all. Weird given it is extended on a basis of lineage, not merit.
But hey, anyone feeling so inclined, knock yourselves out.
Post edited at 15:28
2
In reply to Shani:
indeed, i don't think anyone thought that forelocks were actually being pulled; but that this referred to a pattern of behaviour where the degree of servility shown was undermining of the self respect of the person showing it.
I'm guessing that there isn't a great deal of that out there in reality today.
ettiquette meeting the queen- i can't say i'm ever likely to, or aspire to, but i'd have no problem following protocol if i did. our society has all sort of little rules and conventions, provided that no one gets hurt, then i'm not too bothered about them
i'm sure there are a hard core of fawning royal fanatics out there somewhere though, and once again, if they are all consenting adults, their own attitudes as to their place in society in relation to the royals are their own business.
i'm sure we could come up with another model to identify our the head of state, but i'm not really convinced that this would be an improvement, and given that bringing other part of our constitution out of the 19th century would be likely to lead to very real improvements in governance, i'd prioritise them over deposing the queen.
fat chance of either though, sadly...
indeed, i don't think anyone thought that forelocks were actually being pulled; but that this referred to a pattern of behaviour where the degree of servility shown was undermining of the self respect of the person showing it.
I'm guessing that there isn't a great deal of that out there in reality today.
ettiquette meeting the queen- i can't say i'm ever likely to, or aspire to, but i'd have no problem following protocol if i did. our society has all sort of little rules and conventions, provided that no one gets hurt, then i'm not too bothered about them
i'm sure there are a hard core of fawning royal fanatics out there somewhere though, and once again, if they are all consenting adults, their own attitudes as to their place in society in relation to the royals are their own business.
i'm sure we could come up with another model to identify our the head of state, but i'm not really convinced that this would be an improvement, and given that bringing other part of our constitution out of the 19th century would be likely to lead to very real improvements in governance, i'd prioritise them over deposing the queen.
fat chance of either though, sadly...
3
1
In reply to GrahamD:
That depends entirely on your viewpoint.
> We've just voted not to be one of those. Get with the message
That depends entirely on your viewpoint.
3
1
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Likewise, but I take a harder view on this.
While I will never personally know any royals and therefore it is difficult to make an opinion on them as people, it might be fair to say that the queen would take a very dim view of me if I didn't show the expected, and unusually excessive, form of reverence seemingly required on meeting her. If I simply addressed her as I would any older, more senior, figure, I very much doubt I'd ever be invited back. That sort of treatment, an air of superiority, the creation of a expected modes of behaviour that so clearly imply servility, make it very hard to feel any warmth towards them. I'm essentially expected to give respect over and above what I'd give anyone else....but why?
I also give no truck to the idea that she has done good deeds and is therefore deserving. Waking up in the morning with such wealth and no requirement to work, hardly makes applying your life to media appearances and social occasions, all of which boost your own standing and promote your own brand, a big ask. As someone else said, David Attenborough or Stephen Hawking are just as much British icons, yet they got there by applying themselves to a task and excelling - i.e. through merit. The queen on the other hand appears little different to socialites or celebrities, and the gap between Kim Kardashian and Elizabeth Regina is not overly wide. Yet while we are free to poke fun at and publicise all aspects of KK's life for criticism, "Her Majesty" has an entire apparatus established over hundreds of years that protects her from this.
> ettiquette meeting the queen- i can't say i'm ever likely to, or aspire to, but i'd have no problem following protocol if i did. our society has all sort of little rules and conventions, provided that no one gets hurt, then i'm not too bothered about them
Likewise, but I take a harder view on this.
While I will never personally know any royals and therefore it is difficult to make an opinion on them as people, it might be fair to say that the queen would take a very dim view of me if I didn't show the expected, and unusually excessive, form of reverence seemingly required on meeting her. If I simply addressed her as I would any older, more senior, figure, I very much doubt I'd ever be invited back. That sort of treatment, an air of superiority, the creation of a expected modes of behaviour that so clearly imply servility, make it very hard to feel any warmth towards them. I'm essentially expected to give respect over and above what I'd give anyone else....but why?
I also give no truck to the idea that she has done good deeds and is therefore deserving. Waking up in the morning with such wealth and no requirement to work, hardly makes applying your life to media appearances and social occasions, all of which boost your own standing and promote your own brand, a big ask. As someone else said, David Attenborough or Stephen Hawking are just as much British icons, yet they got there by applying themselves to a task and excelling - i.e. through merit. The queen on the other hand appears little different to socialites or celebrities, and the gap between Kim Kardashian and Elizabeth Regina is not overly wide. Yet while we are free to poke fun at and publicise all aspects of KK's life for criticism, "Her Majesty" has an entire apparatus established over hundreds of years that protects her from this.
Post edited at 04:35
6
2
In reply to David Martin:
You make a good argument. However, while at (an admittedly "posh", though I am not) university it was unexceptional to come across one British and several European royals (the present King of Belgium was a regular in our college bar). None of those encounters involved any requirement for sycophancy, not even from little commoners like me. In fact they could best be characterised by the embarrassment of the individuals at their "good" fortune and a concomitant desire to be judged as normal and considered to have value beyond their birthright. The never-ending presence of security personnel made life very awkward for them. I wouldn't swap situations with any royal for all the tea in China.
You make a good argument. However, while at (an admittedly "posh", though I am not) university it was unexceptional to come across one British and several European royals (the present King of Belgium was a regular in our college bar). None of those encounters involved any requirement for sycophancy, not even from little commoners like me. In fact they could best be characterised by the embarrassment of the individuals at their "good" fortune and a concomitant desire to be judged as normal and considered to have value beyond their birthright. The never-ending presence of security personnel made life very awkward for them. I wouldn't swap situations with any royal for all the tea in China.
7
1
In reply to David Martin:
Why? I think that the UK royal family [1] believe they're superior, and therefore [2] believe they deserve superior treatment. My mind boggles.
AND BY THE WAY now we're on the topic, I wish that people would not keep posting that the UK royals make more money for the UK than they cost the UK. I wish people would post hard facts / data / evidence about it rather than make unsupported assertions about it. Thank you and Merry Xmas.
> ....That sort of treatment, an air of superiority, the creation of a expected modes of behaviour that so clearly imply servility, make it very hard to feel any warmth towards them. I'm essentially expected to give respect over and above what I'd give anyone else....but why?
Why? I think that the UK royal family [1] believe they're superior, and therefore [2] believe they deserve superior treatment. My mind boggles.
AND BY THE WAY now we're on the topic, I wish that people would not keep posting that the UK royals make more money for the UK than they cost the UK. I wish people would post hard facts / data / evidence about it rather than make unsupported assertions about it. Thank you and Merry Xmas.
2
5
1
1
In reply to David Martin:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aAoDTjsYYWg
>the queen on the other hand appears little different to socialites or celebrities, and the gap between Kim Kardashian and Elizabeth Regina is not overly wide. Yet while we are free to poke fun at and publicise all aspects of KK's life for criticism, "Her Majesty" has an entire apparatus established over hundreds of years that protects her from this.
Not a very effective apparatus- see link above, and Frankie Boyle making jokes about her vagina being haunted, and the ridicule Charles' views on architecture attract. None of them got hauled off to the tower. Id say we do a fine line in lese majeste in this country. ..
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aAoDTjsYYWg
>the queen on the other hand appears little different to socialites or celebrities, and the gap between Kim Kardashian and Elizabeth Regina is not overly wide. Yet while we are free to poke fun at and publicise all aspects of KK's life for criticism, "Her Majesty" has an entire apparatus established over hundreds of years that protects her from this.
Not a very effective apparatus- see link above, and Frankie Boyle making jokes about her vagina being haunted, and the ridicule Charles' views on architecture attract. None of them got hauled off to the tower. Id say we do a fine line in lese majeste in this country. ..
Post edited at 17:52
1
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
True.
But no one (i.e. mainstream commentators, media, etc.) is ever going to accuse them of being vacuuous media whores, in the same way they would a celeb like Kim Kardashian. For all I know KK might actually be quite an interesting person and may just be contributing more to charities than the royals are. Likewise, Sex Pistols still make a lot of people very uneasy even today and Charles seems to have been setup as a bit of a fall guy for the royals ("He's our goofy one, we're not letting him near the throne, ridicule as you wish").
In many ways those who live in the public eye seem to accept that they will be on the receiving end of some pretty harsh criticisms and media examination. The royals have carved out a niche, probably a legacy of the days when criticism would result in decapitation, that insulates them more than most.
Anyone that can have traffic stopped for them, national holidays in their honour of their births and deaths, airspace restricted for them, and then receive state payments, should surely be in some way publicly accountable. I'd go as far as to say, while the general public would no doubt vote to retain the monarchy if asked tomorrow, if their retention came up for the vote every 5 years the mood might well change over time, simply because their existance was no longer something we had no control over.
True.
But no one (i.e. mainstream commentators, media, etc.) is ever going to accuse them of being vacuuous media whores, in the same way they would a celeb like Kim Kardashian. For all I know KK might actually be quite an interesting person and may just be contributing more to charities than the royals are. Likewise, Sex Pistols still make a lot of people very uneasy even today and Charles seems to have been setup as a bit of a fall guy for the royals ("He's our goofy one, we're not letting him near the throne, ridicule as you wish").
In many ways those who live in the public eye seem to accept that they will be on the receiving end of some pretty harsh criticisms and media examination. The royals have carved out a niche, probably a legacy of the days when criticism would result in decapitation, that insulates them more than most.
Anyone that can have traffic stopped for them, national holidays in their honour of their births and deaths, airspace restricted for them, and then receive state payments, should surely be in some way publicly accountable. I'd go as far as to say, while the general public would no doubt vote to retain the monarchy if asked tomorrow, if their retention came up for the vote every 5 years the mood might well change over time, simply because their existance was no longer something we had no control over.
2
2
In reply to David Martin:
Maybe the Royals could be set up as a charity, so people could donate if they wish, or even have a Royals optional tax that you can choose to contribute or not. They will be so popular that they will have more money than they know what to do with it. ( maybe)
Maybe the Royals could be set up as a charity, so people could donate if they wish, or even have a Royals optional tax that you can choose to contribute or not. They will be so popular that they will have more money than they know what to do with it. ( maybe)
3
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...