Thank you. Your post was straight to point of my question.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
British Subjects: A Reminder
- Thread starter Eddi
- Start date
Thank you. Your post was straight to point of my question.
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
Oh, I cocked up there then
I can't say that I fail to understand the sentiment and emphasize with it.
I recall reading that the Royal Family had to put in a lot of work to make themselves acceptable to the British people. After what happened in Russia.
Now mostly they do charity work and provide a focal point to unite the nation. I'd imagine they don't get political which probably helps with the unity part.
How are they bad or a problem in 2021?
I had the UK in mind when I was commenting.
They present a continual risk. The magnitude of that risk depends on the choices of the monarch.
Right. Thank you.
One annoyance of mine as a Canadian is that my country's head of state is a national symbol of - and likely has her main loyalties to - some other country.
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
I can only offer an ill-informed thought. The Civil Wars were between those in favour of a constitutional monarchy (the Parliamentarians) and those in favour of a god-anointed monarchy (the Cavaliers). I don't think the Republicans were invited.
Meanwhile Joe Public just got on with foraging for turnips in the hedgerow, while the religious nutter got on with establishing the Interregnum.
Last edited:
Fascinating! Thank you for the correction! That's something I should have remembered, if only because of how the Civil Wars influenced immigration to America in more important ways than just the number of people who showed up here. Chalk up the first of today's many D'uh moments for me.
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
Here's another duh. (Now edited). Changed "heriditary" for "god-anointed." Originally the Parliamentarians intended keeping a monarch, but with lessened powers.
That's the kind of detail at which, for me, history starts passing out tickets for one of its rides. Thanks!
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
When we have had a problem with our royals in the past we have either chopped their head off or got rid of them William Anne Mary took over with no blood shed at all.
And Edward and Simpson were given the option to abdicate.
When there is a will there is a way. a constitutional monarchy works well with out a constitution. And it is many times cheaper than a Presidency.
It is largely self supporting. Charles Funds him self from his estates. He also largely supports his sons. The rest are mostly either funded by the Queen or in exchange for duties. The up keep of Buckingham palace and the court would have to be covered by the country if we had a President. As would other royal property, though not the private property of the Queen like Sandringham, and Balmoral which we funds herself and would stay with the family.
And Edward and Simpson were given the option to abdicate.
When there is a will there is a way. a constitutional monarchy works well with out a constitution. And it is many times cheaper than a Presidency.
It is largely self supporting. Charles Funds him self from his estates. He also largely supports his sons. The rest are mostly either funded by the Queen or in exchange for duties. The up keep of Buckingham palace and the court would have to be covered by the country if we had a President. As would other royal property, though not the private property of the Queen like Sandringham, and Balmoral which we funds herself and would stay with the family.
Well I am with you @Eddi, since monarchies in the 21st century are anachronisms. They still suit so many though - of course those in power or those who aspire to power - and the UK getting rid of our monarchy is as unlikely as the USA getting rid of their guns.
But then our democracy probably also needs some updating, since the mainly two-party system just doesn't seem to be working that well. No idea what changes would help though.
But then our democracy probably also needs some updating, since the mainly two-party system just doesn't seem to be working that well. No idea what changes would help though.
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Unlike presidents Bad kings can be largely ignored and sidelined. They only have as much power as the parliament allows, which can be anywhere from a lot of nothing.
At least one had his time of death arranged to suit the newspaper deadlines. Only by a matter of hours for sure, but dead on time.
At least one had his time of death arranged to suit the newspaper deadlines. Only by a matter of hours for sure, but dead on time.
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
For a little more money you could buy "Civil war: The War of the Three Kingdoms 1638-1660", by Trevor Royle. Tis a hefty tome.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Prince Harry has refunded the cost of renovating frogmore.
Buckingham Palace would need refurbishing whoever lived there.
Royal duties would fall to a president and retinue and would cost at least as much.
Heads of state are expensive. Think of the cost of running airforce one as a taxi to play golf at the weekend. And the lifetime costs of protecting previous presidents and their families. Not to mention the cost of the president's pension pots.
No; she and her family still largely live off the state property their ancestors embezzled.
Back in the early days of America, being a monarchist was looked upon the same way a communist was looked upon during the McCarthy era. So, whatever they did to communists, it's just as valid to do it to monarchists (who are far worse than communists, morally speaking).
And scroungers,