I suppose in an abstract sense, but I don't really have any particular interest as it relates to the practical issue of the British monarchy.
-
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 People: Monarch or No?
- Thread starter Rival
- Start date
I suppose in an abstract sense, but I don't really have any particular interest as it relates to the practical issue of the British monarchy.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
History has a worrying ability to repeat itself.
But, as an example, humans didn't kick-off 2 world wars in the 17th century.
We've learned a bit of science since those days, but that's about it.
Why would we be worrying about other democracies, you don't think we should be concerned about republican America?...!!!!
The Monarch here is a highly moderating influence on our leaders. And her Grandson is looking very good as well.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Some of my post referred to 80 years ago.
But, No, things haven't move on in terms of humans, humanities and governments.
Out here in the colonies, the monarch largely ignores our affairs. Why should *we* keep her?
You seem to be conflating points.
Some of the best democracies in the world don't have monarchies. If they can do it, so can we.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Nah....... it's her sense of responsibility.
Well, OK, you can keep on going (
) but most of us look forward to our pensions kicking-in, and s-dding off on cruises, yachts, tourism and whatever.But you're going to plod on, providing a service to the community........ good on you, and good on our Queen for doing so.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
That's exactly the point....... the government didn't NEED to hold a gun to his head. Didn't have to.
Oh! What a good game! Let's get rid of every system that ever allowed a dishonest leader into power!
Now...... which systems would be left? Errrrrrr..........
Uummmmm........
This is good fun!
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
You (nor I) don't have the first clue about where her interests reside. But if she stood before you now I reckon that her intimate knowledge about your country, its regions and its peoples would surely leave you astonished. That's my guess.
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
...better than inflating 'em!
Well, you could save lots of dosh, and sell up, and go and live in one of 'em!
Maybe there'll be a majority of folks who will support Wills if he gets a chance at the throne.
You do realise that if Charles insists on taking it that you could win through to a republic? You wouldn't even have to make a banner to wave, or anything.
... because he freely chose to abdicate.
So you recognize the folly in your earlier statement? Good.Oh! What a good game! Let's get rid of every system that ever allowed a dishonest leader into power!
Now...... which systems would be left? Errrrrrr..........
Uummmmm........
This is good fun!
...better than inflating 'em!
Well, you could save lots of dosh, and sell up, and go and live in one of 'em!
Maybe there'll be a majority of folks who will support Wills if he gets a chance at the throne.
You do realise that if Charles insists on taking it that you could win through to a republic? You wouldn't even have to make a banner to wave, or anything.
For that reason, I hope he takes the throne
On the contrary. One story from a retired Canadian ambassador:
The monarchy hurts Canada’s standing in the world. It’s time to let go
Toten
Member
What was horrible in the past was actions based on what a flawed system allowed them to do, not just because of the tradition itself.
Convenient. So what is part of "the tradition itself", then?
- denial of the principles of democracy? That must be a part of it, right?
- an aristocracy, where a rich few are supported by masses of lower classes? The monarchy is the cherry on the top of that sundae, so that must be part of it, too.
- religious intolerance? It's built right into the rules of succession, so I'm sure that's part of it, too... right?
So what is this "tradition itself"?
BTW: I'm still waiting for you to explain why I shouldn't be allowed to elect my head of state. Are you against democracy in general, or only for subjects of Elizabeth?
Toten
Member
It doesn't really matter what I think of democracy in general, but I didn't mean that the monarchy should rule over anything, just that I don't think it should be abolished. If you live in the UK and feel it is too powered then I think it would be better to change the system a bit to find a better solution rather than abolishing a tradition as old as the Kingdom itself. That is what the English people have been doing since King John.
Come on, the age of an institution is no argument in its favour. Homophobia is a very old British institution, so was the slave trade, so is the class system.
So you don't think I should be allowed to elect my head of state. Again: why?
I don't live in the UK. I'm in Canada (though I'm a Canadian/British dual citizen).
You talk about "a better solution"; what did you have in mind? What's better than just getting rid of the monarchy?
Toten
Member
That would be more of a public opinion than a cultural tradition, at least by what I mean by "tradition". The US and most other Western nations have a long history of invading other peoples and conquering foreign powers, that doesn't mean war is a sacred tradition of the culture American/western people.
Toten
Member
Didn't say I didn't. Sorry.