....concerned?
.................. just interested!
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
....concerned?
.................. just interested!
History has a worrying ability to repeat itself.You don't think we could do better now than in the 17th Century?
Why would we be worrying about other democracies, you don't think we should be concerned about republican America?...!!!!You don't think the British are up to managing a government as well as all the dozens of successful democracies without hereditary heads of state?
Bro, that was over 400 years ago. Things have moved on!
Out here in the colonies, the monarch largely ignores our affairs. Why should *we* keep her?The Monarch here is a highly moderating influence on our leaders. And her Grandson is looking very good as well.
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.
Nah....... it's her sense of responsibility.I didn't mean to imply otherwise. She serves at her own pleasure.
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.Sure, if I'm healthy enough.
That's exactly the point....... the government didn't NEED to hold a gun to his head. Didn't have to.Nobody held a gun to his head when he signed the abdication papers.
Oh! What a good game! Let's get rid of every system that ever allowed a dishonest leader into power!... because corruption wasn't a problem under any of your country's monarchies?
Oh....... Kirran! I never would have guessed!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.
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.Out here in the colonies, the monarch largely ignores our affairs. Why should *we* keep her?
...better than inflating 'em!You seem to be conflating points.
Well, you could save lots of dosh, and sell up, and go and live in one of 'em!Some of the best democracies in the world don't have monarchies. If they can do it, so can we.
... because he freely chose to abdicate.That's exactly the point....... the government didn't NEED to hold a gun to his head. Didn't have to.
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.
You (nor I) don't have the first clue about where her interests reside.
The monarchy hurts Canada’s standing in the world. It’s time to let goWhen I was posted to Bonn in the nineties, Queen Elizabeth paid an official visit to Berlin largely to promote British industry. Ambassadors from Commonwealth countries were convened to Berlin, at their countries’ expense, to greet the Queen (in reality a photo-op). Because there were Canadian firms in Germany that could have used some high-level support, and because my credentials said that it was in her name and on her behalf that I was accredited as the Ambassador of Canada to Germany, I decided to test what the Monarchists’ assertions – that she is our Queen, too – meant in practice.
Not much, as it turned out. I asked an aide at the photo-op whether while promoting UK business her majesty might put in a good word for Canadian business too. It was evident from his reaction that such an idea was as unwelcome as it was novel. Years later, Kate and William, following their rapturous welcome in Canada, headed to Hollywood where they promoted British artists. Plus ça change…
If you think that's "my logic" then you've utterly misunderstood either what I've said or the issues involved. Here's the real situation:
I think I should have a democratically elected head of state. You disagree.
When I ask you why you think I shouldn't be allowed to elect my head of state, you say "history and tradition."
When I point out that the history and tradition here is often horrible, you tell me to ignore history and tradition.
... which leaves us back where we started: with you telling me that I shouldn't be allowed to elect my head of state and me asking why.
Convenient. So what is part of "the tradition itself", then?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.
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?
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.
So you don't think I should be allowed to elect my head of state. Again: why?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.
I don't live in the UK. I'm in Canada (though I'm a Canadian/British dual citizen).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?