Space Commander Travis Posted January 22, 2013 #26 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Your reasoning finds its roots in nothing more than misplaced, blind admiration for British history. Which, when we get down to it, is a horrible history to have that, bar some of the technical achievements, no human being should admire. Is that solely attritutable to having a Monarchy? The histories of numerous countries after they (often forcibly) got rid of Monarchies wouldn't sem to suggest so. Otherwise, is britain's Horrible History germane to the question of Monarchy at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted January 22, 2013 #27 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Just because the system is in the state it is in right now, doesn't mean that we haven't benefited immensely as a society because of those acts. The rise of the working class and empowerment of the people meant that we used to have politicians who were scared to antagonise the voters. It is only with the rise of the 'dumb' population, so blinded to the world outside their own little circles, that we have had politicians able to get away with murder. Only since the rise in mass apathy has this been allowed to happen. The fact is that we wouldn't have the society we have right now if it were not for the evolution of our politics. We would still be living in a largely feudal society. So perhaps it might be a more useful use of time to try to find ways to salvage the "Democratic" system, if that's at all possible, than devote energy to getting rid of the monarchy, which for a good couple of hundred years hasn't actually had much effect on what Britain or its Politicians do in the world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExpandMyMind Posted January 22, 2013 #28 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Is that solely attritutable to having a Monarchy? The histories of numerous countries after they (often forcibly) got rid of Monarchies wouldn't sem to suggest so. Otherwise, is britain's Horrible History germane to the question of Monarchy at all? It's not solely attributable, no, but they were more often than not started by similar dictatorships, or monarchies, with governments merely carrying the torch afterwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExpandMyMind Posted January 22, 2013 #29 Share Posted January 22, 2013 So perhaps it might be a more useful use of time to try to find ways to salvage the "Democratic" system, if that's at all possible, than devote energy to getting rid of the monarchy, which for a good couple of hundred years hasn't actually had much effect on what Britain or its Politicians do in the world? Of course, but just because we go after one, does not mean the other should be ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ealdwita Posted January 22, 2013 #30 Share Posted January 22, 2013 I'm not going to get entangled in this Charles I v Cromwell argument because it's pointless, and most people on here are aware of my views, so allow me to return briefly to topic. Traditionally, the title 'Princess of Wales' was usually conferred automatically upon the wife of the Prince of Wales. Therefore, technically, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall is the present Princess of Wales but doesn't use the title out of respect for the late Diana. Including Camilla, there have been 10 Princesses of Wales dating from Joan of Kent (1367). Another snippet - with the exception of Mary Tudor, no Princess of Wales has been a princess in her own right, so all these digs about Kate's ancestry matters not one jot. OK, back to the English Civil War..........have we got to Marston Moor yet? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffey Posted January 22, 2013 #31 Share Posted January 22, 2013 (edited) Because Britain is a constitutional monarchy. That's rubbish and you know it. We pay our taxes to a Central bank. That bank owns the UK. It controls our money. We then have an idiotic government who "runs" the country. Always between a few chosen rich boys who don't know anything about being "British". Where does the Royal family come into our messed up system? I'd rather have a monarch as Head of State than a second-rate politician like Cameron, Clegg, Miliband or Obama. And I'm sure most Britons will agree with me. Do they really? Then why do these second rate politicians get voted into power and why do they run our country then? You will find if you come out of your bubble world you would see that most Brits don't care about the Monarchy at all. They only use them as an excuse to have a day of work and get wasted. Do they ACTUALLY look inbred or are you just seeing things? I'd bet on the latter. 100% look it. A lot of rich people look inbred, because they where. Their descendants wanted to keep a strong blood line. (ironically) So just because her parents worked hard in good jobs and made a lot of money to be able to afford to give their daughters a good education makes them royals, does it? Not the point at all, and you have no evidence that they where not born into riches dating back to a corrupt person. But as I said not the point, my point was the media and the royal fmaily etc making out that Kate was common as though Will was marrying someone "normal". It was a load of rubbish. It's a pity for you that hardly anyone in Britain agrees with you. Give me a King or Queen as Head of State rather than some politician anyday of the week, thank you very much. HAHAHAHA, but they don't do anything, certainly for you. I ahte the politicians just as much, probably more than you. But they run our country not the royal family, which means the royal family do nothing for our country. I've got nothing against the Royals, the Queen (and Wills once he gets the job, I'm sure) are infinitely preferable to a power-hungry Politician or an incompetent bumbler like the present and the previous Prime Minister, but all this dickering about medieval titles and so on is all a bit of an irrelevance, isn't it. And all this nonsense about whether or not it should be illegal for a Catholic to be on the throne. These may have been importnat issues 300 years ago, but come on now. Rather like the Church of England, which just spends all its time bickering about whether women should be bishops. The Royal family are not running the country though. The politicians are. (Well the central bank is really, it owns Britain) Edited January 22, 2013 by Coffey 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rashore Posted January 22, 2013 #32 Share Posted January 22, 2013 I think it's nice that the tradition is getting up to speed as far as females are concerned. I also think it's pretty funny that a lot of U.S. folk do have a drop or few of royal or noble decent running in them. I've seen some estimates that up to half the population could probably trace back an ancestor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarakore Posted January 22, 2013 #33 Share Posted January 22, 2013 I approve of both the modern monarchy, their storied past, and their acceptance of progress. Yes, allow the girl to be Princess and one day Queen! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WoIverine Posted January 22, 2013 #34 Share Posted January 22, 2013 "I'm sorry Mario, but your princess is in another castle." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+OverSword Posted January 22, 2013 #35 Share Posted January 22, 2013 (edited) Please stop trying to impose 21st Century behaviour onto a 16th Century person. They were completely different times. This is not speaking ill of your monarchy by pointing out that Henry's behaviour was judged as less than moral by most of the world while he was still alive, so don't try to act like he wasn't a fairly evil and greedy individual. How many of your own ancestoral peasant countrymen did he have hanged for disagreening with what they perceived as him jeapordizing thier immortal souls just so he could groundlesly divorce his queen? Don't bother answering because his behaviour can't be justified considering he left no male hier. Edited January 22, 2013 by OverSword Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rashore Posted January 22, 2013 #36 Share Posted January 22, 2013 This is not speaking ill of your monarchy by pointing out that Henry's behaviour was judged as less than moral by most of the world while he was still alive, so don't try to act like he wasn't a fairly evil and greedy individual. How many of your own ancestoral peasant countrymen did he have hanged for disagreening with what they perceived as him jeapordizing thier immortal souls just so he could groundlesly divorce his queen? Don't bother answering because his behaviour can't be justified considering he left no male hier. Um, Henry did leave a male heir, Edward the 6th. He was not king for very long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ealdwita Posted January 22, 2013 #37 Share Posted January 22, 2013 (edited) Don't bother answering because his behaviour can't be justified considering he left no male hier. So whose son was Edward VI then? (Beat me to it, Rashore) He reigned for 6 and a half years BTW Edited January 22, 2013 by ealdwita Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professor Buzzkill Posted January 22, 2013 #38 Share Posted January 22, 2013 As a part of the commonwealth, with the queen as my head of state, i would like to point out that the highest court in the land is the Privy Council. The Privy Council is separate from both the courts and parliament, and (in theory) is made up by people appointed by the reigning Monarch. In my country the Privy Council has overturned a few decisions by the high court and plays a valuable part in our system. Without a monarch there would be no Privy Council and we would have a worse form of democracy. I also believe that the Queen can be a rallying post in situations where the elected politicians do not obey the public (if that situation ever truely arrives). As the Queen has the final say in many aspects of government (albeit, this is now only "symbolic") she can effectively dissolve parliament and call the commonwealth to arms. I trust her to stand up for her subjects more than i trust politicians to stand up for their constituants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+OverSword Posted January 22, 2013 #39 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Um, Henry did leave a male heir, Edward the 6th. He was not king for very long. I stand corrected. And did he leave an hier or am I mistaken to note that it was a female child of Henry from who the current royal family is descended? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarakore Posted January 22, 2013 #40 Share Posted January 22, 2013 The Royal Family did so much for their country during WW2. They didn't run and hide in the country when their subjects were being bombarded. They served! Our modern leaders could learn a lot from the Royals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taun Posted January 22, 2013 #41 Share Posted January 22, 2013 "It should be noted that there have been far more Kings and Queens in history, than there have been Presidents or Prime Ministers - and the vast majority have been effective and beneficial rulers..." I wish I could remember who made that quote originally - I believe it was H. Beam Piper, but I'm not sure... Anyway i fully agree with it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rashore Posted January 22, 2013 #42 Share Posted January 22, 2013 I stand corrected. And did he leave an hier or am I mistaken to note that it was a female child of Henry from who the current royal family is descended? Nope, Edward had no children. Yep, there was a female child, Elizabeth. Nope, she is not the ancestor to the current royal family, she didn't have any children either. If I'm not mistaken, it was Henrys elder sisters son that took the throne after that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ealdwita Posted January 22, 2013 #43 Share Posted January 22, 2013 (edited) Nope, Edward had no children. Yep, there was a female child, Elizabeth. Nope, she is not the ancestor to the current royal family, she didn't have any children either. If I'm not mistaken, it was Henrys elder sisters son that took the throne after that. Elizabeth's successor was James IV of Scotland, the son of Mary Queen of Scots and her second husband (and first cousin), Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley. He became James I of England and his succession to the English Crown gave rise to the Union of the Crowns on 24th.March 1603. Both Mary and Darnley laid claim to the succession by virtue of their descent from Henry VII through Margaret Tudor (as rashore says - Henry VIII's elder sister). Edited January 22, 2013 by ealdwita 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rashore Posted January 22, 2013 #44 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Elizabeth's successor was James IV of Scotland, the son of Mary Queen of Scots and her second husband Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley. He became James I of England and his succession to the English Crown gave rise to the Union of the Crowns on 24th.March 1603. Both Mary and Darnley laid claim to the succession by virtue of their descent from Henry VI (Great Grandfather) Whoops, I stand corrected. I'm pretty good with the Henry into Elizabeth, but apparently I had a serious brain fart after that. I wasn't recalling my history too well when I typed. Thank you ealdwita As always, you know this information hands down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLastLazyGun Posted January 23, 2013 #45 Share Posted January 23, 2013 (edited) That's rubbish and you know it. Is it? I always thought Britain was a constitutional monarchy. Do they really? Yep. Republicanism is almost non-existent in Britain because most Britons don't want a republic. Then why do these second rate politicians get voted into power and why do they run our country then? The monarch is our Head of State, not any of those politicians. I would rather have a monarch as Head of State than a politician. You will find if you come out of your bubble world you would see that most Brits don't care about the Monarchy at all. The vast majotity of Britons want Britain to remain a constitutional monarchy. They don't want a republic. You republicans are a rare breed and you are going to have your work cut out in transforming Britain into a republic. It isn't going to happen any time soon. In fact, I'll wager £1000 that it won't happen any time this century. 100% look it. No, they don't. A lot of rich people look inbred No, they don't. I would say inbreeding is more rife amongst the poor and the chavs. and you have no evidence that they where not born into riches dating back to a corrupt person. I think you're a jealous, green-eyed lefty. You're one of those banging on about "the rich" as though working hard and making a lot of money for yourself and your family is wrong and that they must have got their hard-earned money through "corrupt" means. What a load of tosh. You are just a jealous, green-eyed lefty. Yet, despite your complaints about "the rich", we all know that you yourself would jump at the chance of being rich. You actually wouldn't mind being rich yourself. my point was the media and the royal fmaily etc making out that Kate was common as though Will was marrying someone "normal". It was a load of rubbish. How is it a load of rubbish that Kate is a commoner? Her mother is a former air stewardess and her father is a former flight attendant. Kate's maternal ancestors, the Harrisons, were working-class labourers and miners from Sunderland and County Durham. She could hardly be more common. But they run our country not the royal family The Queen is our Head of State, not Cameron. which means the royal family do nothing for our country. Rubbish. Prince Philip served in the Royal Navy during WWII. The Queen also saw military service in WWII, meaning she is the only Head of State today who saw active service during WWII. Prince Edward is a Falklands veteran. Prince William flies RAF Seak King helicopters and Prince Harry is a British Army Apache Helicopter co-pilot. And then there's all the charity work the royals do. Edited January 23, 2013 by TheLastLazyGun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLastLazyGun Posted January 23, 2013 #46 Share Posted January 23, 2013 (edited) Henry's behaviour was judged as less than moral by most of the world while he was still alive Show your evidence for that. OverSword, on 22 January 2013 - 07:00 PM, said: How many of your own ancestoral peasant countrymen did he have hanged for disagreening with what they perceived as him jeapordizing thier immortal souls just so he could groundlesly divorce his queen? The amount of people that Henry supposedly executed for their religion pales into insignificance compared to the amount of Protestants that his Catholic daughter Mary burned at the stake in her short, fiver-year reign.. And Henry wanted to divorce Catherine of Aragon because she did not provide him with a male heir. That is, after all, why Henry married her. As I've pointed out, it was NORMAL for a medieval monarch to marry a monarch just to provide him with a male her. Medieval monarchs did not marry for love. Henry was normal in that respect. He was no different from most other monarchs of the time. Edited January 23, 2013 by TheLastLazyGun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLastLazyGun Posted January 23, 2013 #47 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Elizabeth's successor was James IV of Scotland Elizabeth's successor was James VI of Scotland. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coffey Posted January 23, 2013 #48 Share Posted January 23, 2013 (edited) The charity works is BS. It doesn't do anything. Applied for Princes trust when Is tarted out in my Dream career. Nothing. As for the rest of what you said it's all opinion. You don't sound like someone who knows much about the real world in the UK. As for calling me Republican. LOL I hate the government, I hate the corruption of the government. You completely missed my point. My point is that the Queen might be head of state, but she doesn't do anything with it. Which means there is no point here being there. Please enlighten us with what decisions she actually makes regarding Britain? As for Royals during wartime, they are all put in safe positions away from any Danger. If you class that as serving our country when others go without who did far more during WW2 then you need to take a long hard look at what you consider right and wrong. Also calling me green eyed etc is just stupid. I believe in everyone being born with equal rights and equal chance in life. That includes the position you can rise to with hard work and eduction. I'm not taking about myself, I care about others more. Would also like to point out thta I would NEVER be rich for one simple reason. I am not greedy enough. I would give too much to help others and give a lot to family and friends. Edited January 23, 2013 by Coffey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yamato Posted January 24, 2013 #49 Share Posted January 24, 2013 If the royal family did their genealogy homework and found every great great great great....great great great great grandkid of King whoever, the royal apartments would become littered with undesirables. Whether Kate has a drip of royal blood in her from 700 years ago or not, she was a commoner through and through, knowing nothing about keeping up appearances like a royal does, and so she had to be trained how to do so. It's all very proper, and ceremonious. And disturbing. "Meeting the Queen is a complicated thing. You have to curtsy, you can't extend a hand before she extends hers, you can't pick up food before she does, and you definitely, most certainly, never, ever are allowed to attempt to hug or kiss her. Which is why it caused quite the hilarious stir yesterday across the pond when Her Royal Highness half-embraced Michelle Obama. Nearly the entire nation simultaneously snarfed their English Breakfast. And then, the unthinkable happened: Michelle hugged her back. " http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2009/04/michelle_obama_partially_embra.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ealdwita Posted January 24, 2013 #50 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Elizabeth's successor was James VI of Scotland. Sorry, finger trouble. (That's my excuse, anyway!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now