Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

The Royal Family


H.H. Holmes
 Share

Recommended Posts

We have a monarchy purely in name there is no monarchy in reality just a figure head.

Fair enough, rather than a monarchy we have a figure head, I still don't see how that makes us "behind the times".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Space Commander Travis

    10

  • Karlis

    7

  • Coffey

    12

  • Flashbangwollap

    27

Fair enough, rather than a monarchy we have a figure head, I still don't see how that makes us "behind the times".

In terms of a fair voting system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But haven't we established that the Queen has very little actual control over anything?

Sorry, I'm just not quite following you here :blush:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But haven't we established that the Queen has very little actual control over anything?

Sorry, I'm just not quite following you here :blush:

We are subjects of the Queen no? We need to bring Britain out of the middle ages and up to date with a constitution imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are subjects of the Queen no? We need to bring Britain out of the middle ages and up to date with a constitution imo.

Found this; source

The British Constitution is unwritten in one single document, unlike the constitution in America or the proposed European Constitution, and as such, is referred to as an uncodified constitution in the sense that there is no single document that can be classed as Britain's constitution. The British Constitution can be found in a variety of documents. Supporters of our constitution believe that the current way allows for flexibility and change to occur without too many problems. Those who want a written constitution believe that it should be codified so that the public as a whole has access to it – as opposed to just constitutional experts who know where to look and how to interpret it.

Amendments to Britain’s unwritten constitution are made the same way – by a simply majority support in both Houses of Parliament to be followed by the Royal Assent.

The British Constitution comes from a variety of sources. The main ones are:

Statutes such as the Magna Carta of 1215 and the Act of Settlement of 1701.

Laws and Customs of Parliament; political conventions

Case law; constitutional matters decided in a court of law

Constitutional experts who have written on the subject such as Walter Bagehot and A.V Dicey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are subjects of the Queen no? We need to bring Britain out of the middle ages and up to date with a constitution imo.

Subjects of the Queen yes but only in name really. I still don't get how having a constitution suddenly means we're up to date with the rest of the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disagree if you wish, but Monarch has given Britain stable government for centuries. Care to show where I'm wrong?

Sorry you folks are amongst the many who hold a negative view of UK's Monarchy.

Well I disagree. How about you show us where we are wrong.

Stable Government? ...

~~~ ...

My opinion is the same as Flashbangwollap's so I won't repeat it. I do want to know how you disagree with the opinion we have said though. If anything our Monachy makes us look snobbish and behind the times separating us from other countries even more. How is that unity? ...

I hope the following excerpts help to put Britain's past into better perspective than your presently low opinions.

Flash and Coffey, if you know of any nation without a history of conflict and drama, please let us know. I'm of the opinion that Britain's history has been stable mainly due to its form of governance, and its long-standing, stable Monarchy. As to Britain's Monarchy and "snobbery" and "behind the times" compared to other nations -- feel free to hold that opinion. :)

Britain is world's 7th most stable and prosperous nation.

The United Kingdom has been ranked as one of the most stable and prosperous countries in the world, beating the United States, France and even Switzerland in a global assessment of every nation's achievements and standards.

A one-year investigation and analysis of 235 countries and dependent territories has put the UK joint seventh in the premier league of nations. The top ten comprise also the Vatican, Sweden, Luxembourg, Monaco, Gibraltar, San Marino, Liechtenstein, the Netherlands and the Irish Republic.

The US lies 22nd and Switzerland, normally associated with wealth and untouchable stability, is rated 17th, losing points in the assessment of its social achievements. Source

Stable government, within a flexible and evolving constitutional framework, has been the hallmark of the British system since the end of the 17th century. Alone of all major European countries ­ and of most other countries in other continents ­ the United Kingdom has been able, at least on the mainland of Great Britain, to avoid violent constitutional convulsions for three centuries. It is essential that any reform of the House of Lords should be consistent with this important tradition of stability. Source

Under the UK constitution, executive authority lies with the monarch. This authority is exercised only by, or on the advice of, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet.[3] The Cabinet members advise the monarch as members of the Privy Council. They also exercise power directly as leaders of the Government Departments.

The British Parliament utilises the Westminster System, a parliamentary democracy which remains to this day the most widely used system of politics in the world. Most nations that practice the Westminster System are Commonwealths or former Commonwealths of the Commonwealth of Nations Source

As concerns the Constitution of the UK; the following may be of interest:

The bedrock of the British constitution has traditionally been the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, according to which the statutes passed by Parliament are the UK's supreme and final source of law.[2] It follows that Parliament can change the constitution simply by passing new Acts of Parliament. There is some debate about whether this principle remains entirely valid today,[3] in part due to the UK's European Union membership.[4] Source

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry you folks are amongst the many who hold a negative view of UK's Monarchy.

I hope the following excerpts help to put Britain's past into better perspective than your presently low opinions.

Flash and Coffey, if you know of any nation without a history of conflict and drama, please let us know. I'm of the opinion that Britain's history has been stable mainly due to its form of governance, and its long-standing, stable Monarchy. As to Britain's Monarchy and "snobbery" and "behind the times" compared to other nations -- feel free to hold that opinion. :)

Britain is world's 7th most stable and prosperous nation.

The United Kingdom has been ranked as one of the most stable and prosperous countries in the world, beating the United States, France and even Switzerland in a global assessment of every nation's achievements and standards.

A one-year investigation and analysis of 235 countries and dependent territories has put the UK joint seventh in the premier league of nations. The top ten comprise also the Vatican, Sweden, Luxembourg, Monaco, Gibraltar, San Marino, Liechtenstein, the Netherlands and the Irish Republic.

The US lies 22nd and Switzerland, normally associated with wealth and untouchable stability, is rated 17th, losing points in the assessment of its social achievements. Source

Stable government, within a flexible and evolving constitutional framework, has been the hallmark of the British system since the end of the 17th century. Alone of all major European countries ­ and of most other countries in other continents ­ the United Kingdom has been able, at least on the mainland of Great Britain, to avoid violent constitutional convulsions for three centuries. It is essential that any reform of the House of Lords should be consistent with this important tradition of stability. Source

Under the UK constitution, executive authority lies with the monarch. This authority is exercised only by, or on the advice of, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet.[3] The Cabinet members advise the monarch as members of the Privy Council. They also exercise power directly as leaders of the Government Departments.

The British Parliament utilises the Westminster System, a parliamentary democracy which remains to this day the most widely used system of politics in the world. Most nations that practice the Westminster System are Commonwealths or former Commonwealths of the Commonwealth of Nations Source

As concerns the Constitution of the UK; the following may be of interest:

The bedrock of the British constitution has traditionally been the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, according to which the statutes passed by Parliament are the UK's supreme and final source of law.[2] It follows that Parliament can change the constitution simply by passing new Acts of Parliament. There is some debate about whether this principle remains entirely valid today,[3] in part due to the UK's European Union membership.[4] Source

Nothing there proves that the British Monarchy makes it stable. Britians stability comes from it's modern views and the modern culture which is sort of represented by our government, absolutely nothing to do with the Monarchy. (I say sort of as our government is made up of people who don't really understand what it is to be British, just like the Monarchy in that sense! lol)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing there proves that the British Monarchy makes it stable.

Maybe historians such as Walter Bagehot may convince you otherwise, Coffey. Read this reasonably short excerpt > at this link and if you have not lost interest by then, click on the link, Next at the end of that section for a slightly deeper insight. And just because this was written by a historian more than a century ago, does not make this information out of date. :tu:

Britians stability comes from it's modern views and the modern culture which is sort of represented by our government, absolutely nothing to do with the Monarchy. (I say sort of as our government is made up of people who don't really understand what it is to be British, just like the Monarchy in that sense! lol)

Yes, the bolded phrase sums up today's loss of contact with history. :hmm:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe historians such as Walter Bagehot may convince you otherwise, Coffey. Read this reasonably short excerpt > at this link and if you have not lost interest by then, click on the link, Next at the end of that section for a slightly deeper insight. And just because this was written by a historian more than a century ago, does not make this information out of date. :tu:

Yes, the bolded phrase sums up today's loss of contact with history. :hmm:

You are talking about a past, and look at what the Monarchy caused in the past.... The wars against Scotland and Ireland, "the crusades" is that stability?! The government controls the UK now NOT the Monarchy. They do nothing, my point was that the Monarchy DO NOT KNOW what being British is, they haven't lived a proper British live, they haven't been surrounded by PROPER British people, just rich people who make money from the British people. lol

Are you Australian or British and living in Australia?

Edited by Coffey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are subjects of the Queen no? We need to bring Britain out of the middle ages and up to date with a constitution imo.

Really? Wow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe historians such as Walter Bagehot may convince you otherwise, Coffey. Read this reasonably short excerpt > at this link and if you have not lost interest by then, click on the link, Next at the end of that section for a slightly deeper insight. And just because this was written by a historian more than a century ago, does not make this information out of date. :tu:

Yes, the bolded phrase sums up today's loss of contact with history. :hmm:

Today we have books written about people who are famous for appearing on television for a week or two. Sometimes those people are termed celebrities because they get in the news a lot. They have shallow books written about them by authors. It's the worst sort of unearned fame there is.

The same goes for those books you talk about for Royalty. The author is commissioned to write them in many cases. There isn't an author alive who would dare slag the Queen off too much since it would be banned from the shelves and lets face it he/she has to turn a penny.

Those authors are payed to portray the Queen in the best possibly way. But then I wouldn't expect you Karlis to see through this as you seem to be so blinded with all the nonsense that surrounds Royalty. They are no better than you or me. They deserve no more than you or me and yet they are given the whole gambit without lifting a finger.

No one in their right mind wants to relive history over and over??? I don't understand that point of view at all. Unless you would rather trot along to the local tithe and get your allowance of flour for the month.

Lets all doff our caps or curtsy when ever anyone who owns a big house walks by.

Edited by Flashbangwollap
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today we have books written about people who are famous for appearing on television for a week or two. Sometimes those people are termed celebrities because they get in the news a lot. They have shallow books written about them by authors. It's the worst sort of unearned fame there is.

That doesn't mean we should discount all books though does it...

The same goes for those books you talk about for Royalty. The author is commissioned to write them in many cases. There isn't an author alive who would dare slag the Queen off too much since it would be banned from the shelves and lets face it he/she has to turn a penny.

Those authors are payed to portray the Queen in the best possibly way. But then I wouldn't expect you Karlis to see through this as you seem to be so blinded with all the nonsense that surrounds Royalty. They are no better than you or me. They deserve no more than you or me and yet they are given the whole gambit without lifting a finger.

I'm sure you can find plenty of books that are slating the Queen

Down with the Crown

Bring Home the Revolution

There are just a few. Also authors do not HAVE to make millions off their books, one of my favourite authors (Philip K. Dick) barely earned enough to live on.

No one in their right mind wants to relive history over and over??? I don't understand that point of view at all. Unless you would rather trot along to the local tithe and get your allowance of flour for the month.

How are we reliving history? Maintaining something and keeping something that works does not mean we're going in circles. Reinventing the wheel won't improve anything...

Lets all doff our caps or curtsy when ever anyone who owns a big house walks by.

How did you get that from what Karlis said?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are talking about a past, and look at what the Monarchy caused in the past.... The wars against Scotland and Ireland, "the crusades" is that stability?! The government controls the UK now NOT the Monarchy. They do nothing, my point was that the Monarchy DO NOT KNOW what being British is, they haven't lived a proper British live, they haven't been surrounded by PROPER British people, just rich people who make money from the British people. lol

Are you Australian or British and living in Australia?

I wasn't aware that the monarchy were involved in instigation of the crusades, I thought that was more religious, do you happen to have any reading I could look into about that? :)

Saying that people who are rich are not properly British is a little much don't you think. Last time I checked living in poverty was not a requirement of citizenship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't aware that the monarchy were involved in instigation of the crusades, I thought that was more religious, do you happen to have any reading I could look into about that? :)

You are right in one way but all wars are to do with wealth and power in the end. The church at that time was immensely powerful and of course the church worked hand in glove with the Royalty of the time to promote the war. In fact isn't this where we get our Robin Hood stories from? The whole story is based on an analogy of the rich getting rich while the poor payed everything they had to the crown and church.

Edited by Flashbangwollap
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't aware that the monarchy were involved in instigation of the crusades, I thought that was more religious, do you happen to have any reading I could look into about that? :)

Saying that people who are rich are not properly British is a little much don't you think. Last time I checked living in poverty was not a requirement of citizenship.

Just look up the crusade or anything to do with Richard the Lion Heart. he was the King at the time and also fought in the crusade. He led many British men to their deaths for the cause of Religious enlightenment or whatever it was. perfect example of why 1 person cannot rule a country becuase that 1 person can be swayed easily by religion or their own gain/interests etc. If the King did not want to have the crusade he could have told the church he didn't want too. If you actually look into it they weren't much different from Nazi's.

I didn't say poor. I only outlined the rich. Anyone below rich would live a British live and now what it is to be British. People who are rich do not live in British communities and usually have a walled off house in the middle of nowhere. They have their own community. A huge example of this is the rich people who want Fox hunting.... YET the average British people don't want it it's cruel and horrible. Completely different views.

Edited by Coffey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually am a closet supporter of Queen Elizabeth II. :D Not sure about Charles and the other two, though. They'll have to prove themselves.

But yeah, I'm not a monarchist and never will be. People must govern themselves.

At least that's the idea that's been drilled into my head from infancy.

Edited by TheSpookyLlama
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today we have books written about people who are famous for appearing on television for a week or two. ~~~ ... ~~~

The same goes for those books you talk about for Royalty. ...

... No one in their right mind wants to relive history over and over??? I don't understand that point of view at all. ...

Do you think centuries of Britain's history are of no value in establishing reasons for the existence of the Monarchy? If so, I guess renowned historians such as Walter Bagehot have no meaning for you. I did copy an excerpt from his writings for Coffey, which you may or may not have bothered to read.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think centuries of Britain's history are of no value in establishing reasons for the existence of the Monarchy? If so, I guess renowned historians such as Walter Bagehot have no meaning for you. I did copy an excerpt from his writings for Coffey, which you may or may not have bothered to read.

History has only one value and that is to learn by it. But who ever does?

You are right I don't bother to read anything about the Royal Family I see enough tv time devoted to how and what they have been up to without wasting time and money on buying/reading books on the subject as-well. Apart of course from that which was compulsory at school.

Most of British history has been about robbing and warring with other nations and the Kings and Queens who supported those wars on either side weren't in it with a benevolent mind unless I was reading the wrong history.

They were in it for the money, land and power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

History has only one value and that is to learn by it. But who ever does?

You are right I don't bother to read anything about the Royal Family I see enough tv time devoted to how and what they have been up to without wasting time and money on buying/reading books on the subject as-well. Apart of course from that which was compulsory at school.

Most of British history has been about robbing and warring with other nations and the Kings and Queens who supported those wars on either side weren't in it with a benevolent mind unless I was reading the wrong history.

They were in it for the money, land and power.

Also the point about having an unwritten constitution is a bit of an own goal in my book since you haven't got something if it's not there!

The baloney they feed us about how our laws and so on are made is exactly that... Baloney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a Brit and in my opinion i'd rather have just a queen or king than any president or even PM. How anyone can think democracy has been good for this country is beyond me.For the past 60 years every government has messed things up. All we have to choose from are those ******s in labour or the toffs of the tories. (lib dems won't even exist after the next election).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just look up the crusade or anything to do with Richard the Lion Heart. he was the King at the time and also fought in the crusade. He led many British men to their deaths for the cause of Religious enlightenment or whatever it was. perfect example of why 1 person cannot rule a country becuase that 1 person can be swayed easily by religion or their own gain/interests etc. If the King did not want to have the crusade he could have told the church he didn't want too. If you actually look into it they weren't much different from Nazi's.

I didn't say poor. I only outlined the rich. Anyone below rich would live a British live and now what it is to be British. People who are rich do not live in British communities and usually have a walled off house in the middle of nowhere. They have their own community. A huge example of this is the rich people who want Fox hunting.... YET the average British people don't want it it's cruel and horrible. Completely different views.

The pope intigated the crusades. Richard took the cross with his relative the king of france to restore freedom to the christian populations of the region. Who by the way were there before the arrival of the arabs. Comparing crusaders to nazis is ridicuolous and ignorant to the extreme. Its one of my hates that people condemn the crusades as genocidal campaigns. The first three were wars to liberate and restore lands lost to the christians. The christian byzantine empire controlled the holy land before the arrival of the arabic hoardes, they appealed for help to the pope to save their quickly diminishing territory. To me it sounds more like a persecuted people crying out for help and the west responded with arms, something we see a lot in this day and age. Anyway rant over...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we're still seething with fury about how much public money is spent on these unproductive spongers, I'd suggest you take a look at the whole business of local government. There's something that's no more democratic than the Royals (we may, supposedly, be able to vote for councillors, but does anyone really know, or care, who they're voting for and why, if they ever actually do, beyond the tired old party loyalties ("Well, I always vote labour")?), and the amount they waste is absolutely phenomenal; Executives' salaries, pointless ego-prestige projects, and layers, and layers, and layers of Administrative Personnel and Officers in their Offices. - and then, of course, all you ever hear from them is the constant bleat that "We are facing a Budget Crisis. We will have to make Tough Decisions (i.e. Cuts), because they (i.e. the Government) Won't Give Us Enough Money." Says the Chief Executive, with his Performance-Related Bonus in his pocket.

That, I'd respectfully suggest, is somewhere that one could productively start with if one was really angry about public money being wasted on unproductvie things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

History has only one value and that is to learn by it. But who ever does?

You are right I don't bother to read anything about the Royal Family I see enough tv time devoted to how and what they have been up to without wasting time and money on buying/reading books on the subject as-well. Apart of course from that which was compulsory at school.

Most of British history has been about robbing and warring with other nations and the Kings and Queens who supported those wars on either side weren't in it with a benevolent mind unless I was reading the wrong history.

They were in it for the money, land and power.

Riiight. And that differs from Democracies and Republics how, exactly....? Bearing in mind that pretty much every country, up until about the 18th c., was a Monarchy of some form or other, and the Republics and Democracies that have flourished since then, have they all been noted for their peaceful outlook and non-intervention in the affairs of others ... ?

And going back to the original Democracy, Athens, and the Roman Republic before it became the Empire; were they noted for a time of constant peace and never any conflict with anyone else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.