It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Our Monarchy...Saying Goodbye?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   
So I'm guessing you've all heard the big news about the marriage between Charles and Camilla, it tickeled the part of my brain that thinks about Republicanism and Royalism (wierd brain i have
) but I was thinking, the next 10 years are going to be make or break for the Monarchy, people are getting fed up of their over spending and lack of insight into the people who they claim to lead. Don't get me wrong the Queen has been a brilliant monarch, but her children seem ignorant of their duty to the British people.

As I see it there are a few paths that may be taken:

1. Charles takes the throne and the people are grumpy about it, people don't really like Charles, he's out of touch and thinks way to much of himself.
This in my opinion will result in the downfall of the monarchy.

2. Charles decides he doesn't want to be King and hands the crown over to William, this will most likely be the make or break of the monarchy, if he rules with reform and honour then the monarchy will survive, but if he rules badly then i forsee us waving bye bye to the monarchy.

Thoughts?




posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 11:17 AM
link   
Isn't the british monarchy pretty much the way it is because they were thieves?

I mean if you think about it way back when they could take other people's property, they would tax high, they could claim anything thats yours.

Sounds like government, but how on earth did they get the title kind and queen in the first place?

How does one become a queen or king?



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Hey Wizard, you haven't been posting too much lately, been busy?

OK, my thoughts, here you go......

My reckoning is that when the Queen eventually dies there will be a huge amount of discussion about where this goes from then.

Charles will be hugely unpopular in the UK IMO and this Camilla business has just put the tin lid on that.

As for William? I can see that might be an option attractive to some who'd like to keep the show on the road but my bet is he is a rather 'damaged' character too (no thanks, in large part, to his dad and all of this).

My hope is that the UK would hurry up and grow up and do away with the whole thing but I think it will be a while yet before they finally go.
Maybe a more Euro-style smaller scaled and down to earth ceremonial monarchy will emerge first.

Personally I'd rather a President (with a level of 'power' on Euro lines rather than US lines) along with the current system of devolution along with a UK Parliament of various political parties and a PM. These would be operating within a proportional representation system (2 tiers of Parliament, keeping the House of Lords as part appointed and part elected to examine and revise the fully elected HOC's work) and moving towards a more co-operative colleagiate style of politics rather than our current class-based confrontational 'winner takes all' kind.

That answer enough for you Wizard mate?


[edit on 11-2-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueLies
How does one become a queen or king?


Now'er days you have to be in line for the throne.

A thousand years ago...kill those who oppose you



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Hey Wizard, you haven't been posting too much lately, been busy?


Quite busy (final year of school - upper sixthform), I've been on BTS mostly, you've scared me away from P@ATS



My reckoning is that when the Queen eventually dies there will be a huge amount of discussion about where this goes from then.


Its one of those issues that politcians don't like to talk about...wonder why



Charles will be hugely unpopular in the UK IMO and this Camilla business has just put the tin lid on that.


Like throwing a firework at a fire to put it out



Maybe a more Euro-style smaller scaled and down to earth ceremonial monarchy will emerge first.


Thats something I think the British people would favour as a compromise.


and moving towards a more co-operative colleagiate style of politics rather than our current class-based confrontational 'winner takes all' kind.


Thats something I'd be happy with, I'm fed up of parties simply bashing each other for the sake of it, they need to sit down and talk about the issues rather than making hollow promises.


That answer enough for you Wizard mate?


I guess so



posted on Feb, 12 2005 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Didn't you have another king that had to abdicate for marrying a American devorcee?

But now you have a Prince marrying his mistress, hey I have nothing against that, but will that take away Charles rights to the kindom and give it to his son?



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Sorry it's taken a while to answer marg, I thought someone else would give you their thoughts on this one.


Originally posted by marg6043
Didn't you have another king that had to abdicate for marrying a American devorcee?


- Ah yes marg but Mrs Simpson was a 3 time divorcee, in the 1930's, was American and claimed by some to have pro-fascist leanings as Europe was moving towards another big war with Germany.

The British establishment of the day (which included some very straight-laced commonwealth types) just wouldn't stand for it.


But now you have a Prince marrying his mistress, hey I have nothing against that, but will that take away Charles rights to the kindom and give it to his son?


- I suppose times move on (but just a bit - given the amount of hot air expended on the subject by our supposed 'opinion formers', 'leaders' and *cough* social 'betters' *cough* - for now we'll just leave them to their delusions - you might wonder).

The possibility is there that Charles could abdicate but there is nothing that can be done to force him to (unless some of the rumours are true and someone has the negatives!)



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Sorry it's taken a while to answer marg, I thought someone else would give you their thoughts on this one.



Thanks for the post, and yes I remember now Mrs. Simpson, lucky girl



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
My reckoning is that when the Queen eventually dies there will be a huge amount of discussion about where this goes from then.


apparently,
plans have already been made by whitehall republicans



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 06:17 AM
link   
The Monarchy is a traditional aspect of British life, but now its purpose is now due for a reform, as was mentioned earlier the Monarchy could do with becoming 'cut down' so it becomes a more ceremonial/diplomatic unit rather than its current size.



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
The Monarchy is a traditional aspect of British life, but now its purpose is now due for a reform, as was mentioned earlier the Monarchy could do with becoming 'cut down' so it becomes a more ceremonial/diplomatic unit rather than its current size.


it needs removing, if i had the power, i would it myself.
We dont need a "Queen" or "King". President would prove much better for our country.



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
it needs removing, if i had the power, i would it myself.
We dont need a "Queen" or "King". President would prove much better for our country.


I can see your side of the arguement, but i can also see the side of the arguement for the royalists.
I believe that retaining a massively cut down version of the Monarchy will help preserve a 'tradtional' aspect of british history and save on costs.
Maybe we could only fund those in direct line to the throne so something where the majority of those who have 'royal' blood have to make their own money or go cry to auntie 'queeny' for some cash.



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Reinstate the Stuarts, rightful heirs to throne. Their must be a pretender out there we can replace this german bunch with., And i think we need to keep the monarchy, even if just for the tourists.

Thats a pretty good funding idea UKW, would save alot of money.



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Marg - Actually, I heard that Edward VIII was forced to abdicate not because of the dear Mrs. Simpson (that was the pretext) but because he was taking too much of an active role... and admiring Hitler a bit too much.

What I find interesting is that Britain is one of the few European countries where the monarchy seems to be so much in question. The sovereigns of the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway and Spain seem to still be quite popular. I'm just curious as to why that is... insights?

I don't believe we've yet grown out of monarchy, even as a symbol. America is currently as dynastic as Britain is - in the past forty years, the public eye in America has been on the standard bearers of political dynasties, first the Kennedys and now the Bushes. And when you have some speculation as to whether Jeb will be the third Bush president in 2008, you can't deny that people are still reflexively attracted to dynastic continuity. Besides, all the symbolism in the trappings of the U.S. Presidency - the Inauguration balls, the Hail to the Chief hymn, etc - point to a ritual that signals an attachment to a national tradition personified in one man.

So my thought is that the British monarchy will continue for the sake of tradition, as a means of tying the British nation with its past. It's not necessarily bad. Elizabeth II has more insider information on government policies - she's seen Prime ministers come and go - than anyone else in the UK.

Besides... if she lives as long as her mother did, don't look for Charles to ascend the throne before he's in his seventies.



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Otts
I'm just curious as to why that is... insights?


Our Royals aren't benefitting us, many spend masses of money when they don't need to, eg helicopter flights because they don't want to use the train.
They've forgotten they are spending tax payer money, some need a good kick in the arse, many seem to think they are 'above' us commoners.


So my thought is that the British monarchy will continue for the sake of tradition,


It'll continue because all the major parties are afraid to make an enemy of the Monarchy, people would rally around the Monarchy (liz) if a threat to them was made politcailly.



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard

Our Royals aren't benefitting us, many spend masses of money when they don't need to, eg helicopter flights because they don't want to use the train.


Do you have any stats on how much the monarchy benefits the country in terms of income from tourism? I'd be pretty sure that it'd show that the income the country gets from having them is far more than their expenses.


Originally posted by UK Wizard

They've forgotten they are spending tax payer money


and you've forgotten that the royals actually are tax payers themselves.

The Royal Family is a proud tradition, they in no way impede or interfere with the diplomatic process - and they bring in an awful lot of money to our economy through tourism.



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by gareth_24
I'd be pretty sure that it'd show that the income the country gets from having them is far more than their expenses.


- Personally I don't buy this 'they bring in lots of money' arguement.
The preserved castles, palaces and general Crown history brings in the money - as it would continue to do so if the British Monarchy were abolished.

Many many thousands still flock to the palaces and castles in France, for instance, and they abolished their Monarchy long ago.


and you've forgotten that the royals actually are tax payers themselves.


- Whilst this is a matter of factual truth I doubt that the Royals ever come close to disclosing their entire income never mind pay anything like the same % as tax as the rest of us.

......and (seeing as they are a 'public institution') why not?


The Royal Family is a proud tradition,


- Naaaaa, I think the 'tradition' arguement is lame in the extreme.
(in any case most Royal so-called 'traditions' are actually nothing like as 'traditional' as they are intended to appear. George the 5th invented a lot of this guff in an attempt to give them relevance around WW1).


they in no way impede or interfere with the diplomatic process


- I guess this depends upon your point of view.
I'd say they underpin the UK's class system in a way few appreciate, they encourage a culture of unearned priviledge and 'absent landlord-ism' rife amongst the UK's ultra wealthy (old money and landed almost to a man).......not to mention that huge raft of priviledge unknown across to UK to most; the various 'Lord Lieutenants', privy councillors etc etc.

Not forgetting the central role they provide heading the - established - Church of England.

Or the role 'Royal assent' and perogative still has in the affairs of the British state.(.....ok, so they are pretty much rubber-stamps (now) but what if they weren't?)



and they bring in an awful lot of money to our economy through tourism.


- Well like I said gareth I don't think they make much difference to that at all.
IMO people would still go look at the castles, palaces and jewels whether there were still a Monarchy in the UK or not.

My own view is we should finally grow up, retire them all and elect a President (a Euro-style one not a US type) and keep our PM too.



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 06:25 PM
link   
On good job they are doing is appointing a house of lords, I mean come on there is no better full proof system where an act gets looked at twice by two diffrent boards...



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

- Personally I don't buy this 'they bring in lots of money' arguement.
The preserved castles, palaces and general Crown history brings in the money - as it would continue to do so if the British Monarchy were abolished.


quite possibly, but the royal family in this country is still greatly revered across the globe. I'll give you a small example. I live in a student house with (amongst others) a french girl - who had 2 friends visit her last week and on saturday they visited london. the first 2 questions they asked me about going to london were "when do they change the guard at buckingham palace?" and "will the queen be there/how will we know if she is?" true story.

admittedly its only a small example, and yes, people would still come if they werent around. but, in my mind, theres little doubt the attraction the royals offer foreigners.


Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

My own view is we should finally grow up, retire them all and elect a President (a Euro-style one not a US type) and keep our PM too.


but whats wrong with our political system? The system we have, by and large, works. The problem we have, as i've said before, is ineffective politicians in this country, which would be the same no matter how much you tinker with the system. If it ain't broke dont fix it.

The Queen in no way exorcises her political power, she is merely there to rubber stamp acts of parliament. She does not express any political opinions, bias, or suchlike.

And personally a love all the pomp and dignitry that goes with our monarchy. In 2002, at the Queens jubilee, seeing all those flags waving down the mall made me feel proud to be British for one of the first times in my life (usually I'm proud to be Welsh!).

It seems to me the only reason people don't like the monarchy is because they are born into wealth and power. Well, do you know what? I'm sure that they yearn for another life - it must be a sh*t job!!!



posted on Feb, 23 2005 @ 11:10 PM
link   
I think the big make or break for our monarchy will come when an Extremist party gets in.

Lets face it, these days, the UK Monarchy is a toursit attraction and a cermemonial thing. It serves little purpose.

Personally, im for scrapping it. Its a big cash cow, it absorbs money. If lots of people want to keep it, they should live on thr average UK wage, IMO. Why does that title entitle them to more money? They do little or nothing.

I think when the mojority of UK people vote more extreme left or right wing, it'll be decided. For those who don't know:
Right = Keep Monarchy
Left = Bin monarchy
In its base form.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join