Purely political, Roundhead or Cavalier? ...royal bs wedding.

I would be a roundhead anti-monarchist.
I'm passionately against a constitutional monarchy form of government, I don't even think we even need a 'head of state' above Prime Minister and my ideal of an elected second chamber.
So who are all you royalists? We would have been fighting back in the day. Why do you support the Crown?

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Cromwell till I die !

a reply to: gortex
Haha got your back mate!

Republican to my bones.

I hate the institution, but I do like the Queen, Duke etc.
I think she has done pretty well all told.
You can't run a country based on hoping you are lucky enough for the good child to be born first.

a reply to: SprocketUK

Agreed.
And I'm with you on the queen, she's served the nation fair play, it is the institution of a constitutional monarchy I rebel against, not the human.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy


You, me and Tom Paine seem to be in total agreement

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
I would be a roundhead anti-monarchist.
I'm passionately against a constitutional monarchy form of government, I don't even think we even need a 'head of state' above Prime Minister and my ideal of an elected second chamber.
So who are all you royalists? We would have been fighting back in the day. Why do you support the Crown?

Because it is a major source of tourist revenue for the UK. The Royals and the big houses are the only reason to visit. It's certainly not for the weather or the hospitality. And without the tourist trade the UK would be a third world country. Look up the stats on how much the tourists bring into the UK. Then ask yourself why the tourists show up. You think everyone wants to see Stonehenge?

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Reptilian Kings Ready to Hatch another Tyrannical Egg Heir to the Despot Throne .

You should have heard how the tabloids were comparing Ivanka Trump to the new Royal bride.

a reply to: schuyler

LMAO you think the UK only gets it's scraps of bread from having a 'royal' family???
Would you have been a Cavalier then? LMFAO!!

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
I would be a roundhead anti-monarchist.
I'm passionately against a constitutional monarchy form of government, I don't even think we even need a 'head of state' above Prime Minister and my ideal of an elected second chamber.
So who are all you royalists? We would have been fighting back in the day. Why do you support the Crown?

Because it is a major source of tourist revenue for the UK. The Royals and the big houses are the only reason to visit. It's certainly not for the weather or the hospitality. And without the tourist trade the UK would be a third world country. Look up the stats on how much the tourists bring into the UK. Then ask yourself why the tourists show up. You think everyone wants to see Stonehenge?

I come for the royalty, I stay for the jellied eels.

Gutted, mods moved it, I was looking forward to some mudpit English civil war type arguments.

a reply to: schuyler

How many of those tourists actually see a royal ?
They turn up for the buildings and historic sights , changing of the guard and other traditions.

There are many sites around the country that are tourist magnets and they have no royalty involved but yet the tourists flock in.

Don't confuse London with Britain.

a reply to: schuyler
Have you only visited the UK to catch a glimpse of the Windsors?
EDIT
Do you support the Windsors?
EDIT
I support my family, the Windsors can go # themselves before mine.

I think that, more than the Royals alone per se, the fact that we have an institutional connective societal structure based on the interweaving of monarchy, church, military, academia, justice & the guilds, and the fact that these six in connection provide the scaffolding around which our political structures are enmeshed, the resultant seven in turn are the fabric upon which our communities & families are woven.

This actually makes nine principles of natural loyalty & deliberately chosen fealty, together crafting us as the most holistically robust nation globally in terms of innate intellectual, philosophical, ethical, familial & politically engaged, militarily willing collectivism, in turn generating tremendous 'soft power' potential, being influential both culturally & politically, with unspoken (& some written) formalism in our unbidden, gladly willing adherence to our collective moral duty, our fidelity in acts which impact on others, in terms of our strong preference for 'fair play' rather than individual success at the expense of others (that is, in the majority - there's always bad apples).

Our determination to succeed no matter what, and our willingness to stick together & act according to Christian principles when we are challenged as a nation, give us every reason to preserve the established order, in the sure & true hope of progressive, incremental societal improvements which are organically grown upon the trellis of that sense of order, community & temerity.

Anarchy under the banner of a revolutionary who I agree was, at the time, necessary, to remove corrupt influence & establish a better model, is NOT the same as making shallow observations of our society hundreds of years later, ignoring all the good that has developed in the interim, and then calling out loudly to promote your own alleged revolutionary awesomeness in the eyes of your comrades, many of whom likely know even less than you about the value of our modern society. The world has moved on, so pandering to infantile virtue signalling just makes you look unenlightened.

The system's not perfect, but it's improved in general in a remarkably predictable manner since the Elizabethan era - there's certainly no need for revolution in 2018, only education & participation, leading to greater collective control over those who would rule over us, whether in a politically sound manner or otherwise. Yes, I thoroughly oppose the existing imbalances in certain aspects of the social hierarchy, pattern & functionality. But I perceive that only anarchy can result from ripping out the CULTURAL BACKBONE of a nation - particularly one which is saturated with genuine virtue derived from many hundreds of years of mutually protective, extremely positive philosophical, theological, ethical, legal, moral, academic, mercantile, community & familial engagement with the established order, leading to some of the best opportunities in the world, for those willing to work for it. Continual, incremental improvements are all that is needed currently. Most of us hope to stave off a New World Order-type situation, and equally hope that we will collectively stand together against any such initiative to steamroll the individual spirit of the nation we have built. There are some gross injustices unfolding because of Tory austerity - clearly arising from service to those selfish hoarders who suck as much money as they can from the lower social classes. That needs to change, but the rich are almost invariably cruel, so robust strategy is needed to enforce a more level playing field. And that will take a long number of years of very hard work.

However, calling for revolution when our living standards are some of the best in the world (though I hold Norway in high esteem for a great many reasons) is juvenile. The revolutionary spirit is all well & good until the main breadwinner becomes ill or is disabled by an accident - that's when you thank God for the support, both medical & social, that actually exists here in the UK. in most parts of the world the cripple becomes an outcast & begs in the street for assistance; the family is fragmented, they suffer just as much due to lost opportunity. The social injustice which is rampant even with our close friend, the USA, means that such terrible events are only a hair's breadth away from us, in terms of equivalent social policies, etc.

Each day is a gift, and we work at our duties, to make things better, one day at a time. Of course tyranny should be opposed with every fibre of one's being - but we're quite a way off from any such necessary, violent revolution as that which you seem to be referring to.

a reply to: schuyler

Yeah-tourism. Seen the castles-toured with an opera singer husband-they all start to look alike and it was pretty dreary to me but there are alot of Americans that love the old Britishisms. It's just traditional, romantic and nostalgic to many. But truth is, Great Britain isn't great anymore and the emperor has no clothes. I do believe this aristocracy/royalty is definitely fading with each generation though there will always be the diehard monarchist worshippers.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

Firstly, may I say thank you for the fantastically presented argument supporting the constitutional monarchy system of government here in the UK, but I massively disagree.
You speak of Christian values and I say religion has no business in my governance. You speak of 'cultural backbone' of the UK but I say that is a ridiculous romanticised idea which again has no place in my governance.
There is nothing you can say which can remotely justify the head of state of our country to be decided by accident of birth in a single family, nothing.
You know it yourself though, as does everyone else in the world, and you may make sly jabs that my attitude is 'juvenile' but it is perfectly mature, the head of state of the UK being decided by birthright is the single most offensive system of government to me right now.

I'm not calling for violent revolution, I'm calling for an end to the ridiculous, unfair, and undemocratic constitutional monarchy we have. I would however, in a civil war scenario, fight for parliament, not the crown.
You obviously would fight for the crown so we would of course cross swords.
I think it is juvenile to submit to a 'higher authority' solely based on the family the 'leader' was born in, and sadly there are still so many people like you around that the situation will probably not change in my lifetime. I can but hope.

At least if that revolution ever happens, you'll know I'll be your enemy...watch out for CornishCeltGuy.

a reply to: Justso

Agreed.
The UK makes more from financial services than it does from tourism, and even if it didn't, any argument that our head of state should remain decided by accident of birth in one family is outrageous at best.
It is a modern day shame in my opinion, and the queen, as lovely as she may be as a person, is not my queen.
We have tourists from all over the world in my parts, students learning English all year round, they aren't going to stop coming if the UK changed from a constitutional monarchy to a parliamentary democracy. Such an argument is ridiculous, but even if true I'd still support abolishing 'the crown'.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: gortex
Haha got your back mate!

Looks like I would backing you 2 up...

a reply to: schuyler

Sorry I couldn't edit as too late, but reading your post again are you really saying, as a freedom loving American, that I should accept a head of state decided by birthright in a particular family for tourism reasons???
Do you even realise how ridiculous and undemocratic that sounds?
Heck, your nation fought for freedom from 'the crown' and you don't support me in ambitions for democracy?
Come on, admit it, you're just trolling me yeah, you don't really support the British crown? Really?