Monarchy

[wagnerr]

buzzz said:

Hey, if you think the British monarchy is embarassing, you should come over here and look at our head of state.

I see no problem with the monarchy- it's not as if they have any real power. If you abolished the monarchy, what then? Would you have a President elected by Parliament, which would have the same (non) powers as the Monarch? What's the difference?

I've always sort of liked Elizabeth- she seems like she doesn't take any crap. Although Charles seems like a twit. William will make in interesting King.

Yeah, people seem to have high hopes for Willy. He would be William V, correct?

Hehehehe, my mom hates Charles. She thinks he had something to do with Diana's death.

Hell, who knows? Maybe Charles will die before Elizabeth does. It's happened before.

Anyway, i'm simply curious about the main sources of wealth the UK has nowadays. I can't seem to find too much on current British economics over here. Also, how does the EU fit into the whole British system? When i was over there, they still used the English system of measurement and English currency. I didn't see much influence from the EU.

Ireland, yes. UK, no.

[Buzzz]

Does the UK even need the EU? I'm surprised huge powers like Germany and France are involved in it as much as they are.

By the way, when (if?) Charles becomes king, he's taking the name George VII to honor his grandfather.

[Tal]

I'm not sure what you're getting at regarding the British economy, Russ. Like most western economies it relies on exporting services and manufactured goods and importing raw materials and manufactured goods, especially within Europe, where there are no trading tariffs.

Regarding systems of measurements, we use a mixture of systems. Metric is most common, though and is used throughout Europe. Yes we still use Pounds Sterling instead of Euros, but I doubt it'll be for much longer.

Considering what some people suggest, the Euro could well replace the Dollar as the major world currency it would be foolish for Britain to remain outside of 'Eurozone' for much longer.

I'm not sure what Europe's got to do with the monarchy though lol

[Richard Cunningham]

Why not replace the royal family with mannequins or wax statues?

They'd do just as much as the real royal family, but they would be cheaper and far more interesting.

How inbred are the royals now anyway? How many toes do they have?

[Samantha]

buzzz said:

Does the UK even need the EU? I'm surprised huge powers like Germany and France are involved in it as much as they are.

What do you mean by need Buzzz?

richardcunningham said:

Why not replace the royal family with mannequins or wax statues?

They'd do just as much as the real royal family, but they would be cheaper and far more interesting.

I think we should have a lottery where a random family from anywhere in the commonwealth takes over for a year or two. I'd make a great queen king!! ;D ;D ;D

[gSteve]

I don't think the head of state should be there just because of what family they are from , i would like to see a proper elected head of state, it is undemocratic even if they have no power. The only problem would be a complete moron being elected as president, but you could get that from the Royal family anyway. They could still be there and attract tourists even if they we were not a monarchy.

Despite that if the monarchy was abolished I may end up wishing we could go back to them, afterall at least they appear neutral and are just a figurehead a political head of state might not end up being better.

[wonkothesane]

Get a privalidged life because you happen to pop out a privalidged orrafice at birth- kinda scary system of government even if they have no real power (although the queen has to declare war and a few other things) they get some pretty good houses and bodyguards out of it

The EU was set up to make sure that there where no more war on continental Europe and that if there was one the member state could band together and there would be no food shortages, it's turned into a strange monster since then- mainly concerned about selling stuff with some good social reforms and some bad ones! Britian, Germany and France seem to get big markets and supposed influence over other countries without actually having to envade them! We just get their money, but that's going to end soon. But then there was that and the whole Yugoslav episode and the minor war between greece and turkey over cyprus in the 70's- ah well they were nonmembers at the time so who gives a shit!!!!

I have to be somewhat grateful to them this country would still be run by the church if it wasn't for the EU- kinda sad we can't sort out our own problems. It is also weird that there are so many Monarchies in the Eu member states!

EU Diplomats vs Monarchy in a political deathmatch, which side would bore each other to death?

[Buzzz]

steven said:

The only problem would be a complete moron being elected as president

Oh come on, how often could that possibly happen?

[lowselfesteem]

Hopefully a few of the senior royals will die or abdicate in the next few years and Princess Beatrice comes to the throne.

[Paulinus]

lowselfesteem said:

Hopefully a few of the senior royals will die or abdicate in the next few years and Princess Beatrice comes to the throne.

Then we'd have a Queen Bea ;D

[wagnerr]

paulthequiet said:

lowselfesteem said:

Hopefully a few of the senior royals will die or abdicate in the next few years and Princess Beatrice comes to the throne.

Then we'd have a Queen Bea ;D

Hehehehe, that would be cool to see that.

The EU was set up to make sure that there where no more war on continental Europe and that if there was one the member state could band together and there would be no food shortages, it's turned into a strange monster since then- mainly concerned about selling stuff with some good social reforms and some bad ones! Britian, Germany and France seem to get big markets and supposed influence over other countries without actually having to envade them! We just get their money, but that's going to end soon. But then there was that and the whole Yugoslav episode and the minor war between greece and turkey over cyprus in the 70's- ah well they were nonmembers at the time so who gives a shit!!!!

I don't see how war can be avoided in Eurasia forever; that seems like a dream, and unattainable one too.

They said the same thing about the US too. The Constitution was written to be as much of a unifying force as anything else. Woohoo, look at what happened later; Civil War comes and we fight and kill each other by the hundreds of thousands.

It seems that the EU will have to do more than just implement social reform to bridge the gaps between many of its member countries right now. Isn't there a big religious brawl occurring between the older members and the newer Catholic ones, like Poland for example? I read something about that a while back.

Certainly throwing money around is a good way to get people to like you as an organization. The breakdown of economic barriers sounds like a real good idea, in the end. Commerce will flow more easily and everyone will benefit.

I just hope the EU can continue to be beneficial, and not turn into an oppressive system. This kind of thing has happend before.

[wagnerr]

Why is a President faceless but a Prime Minister not as you say the monarchy has no power over anything so it'll still be a politician whatever the title. Can't see why just because you have no tradition doesn't make you faceless there are lots more important things people should have. Going back through the history of the country I like to look at the people that have shaped the country they make me proud I'd rather celebrate them you don't need to be a figure head and that's the kind of tradition I'd like to keep and it should be why people want to come visit here but for those who want they can still visit the palaces and such.

I think the idea is to have good traditions, and follow them because they are beneficial and geared toward positive directions. Following a tradition because it is simply old and 'always done' doesn't make much sense to me either. But then i am also not old either, so i'm not inclined to blindly follow tradition.

The British monarchy as it stands today seems to me as a measure of a lasting compromise between the liberal revolutionary forces of some three centuries before and the more conservative traditionaries. Parliament itself seems to symbolize this.

From what i've studied of British history, it seems that the British have a long distrust of pure democratic traditions. Certainly the past violence on the continent would make anyone uneasy; democratic reforms came at great sacrifices, costing thousands of lives, often innocent, and economically destructive in the end. So maybe the British were hesitant to throw themselves into a pure democratic society after seeing so much violent potential.

So, the Parlaiment and local govts gradually become more representative, but always with a throwback position. Should the Parlaiment and govt become dysfunctional, there always was the monarch to fall back on, to call for a new functionary to govern.

So even though the monarchy has no effective power, they are almost there for reserve purposes, in case the current central govt ever becomes dysfunctional.

That's just my own personal, foriegner's view on British history and politics, hehehe.

[Tal]

wagnerr said:

Why is a President faceless but a Prime Minister not as you say the monarchy has no power over anything so it'll still be a politician whatever the title. Can't see why just because you have no tradition doesn't make you faceless there are lots more important things people should have. Going back through the history of the country I like to look at the people that have shaped the country they make me proud I'd rather celebrate them you don't need to be a figure head and that's the kind of tradition I'd like to keep and it should be why people want to come visit here but for those who want they can still visit the palaces and such.

I think the idea is to have good traditions, and follow them because they are beneficial and geared toward positive directions. Following a tradition because it is simply old and 'always done' doesn't make much sense to me either. But then i am also not old either, so i'm not inclined to blindly follow tradition.

The British monarchy as it stands today seems to me as a measure of a lasting compromise between the liberal revolutionary forces of some three centuries before and the more conservative traditionaries. Parliament itself seems to symbolize this.

From what i've studied of British history, it seems that the British have a long distrust of pure democratic traditions. Certainly the past violence on the continent would make anyone uneasy; democratic reforms came at great sacrifices, costing thousands of lives, often innocent, and economically destructive in the end. So maybe the British were hesitant to throw themselves into a pure democratic society after seeing so much violent potential.

So, the Parlaiment and local govts gradually become more representative, but always with a throwback position. Should the Parlaiment and govt become dysfunctional, there always was the monarch to fall back on, to call for a new functionary to govern.

So even though the monarchy has no effective power, they are almost there for reserve purposes, in case the current central govt ever becomes dysfunctional.

That's just my own personal, foriegner's view on British history and politics, hehehe.

In some ways I agree with Russ there. Britain certainly hasn't embraced democratic institutions to the extent the US or France have. However, although more power is centralised and fewer offices are open for election than in the US, I don't think as a nation it's any less liberal.

Democracy really isn't in how many officials you can vote for, or how many traditional forms of hierarchy you've abolished. It's in the culture and attitude of a society. Britain is a very tolerant and free society, certainly more politically tolerant and diverse than the US and perhaps more religiously tolerant and diverse too, despite having a national church and 'Christian' monarch.

The mistake made by left-wing ideologies over the last century or two was to dismiss tradition as contrary to democracy and freedom. This is totally the wrong approach IMO. Tradition is like a glue that holds society together. I don't think you'll find a society in the world that doesn't have traditions.

The key is to 'traditionalise' the traditions - to make them a part of culture and heritage rather than politics and religion. It's to be able to move society forwards, whilst maintaining links with the past and common ancestoral roots.

So I'm perfectly able to respect both Marx and Burke at the same time.