Monarchy or Republic?

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Same old simplistic rants coming out i see "they do nothing" and "they cost us money"

It always seems to be those in a certain area of the country that come out with the "they do nothing for us but cost us money rant ". I have my own feelings on who is using more of the country's money and does nothing in return and its nothing like in bread

---------- Post added at 15:30 ---------- Previous post was at 15:26 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

When there are Royal events, big or small(eg wedding or hospital visit), it makes it a special and memorable day for a number of ordinary people. Why deny them that harmless and peaceful enjoyment?

Dont tell the unions or the students

Originally Posted by Sparkle

----------

Looking at the voting results, I had no idea the CF was such a hot-bed of Royalists.

More a case of being pragmatic I suspect.The fuss and cost of changing a system that isn't actually broken outweighs the benefits.

Plus if one were to ask the likes of the Punks from the 70s if they want to be rid of the Queen now, when they have become establishment themselves and I suspect the answer would be a resounding no.

Realistically, what would be the difference?

Originally Posted by Tuftus

Realistically, what would be the difference?

Exactly my point earlier in the thread i can see no advantage to changing to a republic .
Republics like America have never had a King or Queen ,France chopped the head of theirs as did we 300 yrs ago but our fledgling government couldn't decide how to run the country(sounds familiar) so they bought ours back

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by Tuftus

Realistically, what would be the difference?

From what read on the page I linked to, not much. They just want someone elcted rather than not.

Originally Posted by carlwaring

From what read on the page I linked to, not much. They just want someone elcted rather than not.

In other words they want the equivalent of a coronation every 5 years.

Originally Posted by carlwaring

From what read on the page I linked to, not much. They just want someone elcted rather than not.

which we have know ,i know that technically the queen is head of government but in reality it is the prime minister with the power and then only as far as his ministers allow it .Personally i think it is easier to get rid of our prime minister than it would be for the Americans to get rid of Obama even though they are both elected leaders

The Queen isn't the Head of Government. She is the Head of State. David Cameron is Prime Minister of her Government and he is the head of it, even if technically it belongs to her. He runs it in her name.

There are now next to no powers that the Monarch exercises without reference to the Government. Almost all of the things the Queen decides, she does so after advice from her ministers. And most of the Royal prerogatives are exercised by the Government with little consultation (if any) with the Palace.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Many years ago, in my student days, I would have voted "Republic". Now? I've voted "Monarchy".

I agree with Chris' comments regarding it being better than the alternatives (an executive President or a ceremonial figurehead President), and tbh I quite like the Queen (not particularly keen on the rest, though).

Its just a shame they are to closely related to Germans . At least Phillip diluted it a bit with his Greek blood and Diana a bit more

[Tezcatlipoca]

Although George I was German, he was the great-grandson of James VI of Scotland and I of England.

The Queen's ancestry can be traced back directly all the way to William the Conqueror.

She is also directly descended from various English and Scottish royal houses and also pre-Conquest Anglo-Saxon royals, plus of course is related to many European royal houses via Victoria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_...o_Elizabeth_II

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestry_of_Elizabeth_II


I don't consider her to be "German".

Fair do's.

Not all that fussed then.

Originally Posted by Matt D

Although George I was German, he was the great-grandson of James VI of Scotland and I of England.

The Queen's ancestry can be traced back directly all the way to William the Conqueror.

She is also directly descended from various English and Scottish royal houses and also pre-Conquest Anglo-Saxon royals, plus of course is related to many European royal houses via Victoria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_...o_Elizabeth_II

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestry_of_Elizabeth_II




I don't consider her to be "German".

William the Conquerer was French thats even worse lol lol

Of course they are only Windsors because they didnit want to sound foreign lol

I voted do not care and I dont tbh

Originally Posted by Zing

William the Conquerer was French thats even worse lol lol

Of course they are only Windsors because they didnit want to sound foreign lol

I voted do not care and I dont tbh

Actually William was Norman and they were originally Vikings.The whole world can be as snooty as it likes about it's origins but we are all pretty much mongrels and can trace our ancestry all the way back to Africa.

I care if only for the fact I can do without the damned upheaval that would result if we changed the status quo.Change for change sakes is pointless.

Originally Posted by Zing

William the Conquerer was French

William of Normandy was of Viking descent, but as Duke of Normandy he would have described himself as 'Norman'. Despite speaking a version of French he would probably have been quite insulted at being called a Frenchman. Normandy was not part of France in the 11th century.

---------- Post added at 21:59 ---------- Previous post was at 21:59 ----------

Beaten to it by Maggy ...