[Mendeleev's Table]

(Original post by jo1692)
There is actually a difference. A citizen is a citizen of a state, a nation, a country. A subject is the subject i.e. servant of a monarch (see Concise Oxford English Dictionary subject 4. a member of a state owing allegiance to its monarch or supreme ruler). Being a subject also has connotations of being in some way submissive and servile, that the word 'citizen' does not.

As for being against the Queen equalling being against the UK I think that's a massive over-simplification. You can be supportive of the whole without approving of certain parts i.e. I like football, but don't like the hooligans so much, I like wine, but not the hangover, I like gravey, but not the lumps (sorry for crap examples, maybe someone else can think of better ones). In order for that to be the case, the Queen would have to equal the UK, and as many other parts make up the UK, that is obviously not true.

And what you presented is not an argument - you provide no evidence, just your own personal opinion and assertions. Everyone's entitled to that, but I'm not going to take it too seriously and neither will it convince me of anything.

My personal views on the monarchy are mixed and I don't think I'll go into them here.

Americans and frenchmen are no more free than we are. The citizen/subject argument is one of the worst republican arguments.

[MagicNMedicine]

I'm all for Her Majesty the Queen, she has given Royal Assent to all the bills passed by the New Labour government which opened our borders and made our country the multicultural multifaith society it is today.

If anybody opposes multiculturalism then IMO they are treasonous because they are opposing laws approved by Her Majesty the Queen.

[jo1692]

(Original post by Mendeleev's Table)
Americans and frenchmen are no more free than we are. The citizen/subject argument is one of the worst republican arguments.

I never said it was a good argument (and don't think it really constitutes an argument at all), as in Britain our subject status doesn't really make any difference because the Queen's role is all nominal and ceremonial anyway. I was just pointing out the difference between the two words.

[Mendeleev's Table]

(Original post by jo1692)
I never said it was a good argument (and don't think it really constitutes an argument at all), as in Britain our subject status doesn't really make any difference because the Queen's role is all nominal and ceremonial anyway. I was just pointing out the difference between the two words.

Of course there's a difference in literal meaning; they're two different words. However, I'm sure the person you replied to was talking in context, in which case, in the UK in 2012, there is practically no difference.

[Stiff Little Fingers]

(Original post by Dobermory)
Deportation for less serious cases.

Where to? Let's take British people against the monarchy - where're you sending them?

(Original post by Dobermory)
I have nothing against Republicans. They have a right to want to not a Queen. They can excersize that right by leaving and moving to a nation without a monarchy.

Kinda defeats the purpose of calling for a British Republic doesn't it?

[bugsuper]

Title is really all you need to assess the merits of this debate. "You're either with us, or you're against us." Splitting. False dichotomies. Eliminating all of the shades of grey; labeling any form of dissent as treason. These are the tactics of people who have no valid argument.

[Tahooper]

(Original post by sahajkaur)
'I am a citizen, I am not a subject'

You are a citizen of the UK, so your point is moot.

[Nacho King]

(Original post by Dobermory)
The Queen is a symbol of inspiration, a figure above the politics, who can unite the nation. The Queen is in a way the national mother. She is also a safeguard against corrupt Prime Ministers. In my view, actively opposing The Queen is arguably a form of treason, and should be treated as such. Long live The Queen!

If she is the safeguard against corrupt prime ministers then she obviously hasn't been doing her job for the last 60 years.

Also this is a poor argument, just because we are against the queen does not make us against the country, there is alot more to Britain than the Queen.

[jo1692]

(Original post by Mendeleev's Table)
Of course there's a difference in literal meaning; they're two different words. However, I'm sure the person you replied to was talking in context, in which case, in the UK in 2012, there is practically no difference.

No they didn't provide context actually. The original asserter of the citizen/subject difference just made one random, single statement:

(Original post by sahajkaur)
'I am a citizen, I am not a subject'

And then dobermory just made another single statement in reply:

(Original post by Dobermory)
It's an arbitrary distinction. There is no difference.

In the UK in 2012, I agree, there is very little real difference, but I think dobermory was wrong to ignore sahajkaur's distinction, in that he is not a subject because he does not wish to submit to a monarch. Anyway, it was just a brief remark, I don't want to turn into a long-winded argument.

[member963009]

(Original post by Tahooper)
You are a citizen of the UK, so your point is moot.

Kind of the point

[Mendeleev's Table]

(Original post by jo1692)
No they didn't provide context actually. The original asserter of the citizen/subject difference just made one random, single statement:



And then dobermory just made another single statement in reply:



In the UK in 2012, I agree, there is very little real difference, but I think dobermory was wrong to ignore sahajkaur's distinction, in that he is not a subject because he does not wish to submit to a monarch. Anyway, it was just a brief remark, I don't want to turn into a long-winded argument.

They replied to a post that was in context...

I don't see how somebody could think they were talking about definitions. I doubt it would significant to bring up.

[Tahooper]

(Original post by sahajkaur)
Kind of the point

So you were being sarcastic in your post I originally quoted?

[Beebumble]

I like having a monarchy *awaits lynching* but that's just stupid OP.

[The Patriot]

OP is clearly mental.

I'm 100% a republican, and so I am against the UK in the way that we have a monarchy.

OPs attempt to extend the dislike of the UK monarchy to a complete dislike of the whole nation is deeply flawed. Its not even threatening a good argument. You can object to one distinct factor of a nation without being against it in its entirety as the OP is trying to suggest.

Admittedly I have several other issues with the UK, but I am by no means against it in every way. There are some fantastic parts about Britain, and it is on the whole a better place to live than the majority of countries IMO.

[patrickinator]

(Original post by Steezy)

The Queen has achieved neither my pride, reverence or respect.

She may not have your pride, but why not your reverence or respect.

she has outlived your lifetime and is a beacon of hope, unity and great intelligence. She still continues to work tirelessly for her country even at the age of 86.

By the way I am anti-royalist. I just try to use logic instead of looking to emotion to inspire hatred among those who want to get rid of the Queen.

[The Socktor]

If you're against the Fürher, you're against Germany.

[Steezy]

(Original post by patrickinator)
She may not have your pride, but why not your reverence or respect.

she has outlived your lifetime and is a beacon of hope, unity and great intelligence. She still continues to work tirelessly for her country even at the age of 86.

By the way I am anti-royalist. I just try to use logic instead of looking to emotion to inspire hatred among those who want to get rid of the Queen.

Contradiction.

Also, 'outliving my lifetime' isn't an achievement or respectful... She's just older than me.

For her salary she has worked very little. There are people who have and are working much harder for probably less than 1% of her annual salary.

Things that envoke pride, reverence and respect are things like - passing my exams, hearing someone play an instrument and hearing a story of somebody protecting another being (animal or person).

Being what is essentially a poster child for an empire and going travelling around your own 'kingdom' doesn't envoke any of these feelings in me, no matter how the majority of the population feel.

[Mendeleev's Table]

(Original post by Steezy)
Contradiction.

Also, 'outliving my lifetime' isn't an achievement or respectful... She's just older than me.

For her salary she has worked very little. There are people who have and are working much harder for probably less than 1% of her annual salary.

Things that envoke pride, reverence and respect are things like - passing my exams, hearing someone play an instrument and hearing a story of somebody protecting another being (animal or person).

Being what is essentially a poster child for an empire and going travelling around your own 'kingdom' doesn't envoke any of these feelings in me, no matter how the majority of the population feel.

The Queen has no salary, so from which crevice of your body did you get that statistic?

[Steezy]

(Original post by Mendeleev's Table)
The Queen has no salary, so from which crevice of your body did you get that statistic?

Salary was perhaps the wrong word. But I assume she lives off more than say a coal miner? Even if she doesn't receive a payslip.

[PointyElbow]

I agree with OP. She's 86 yet she continues to travel and act as the best ambassador we have. If that doesn't earn your respect, I don't know what will.