Why isn&#x27;t the Queen clapping the D-Day veterans? WTF!?

Original post by Davij038

The point I make is that millions of aforementioned commies et al actually DIED fighting for their country and yet it seems the monarchy played a more important role according to some TSR users.

No, it played a different, equally important role. Why is this hard to understand?

Reply 82

Drewski

19

Original post by Davij038

The point I make is that millions of aforementioned commies et al actually DIED fighting for their country and yet it seems the monarchy played a more important role according to some TSR users.

Not at all. And I very much doubt anyone is implying that, I think you're simply reading your own bias into it. No-one is saying they were more important. All we're saying is they had their own role to play which was equally important. The Generals, Admirals and Air Marshals didn't go out and fight on the front lines, did they? Are you saying their input was any less than the Privates who stormed the beaches?

Reply 83

Original post by Drewski

Well argued :rolleyes:

[\quote]

The arguments not worth responding to. Of course the queen gets her money from the public (Aside from what she inherited)

It's what you'd get from any other head of state. That's the job.

Then the jobs worthless.

I'm against intervention but this pandering to despotic regimes sicken me.

Reply 84

[QUOTE="Davij038;48017818"]

Original post by Drewski

Well argued :rolleyes:

[\quote]

The arguments not worth responding to. Of course the queen gets her money from the public (Aside from what she inherited)

No, taxpayer's money is assigned to fulfilling the costs of the office of Head of State. By your logic, the President of Germany gets a €40 million salary!

Then the jobs worthless.

I'm against intervention but this pandering to despotic regimes sicken me.

No, you're assigning the Queen a job she's never had or was intended to have. That's Cameron's job.

Reply 85

zippity.doodah

3

Original post by gladders

Well you're free to express disagreement with it, but it's clear that it does not bother many others in the country that much. If you'd watched any of the State Opening this week by the way, you might have noticed a significant element of the ceremony which should remind you of how this country is actually run - the moment when the House of Commons slams its doors in the face of the Queen's representative.

slamming a door in a person's face doesn't have to mean that we shouldn't be allowed to elect a very serious political and legal (national) representative; I don't see how this would go out the door with the queen if the queen is simply a head of state and not a tyrant

Right now, they have no choice in the matter, because expressing disapproval of Kim would mean their death. Can you say the same of the UK?

they don't know that, though. do you really think they have announcements each day saying "remember, if you don't support kim, we'll come after you"? they've lived in that kind of system since the late 40s, it is firmly planted into their culture. they have no idea what it's like outside the "world" of north korea. they have no idea what democracy is or how it works.

Tearing down the undemocratic Juche regime and bringing in democracy. Why?

they wouldn't want that - it would shock the system in the same sense (relatively speaking) that our system would be shocked by a republican remodelling over night (although I think it would be more preferable I don't advocate doing it over night, without a debate and without a referendum etc)

Yeah, now you're sounding inflexible and ridiculous. The presence of those things in our national symbology is refreshing and unique. And it certainly has not prevented people asserting their rights and democratic demands to the government and the monarchy before. I'd rather retain it as an expression of our ability to become a democracy peacefully and gradually and successfully, and not go through a bloody, painful and horrific revolution like the French or the Russians did.

"refreshing and unique"? how? it's repetitive and other countries do it to. and only because we know for a fact that we'll be allowed politically but perhaps not "culturally" (which obviously is a completely different sphere of society) because of how it's been rooted into our culture and system for so long that it is almost untouchable in terms of outward criticism. especially in actual politics. and the queen has powers technically to stop this country (legally, perhaps "practically" is a different story but still in our country' law) from being a democracy so if anything it's a symbol of ever-lasting dictatorship-potentiality. and what about iceland and greece with their peaceful referenda?

And you compare that to us? Really? Oh good grief :rolleyes:

I **** you not they would be too scared and culturally anchored to the image of their dear leader

Reply 86

Original post by Drewski

Not at all. And I very much doubt anyone is implying that, I think you're simply reading your own bias into it. No-one is saying they were more important. All we're saying is they had their own role to play which was equally important. The Generals, Admirals and Air Marshals didn't go out and fight on the front lines, did they? Are you saying their input was any less than the Privates who stormed the beaches?

You and gladders have both said they played an EQUAL role in the war effort...I would say that the soldiers fighting was more important than the royaltys contribution.

As per the generals et al, if they had gone through the ranks by merit and not through privilege then yes they played an important part.

Reply 87

Original post by gladders

No, taxpayer's money is assigned to fulfilling the costs of the office of Head of State. By your logic, the President of Germany gets a €40 million salary!

No, you're assigning the Queen a job she's never had or was intended to have. That's Cameron's job.

For the first part do you have a reference, can't find anything to remotely support your claim.

If everything the queen does is dictated by Cameron then what's the point in having a head of state in the first place?

Reply 88

Original post by gladders

And you can be representative without being elected.
[\quote]

Yes but wouldn't you rather have a choice? Or do you just want to assume prince Charles knows you better than anyone else

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 89

Original post by zippity.doodah

slamming a door in a person's face doesn't have to mean that we shouldn't be allowed to elect a very serious political and legal (national) representative; I don't see how this would go out the door with the queen if the queen is simply a head of state and not a tyrant

She is not a tyrant. You are sounding ridiculous. Go look up the definition of a tyrant and come back to me with exactly how she is a tyrant.

they don't know that, though. do you really think they have announcements each day saying "remember, if you don't support kim, we'll come after you"? they've lived in that kind of system since the late 40s, it is firmly planted into their culture. they have no idea what it's like outside the "world" of north korea. they have no idea what democracy is or how it works.

Indeed they don't. But to compare that to the UK, where there is no such threat of death, is nonsense. The North Koreans don't need a loudspeaker warning them - they know it by the simple fact of family and friends being disappeared each day.

"refreshing and unique"? how? it's repetitive and other countries do it to.

Other countries do it but with less emphasis on the democratic element, I'd argue. And anyway, if other countries have these ceremonies, why do you single us out for 'cultural conditioning'?

and only because we know for a fact that we'll be allowed politically but perhaps not "culturally" (which obviously is a completely different sphere of society) because of how it's been rooted into our culture and system for so long that it is almost untouchable in terms of outward criticism.

Give over. There's tons of criticism of the monarchy, and the country is not 'culturally' prevented from doing what it likes. Given that we'd had several events in this country, such as killing a few kings and greatly curtailing their powers, it hasn't stopped our ancestors and it's insulting to claim that we are incapable of doing the same.

especially in actual politics. and the queen has powers technically to stop this country (legally, perhaps "practically" is a different story but still in our country' law) from being a democracy so if anything it's a symbol of ever-lasting dictatorship-potentiality.

Nope. The Queen is incapable of doing all sorts of things without the consent of Parliament. The most you could say, if the Queen began to rule directly, is that the country became a semi-presidential monarchy, but that's it. There's zero chance of dictatorship, and anyway, the Queen is prevented from doing so because she knows that Parliament's first move would be to legislate for a republic.

and what about iceland and greece with their peaceful referenda?

You mean those referenda that had nothing to do with monarchies and everything to do with major reforms of other kinds?

I **** you not they would be too scared and culturally anchored to the image of their dear leader

And we, here, in the UK, are too scared to question the monarchy, are we? Are you scared right now?

Reply 90

Original post by Davij038

For the first part do you have a reference, can't find anything to remotely support your claim.

How about this. It's a few years out of date and does not take into account the Sovereign Grant Act 2011, but the financial side is spot-on.

If everything the queen does is dictated by Cameron then what's the point in having a head of state in the first place?

Because he has to ask and demonstrate each time that what he's doing is constitutional. The Queen can ask questions, check that he's got his facts straight, and if she can offer helpful alternatives based on what previous PMs did. She's there to remind them that despite them being the elected leader of the country, they shouldn't let it go to their head and do stupid stuff; there is something there who has been there a lot longer than they.

In terms of legislation, the Royal Assent also serves as a kind of seal of assurance to demonstrate that the legislation has indeed gone through all the necessary stages of scrutiny and approval before being brought into force.

She also possesses certain powers (as I mentioned above) which it would be inappropriate for the Government or Parliament to possess. These are rarely used and would never be used while the country is democratically healthy.

Reply 91

zippity.doodah

3

Original post by gladders

She is not a tyrant. You are sounding ridiculous. Go look up the definition of a tyrant and come back to me with exactly how she is a tyrant.

I said "she is only a head of state, not a tyrant", actually.
I can't be bothered with this any more.

Reply 92