The Student Room Group

I am a Loyalist. Are you?

I am Loyalist, which means I am Loyal to the Monarchy, Glorious Revolution and English Bill of Rights. This means Britain is and must remain a Protestant state and the the Monarch should have direct political influence over things in the Monarch's interest. That means the Monarch is the Fount of Justice and Law, Defender of the Protestant faith, Sovereign Head of State and Head of the British Army. As such the Monarch should be able block laws and send them back to Parliament and put her own bills before Parliament. It also means from the English Bill of Rights that every Protestant British subject has the freedom to keep arms for protection of their own property.

I am not a Unionist, I support the freedom for Protestants to setup their own independent Parliament under the British state if they don't like the UK Parliament. Like Ulster did. With that in mind I support the re-establishment of the Church of Ireland and Church of Wales to extend their protection to the whole of the UK.

So are you a Loyalist?

Scroll to see replies

I am a monarchist and a Unionist. But I am not a Protestant; I am actually atheist. That said, I have no quarrel with the Bishops in Parliament, but nor would I expend energy or worry if they were removed.

As I said, I am a monarchist, but I am also a constitutionalist. The monarchy has a real, positive role, but vetoing Bills or interfering in Parliament is not one of them. Such a power should be reserved for the utmost, direst need, and that need is remote right now.
**** the monarchy, **** every religion, **** any unelected person having political influence and **** most actual politicians for that matter.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by william walker
I am Loyalist, which means I am Loyal to the Monarchy, Glorious Revolution and English Bill of Rights. This means Britain is and must remain a Protestant state and the the Monarch should have direct political influence over things in the Monarch's interest. That means the Monarch is the Fount of Justice and Law, Defender of the Protestant faith, Sovereign Head of State and Head of the British Army. As such the Monarch should be able block laws and send them back to Parliament and put her own bills before Parliament. It also means from the English Bill of Rights that every Protestant British subject has the freedom to keep arms for protection of their own property.

I am not a Unionist, I support the freedom for Protestants to setup their own independent Parliament under the British state if they don't like the UK Parliament. Like Ulster did. With that in mind I support the re-establishment of the Church of Ireland and Church of Wales to extend their protection to the whole of the UK.

So are you a Loyalist?


No, I am definitely not. I don't see why someone who has simply been fortunate enough to be born into a particular circle should automatically have influence over anything.
That said, I completely respect your opinion and don't want to initiate an argument. :biggrin:
Reply 4
Avatar for 105263
105263
14
The removal of Monarchies is a natural progression of History. This is because people choose democracy over an autocratically run state. Democracy is in no way near the best form of government, but it is better than the alternatives. The Queen today still has the potential to influence political matters. Without her permission bills cannot pass into Law nor can armies go to War.

We give her that and in return we have a Britain with a more individualistic and aspirational identity. This is the best deal both she and you will get.
The monarch should have direct say over politics because of who she is? Please. This is a democracy, not a dictatorship.
No I'm not.

Firstly, I don't believe the state should be religiously biased. Second, I don't believe the monarchy should have much power at all, let alone absolute power which could so easily be abused. Thirdly, I see nothing to be gained from allowing people firearms; just look at how well it works in the US. Fourthly, I certainly don't support any religious group having the ability or right to form their own parliament, especially not because they dislike the UK parliamemt. And lastly, I would like to know why you only seek to protect the rights of Protestants?

To use Hobbesite language, this is a horrible system of politics.
Original post by 105263
The removal of Monarchies is a natural progression of History. This is because people choose democracy over an autocratically run state. Democracy is in no way near the best form of government, but it is better than the alternatives. The Queen today still has the potential to influence political matters. Without her permission bills cannot pass into Law nor can armies go to War.

We give her that and in return we have a Britain with a more individualistic and aspirational identity. This is the best deal both she and you will get.


The Queen could technically veto bills and prevent us going to war, but she never has. So her role is redundant in many ways.
Original post by 105263
The removal of Monarchies is a natural progression of History. This is because people choose democracy over an autocratically run state.

I have to take issue with this - it's western-centric and chronologically snobbish. There is no pattern in how political systems are adopted, and democracy isn't particularly inherently special in this way. It's a system which is currently very much in vogue in the West (and which I support), but democracy as we understand it has only been around a hundred years. For all we know, it could be an inerrant blip in the history of statecraft.

Democracy is in no way near the best form of government, but it is better than the alternatives.


And likewise, within a democratic state, a ceremonial monarchy is not the best form, but it's the least worst compared to the alternatives.

The Queen today still has the potential to influence political matters. Without her permission bills cannot pass into Law nor can armies go to War.


Any monarch who tried to interfere with a law that was supported by Parliament would face a mass resignation of their government and a hostile Parliament. It's not happening.
Original post by gladders
I am a monarchist and a Unionist. But I am not a Protestant; I am actually atheist. That said, I have no quarrel with the Bishops in Parliament, but nor would I expend energy or worry if they were removed.

As I said, I am a monarchist, but I am also a constitutionalist. The monarchy has a real, positive role, but vetoing Bills or interfering in Parliament is not one of them. Such a power should be reserved for the utmost, direst need, and that need is remote right now.


Yes it is, the Monarch has the right to be directly political.
Original post by SnoochToTheBooch
*** any unelected person having political influence


Whoah there. Do you mean you oppose anybody apart from MPs having input on law and policy? What about petitions, committee evidence, charity lobbying?
Original post by william walker
Yes it is, the Monarch has the right to be directly political.


That 'right' has been in desuetude for well over a century now. If the monarch tried to revive it today, we'd have a republic in a week.
Original post by 105263
The removal of Monarchies is a natural progression of History. This is because people choose democracy over an autocratically run state. Democracy is in no way near the best form of government, but it is better than the alternatives. The Queen today still has the potential to influence political matters. Without her permission bills cannot pass into Law nor can armies go to War.

We give her that and in return we have a Britain with a more individualistic and aspirational identity. This is the best deal both she and you will get.


No it isn't It started with the progressive Liberal era in the 1880's.

No she doesn't because she has been bough off by Parliament and there aren't enough Loyalists who would go to war to defend her right to do so.
Original post by stewarte
The monarch should have direct say over politics because of who she is? Please. This is a democracy, not a dictatorship.


Take a look at the English Bill of Rights.
Original post by william walker
Take a look at the English Bill of Rights.


Three hundred years later and Parliament and the courts treat this document in a less than literal sense, as the world has jolly well moved on.
Original post by Reluire
No I'm not.

Firstly, I don't believe the state should be religiously biased. Second, I don't believe the monarchy should have much power at all, let alone absolute power which could so easily be abused. Thirdly, I see nothing to be gained from allowing people firearms; just look at how well it works in the US. Fourthly, I certainly don't support any religious group having the ability or right to form their own parliament, especially not because they dislike the UK parliamemt. And lastly, I would like to know why you only seek to protect the rights of Protestants?

To use Hobbesite language, this is a horrible system of politics.


Good for you, but the basis for just law within the British state is the Protestant English language bible.

The House of Commons now has tyrannical power. So the Monarch should be used to limit the Commons and the Commons limit the Monarch.

There may not anything gained from it, other than the freedom of all Protestant British subjects to keep arms.

Neither do I, so just support the Protestant freedom to do it. To protect their freedom from government tyranny.

Freedoms of Protestants. Because the Protestant culture founded the British state after the Glorious Revolution and but our freedom into action with the English Bill of Rights.

It is a system where people have freedom from government within a framework of laws designed to protect property and persons.
Original post by gladders
Whoah there. Do you mean you oppose anybody apart from MPs having input on law and policy? What about petitions, committee evidence, charity lobbying?


Yeah.
Original post by gladders
That 'right' has been in desuetude for well over a century now. If the monarch tried to revive it today, we'd have a republic in a week.


No you would have civil war if you attempted to remove the Monarchy. The Loyalists would not accept it.

The right is still their, just the Monarch is constrained. The right never the less is never ending.
Reply 18
Avatar for 105263
105263
14
Original post by Reluire
The Queen could technically veto bills and prevent us going to war, but she never has. So her role is redundant in many ways.


Note my use of the word 'potential'.

Original post by gladders



Any monarch who tried to interfere with a law that was supported by Parliament would face a mass resignation of their government and a hostile Parliament. It's not happening.


Notice my use of the word 'potential'. But yes.

Original post by william walker
No it isn't It started with the progressive Liberal era in the 1880's.

No she doesn't because she has been bough off by Parliament and there aren't enough Loyalists who would go to war to defend her right to do so.


I'm not quite sure how this relates to my post.
Original post by gladders
Three hundred years later and Parliament and the courts treat this document in a less than literal sense, as the world has jolly well moved on.


Good for them. However they still take into account a 900 year old document called Magna Carta, which wasn't only even fully enforced by the English bill of Rights. The age of something makes no difference. Parliament and Courts manipulated by Parliament not taking the English Bill of Rights into account makes no different to the fact that the English Bill of Rights is the bed rock of all the freedom we have in this country today.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you