Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Royalist v Republicans

Scroll to see replies

Reply 40

Collingwood

Surely William will be William V? Unlike Charles it isn't an unlucky name...

Reply 41

Tory Dan

Collingwood

Surely William will be William V? Unlike Charles it isn't an unlucky name...

Oh right I didn't know that, I just presumed it would go back to King George again which is a jolly good name.

By the Grace of God, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith

Huzzah.

Reply 42

AnythingButChardonnay

Dei Gratia Regina, Fidei Defensor

Reply 43

Collingwood

You're right it is a jolly good name.

Reply 44

Cocaine Socialist

Bagration

Yeah, I don't particularly mind people on welfare, either.

Obviously that's completely different but I assume you were being facetious.

Reply 45

Bagration

Well assumed.

Reply 46

AnythingButChardonnay

imtired

I am not a not Republican, and am against a Monarchy on principle, and I also dislike the present royals.

Well how can you be neither? What sort of Head of State do you want, exactly?

Reply 47

imtired

AnythingButChardonnay

Well how can you be neither? What sort of Head of State do you want, exactly?

Sorry, I thought it was Republican in the American sense. wtf :confused:

Somebody slap me.

Reply 48

largebrandon

imtired

Sorry, I thought it was Republican in the American sense. wtf :confused:

Somebody slap me.

That's what you get for getting mixed up with those yanks.

*THWAP*

Reply 49

AnythingButChardonnay

imtired

Sorry, I thought it was Republican in the American sense. wtf :confused:

Somebody slap me.

Haha, no, I'd have thought anyone who wants President Bush above the Queen is the one who really deserves the slap!

There you go, lefties, who'd be your forced choice in that scenario?

Reply 50

Collingwood

Lefties don't seem to mind even very brutal absolute monarchs, so long as they are called 'comrade'.

Reply 51

Jim-ie

I'm a republican and I've always been a republican but I'm not foolish enough to not see how well the Queen represents Britain abroad, something some Prime Ministers have had trouble doing over the years, taking an ideological line with who they'll visit and who they won't.

I don't dislike the present monarchy, I do dislike most of the her family and think the lot of them bar one or two are living in a world of their own. I can't stand that plonker of a husband (although he's came out with some ignorantly funny quotes), Harry, or Charlie and his bird.

Reply 52

Cocaine Socialist

Jim-ie

taking an ideological line with who they'll visit and who they won't.

That's a bad thing? :s-smilie:

Reply 53

Marlowe

I would love to hate Charles as much as everyone else in the Commonwealth seems to; but how could I when he has perhaps the most hilarious combination of voice, accent, opinions and facial expressions of any human to have ever lived?

Reply 54

Jim-ie

Cocaine Socialist

That's a bad thing? :s-smilie:

Yes, having a stick up your arse about visiting other heads of states diplomatically solves nothing if there is a problem to be solved. Whereas I doubt highly if the Queen would care apart from getting permission to do so.

Reply 55

Rob 106

AnythingButChardonnay

Haha, no, I'd have thought anyone who wants President Bush above the Queen is the one who really deserves the slap!

I respect the royal family and think they do do a good job.

However, in this day and age I find it unacceptable that someone can rule through birth. :mad:

In reply to an earlier post I would rather have Bush as leader you could always vote him out if he didn't do a good job :wink:

Reply 56

AnythingButChardonnay

106 Rob

I respect the royal family and think they do do a good job.

However, in this day and age I find it unacceptable that someone can rule through birth. :mad:

In reply to an earlier post I would rather have Bush as leader you could always vote him out if he didn't do a good job :wink:

I respect that opinion entirely. But I still believe that so long as the balance of power is held by those elected, then nothing else really matters. I think having another elected body would cause unnecessary problems without really benefiting us at all.

The difference between President Bush and HM is that President Bush feels as though he has a mandate so will happily veto anything that (the also elected) Congress produces. The Queen, on the other hand, would probably never veto anything the (elected) Commons produced unless it was absolutely, completely and utterly unacepptable. The same is true to a lesser extent of the House of Lords, except they don't hold power of veto.

I find the latter much better than having different tiers all with democratic mandates squabbling. I think it is a much more stable and efficient system and allows input from people other than career politicians.

Reply 57

Arminius

I support a republic on principle - but i acknowledge that the queen does a good job representing Britain and i some ways she is preferable to a president.

I am quite a fan of the royal traditions and ceremony.

I would be against a president in the current political system, but if we were to have something of a political revolution in this country then i think that would be a good time to get rid of the monarchy.

Reply 58

mfm89

I picked option 5.

Republic in principle. but i like having the queen. Once shes gone, with charles and william for the next however many years, I'd get rid of them.

Reply 59

Llamaaa

I like the monarchy, but I do think we should limit the "Royal Family" to the monarch and the future monarch only, as it used to be in the old days, without all these cousins and so forth needing bodyguards and attention.