Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adamrules247)
    Monarchy is thefoundation of democracy. We are far more democratic than any foreign counterpart.
    Are you just parroting other people now? As I stated I view documents such as the Magna Carta and ensuing parliamentary bills, as well as things by the likes of Thomas Paine, to be the foundation of democracy. This can be set in stone by the British Constitution, the monarchy only holds us back.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tucker672)
    You disrespectful **** !!!!
    It was a joke. I actually respect our royal family, and indeed used to be a staunch monarchist (I was a member of the TSR Monarchist Society for instance - although I campaigned for it to be called the Royalist Society instead). This is why the bill is so generous towards our royals, they deserve at least a little respect.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Despite the monarchy going against my principles...I am fond of it, and wouldn't want to see it go. I couldn't do it to my Gran, she is one of those old-school Jamaicans who loves the Royal family! I don't really see the point of getting rid, I think they are an important diplomatic tool, an important part of our democratic system and a pillar of tradition in the sea of modernity.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adamrules247)
    x
    (Original post by iwilson03)
    x
    Please watch this, even if it is from 2:00 for a minute.



    I believe she is talking about you when she mentions "unthinking people".
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iwilson03)
    Are you just parroting other people now? As I stated I view documents such as the Magna Carta and ensuing parliamentary bills, as well as things by the likes of Thomas Paine, to be the foundation of democracy. This can be set in stone by the British Constitution, the monarchy only holds us back.
    it is my genuine belief. As Churchill said:

    "While the Queen occupies the highest office of state, no one can take over the government. While she is head of the law, no politician can take over the courts. While she is ultimately in command of the Armed Forces, no would-be dictator can take over the Army."

    The reason why Hitler was able to take total power in Germany was because there was no Kaiser IMO. But as we have seen, you are a bit of a xenaphobe so you obviously want another Hitler to slither up onto those vancant thrones.:yes:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adamrules247)
    Monarchy is thefoundation of democracy. We are far more democratic than any foreign counterpart.
    Hmmm :hmmm: a rather dubious claim I must say.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moe Lester)
    Despite the monarchy going against my principles...I am fond of it, and wouldn't want to see it go. I couldn't do it to my Gran, she is one of those old-school Jamaicans who loves the Royal family! I don't really see the point of getting rid, I think they are an important diplomatic tool, an important part of our democratic system and a pillar of tradition in the sea of modernity.
    I believe that the Westminster system is a pillar of tradition, but this bill infuses it with the best of the new too. The bill also makes provisions for the royal family, and indeed the Queen would remain titular head of the Commonwealth of Nations (as stated in the bill) meaning that countries like Jamaica would still have a real bond with Britain.

    I urge you to consider the future of Britain, the value of a constitution and a democratic system. I also urge you to consider just how awkward it is - to claim to lead the world but at the same time have a Head of State who only occupies that position from accident of birth.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tucker672)
    Please watch this, even if it is from 2:00 for a minute.



    I believe she is talking about you when she mentions "unthinking people".
    WTF are you on about? I am one of the biggest monarchists on here!!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iwilson03)
    Does it really make Britain great though? Or do you just like the crown?
    I didn't say that it made Britain great, I said it's one of the few things that is still great.

    My feelings are not so much about the crown per se, as about what the Monarchy represents. Political tides ebb and flow, ideologies change and corruption is at the heart of government. The Monarch changes much less frequently, is schooled (normally from birth) for a life of service to the nation and the Commonwealth and provides a diplomatic harbour from the unpredictable nature of political opinion. Whether Charles will be able to adopt a politically neutral role is open for debate (I personally hope the crown sends up skipping straight to Prince William), but I firmly believe in the solidifying, anchoring effect that the Monarchy has on this nation.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adamrules247)
    it is my genuine belief. As Churchill said:

    "While the Queen occupies the highest office of state, no one can take over the government. While she is head of the law, no politician can take over the courts. While she is ultimately in command of the Armed Forces, no would-be dictator can take over the Army."

    The reason why Hitler was able to take total power in Germany was because there was no Kaiser IMO. But as we have seen, you are a bit of a xenaphobe so you obviously want another Hitler to slither up onto those vancant thrones.:yes:
    Oh dear, that balance would be replaced by the constitution. Churchill was also a europhile so swings and roundabouts init?

    You cannot compare the Kaiser to the British royal family. Do not even try to do so.

    I am not a xenophobe as I've already said, get a grip.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iwilson03)
    I believe that the Westminster system is a pillar of tradition, but this bill infuses it with the best of the new too. The bill also makes provisions for the royal family, and indeed the Queen would remain titular head of the Commonwealth of Nations (as stated in the bill) meaning that countries like Jamaica would still have a real bond with Britain.

    I urge you to consider the future of Britain, the value of a constitution and a democratic system. I also urge you to consider just how awkward it is - to claim to lead the world but at the same time have a Head of State who only occupies that position from accident of birth.
    I'm not sure I agree with a democratically elected Lords, I see no reason to get rid of the Royals and I don't particularly see how the monarchy is preventing Britian from leading the world - perhaps if you proposed a bill scaling the monarchy back to Dutch or Swedish size it would be better recieved?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Referee)
    I didn't say that it made Britain great, I said it's one of the few things that is still great.

    My feelings are not so much about the crown per se, as about what the Monarchy represents. Political tides ebb and flow, ideologies change and corruption is at the heart of government. The Monarch changes much less frequently, is schooled (normally from birth) for a life of service to the nation and the Commonwealth and provides a diplomatic harbour from the unpredictable nature of political opinion. Whether Charles will be able to adopt a politically neutral role is open for debate (I personally hope the crown sends up skipping straight to Prince William), but I firmly believe in the solidifying, anchoring effect that the Monarchy has on this nation.
    And I firmly believe that the constitution will also have a solidifying and anchoring effect on the nation, except it vetoes the need for us to bow down to someone just because they were born of a different lineage, it vetoes us from never being able to aspire to the top.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Referee)
    I didn't say that it made Britain great, I said it's one of the few things that is still great.

    My feelings are not so much about the crown per se, as about what the Monarchy represents. Political tides ebb and flow, ideologies change and corruption is at the heart of government. The Monarch changes much less frequently, is schooled (normally from birth) for a life of service to the nation and the Commonwealth and provides a diplomatic harbour from the unpredictable nature of political opinion. Whether Charles will be able to adopt a politically neutral role is open for debate (I personally hope the crown sends up skipping straight to Prince William), but I firmly believe in the solidifying, anchoring effect that the Monarchy has on this nation.
    I agree with this.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adamrules247)
    WTF are you on about? I am one of the biggest monarchists on here!!
    The commens were aimed at Iwilson, I quoted you because I though you would like the video :rolleyes:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iwilson03)
    And I firmly believe that the constitution will also have a solidifying and anchoring effect on the nation, except it vetoes the need for us to bow down to someone just because they were born of a different lineage, it vetoes us from never being able to aspire to the top.
    Nobody is forced to bow down to the Queen, most I would say are indifferent towards her.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moe Lester)
    I'm not sure I agree with a democratically elected Lords, I see no reason to get rid of the Royals and I don't particularly see how the monarchy is preventing Britian from leading the world - perhaps if you proposed a bill scaling the monarchy back to Dutch or Swedish size it would be better recieved?
    But then we are still indulging a corrupt principle - that somebody should have a position of greater authority just because they were born to a certain family. It defeats the point of even trying to achieve something close to a meritocracy.

    Can I ask why you don't agree to a democratically elected Lords? This is obviously a matter which needs debate because it would be stupid to deny their usefulness.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iwilson03)
    Oh dear, that balance would be replaced by the constitution. Churchill was also a europhile so swings and roundabouts init?

    You cannot compare the Kaiser to the British royal family. Do not even try to do so.

    I am not a xenophobe as I've already said, get a grip.
    I am not comparing HIM to the British royal family. I am just saying if after WWI we had let the Kaiser stay on (or at least his son) as a constitutional monarch, then Hitler wouldn't have been able to gain power in the way he did, ie getting the armies oath of loyalty and merging the President and Chancellor into one office after the death of Hindenburg. Yeah, I was just trying to provoke you the last comment.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moe Lester)
    Hmmm :hmmm: a rather dubious claim I must say.
    Not really. Lets take Russia for example. The president has huge power and because say, 40% of the country has chosen him to lead it gives him huge powers over the Duma. A monarch however because they have inherited the position and lead with a sense of duty represent all political views, even those of the republican.

    Another good example is Poland a few years ago. The PM was of a different party to the president and the PM had just won the elections. What it lead to was whenever the PM tried to pass laws the President just dismissed them. Hardly democratic is it? Because the monarch has the sense of duty as named above she wil not over-ride Parliament unless if they are doing something such as a mass execution of everyone.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moe Lester)
    Nobody is forced to bow down to the Queen, most I would say are indifferent towards her.
    Then what is the point of her? The monarchy goes against the very principles of the democracy that we claim to love.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tucker672)
    The commens were aimed at Iwilson, I quoted you because I though you would like the video
    Oh fair enough. I was all geared up for a fight then, lol. Unfortunatly I can't watch it because I don't have my headphones.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 18, 2010
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.