This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Royalist v Republicans

God save the Queen. I like The Queen, and the family generally. However, I don't want Charles to be King, hopefully he will pop his clocks before her Majesty, and it will skip him.

I like our countrys heritage and the institution, I also feel that (however remote the chance) the fact that the army swears an oath to the monarch and the monarch has to sign every new law is almost a safeguard should we actually get a racist/or otherwise bad for the country PM + government at any time.

Reply 21

SolInvictus

OP

11

jacketpotato

Its very contradictory to support the monarchy, but then trying to choose who the monarch is. The whole point of the monarchy is it isn't chosen and it isn't elected, if the monarch is put in place by politicians, the head of state is no longer a monarch but is a president chosen by politicians.

It seems very bizarre to dislike this particular royal family because Charles had a divorce and Harry got drunk a couple of times (not sure what your problem with William is).
It seems you are expecting the royals to be perfect, larger than life figures here: noone in the royal family has done anything that can be described as particularly bad, people get divorced and get drunk all the time, that is life. You can't expect the entire royal family to be larger-than-life examples of perfection, especially when the Queen herself, as you say, is pretty much perfect and embodies everything the monarchy ought to.

Charles is an adulterer, while William and Harry behaved like Royal Chavs in their time. These are men born with a silver spoon in their bums, and they have yet to have made anything great of it. By contrast, Zara Phillips has made much of herself as a young business woman and accomplished equestrian. Look at the Princes of the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden or Spain. There is a notable difference in their behavior compared to those of ours.

Reply 22

AnythingButChardonnay

14

Charles aint that bad. A bit of an organicist/greeno, but not a bad fellow at all.

He's settled down now he's married someone good, too.

Reply 23

jacketpotato

20

Charles is an adulterer, while William and Harry behaved like Royal Chavs in their time. These are men born with a silver spoon in their bums, and they have yet to have made anything great of it. By contrast, Zara Phillips has made much of herself as a young business woman and accomplished equestrian. Look at the Princes of the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden or Spain. There is a notable difference in their behavior compared to those of ours.

Harry has done nothing worse than what 99% of normal teenagers do - hes had a few drunken debacles, but this hardly makes him a 'royal chav'. I can't remember William ever doing anything wrong. Moreover, Harry has just come back from Iraq and William is always really dignified. I really don't understand what is so bad about William and Harry's behaviour.

Charles' relationship broke down and he had a divorce. It happens to millions of people nationwide. He has also used his influence to further many good causes.

You give the examples of the Princes of various other countries, who you presumably know very little about. I'm sure if you took minor teenage drunkenness as something seriously wrong, the princes of every one of those countries would be just as 'bad', if not more so, than William or Harry.

Reply 24

SolInvictus

OP

11

L i b

There's nothing remotely wrong with their behaviour; they're just two boys who do perfectly normal things. Every monarch in the past will have a similar history, it just wasn't mercilessly scrutinised in the gutter press.

Really, look at Princess Margaret. She was rebellious, William isn't. He's a very decent sort who has - and I emphasise this - had to deal with a hell of a lot in his life.

The problem is that they are not two normal boys. They are two extremely priviledged boys, who have yet to have distinguished themselves in any way, save for their bratish behavior.

Between them and Charles, we have a few facsimiles of George IV, and their behavior and history threaten the Monarchy as much as the Hanoverians did until Victoria.

Reply 25

jacketpotato

20

The problem is that they are not two normal boys. They are two extremely priviledged boys, who have yet to have distinguished themselves in any way, save for their bratish behavior.

What!??!!??
Harry has just come back from Iraq for Christ's sake!!!!
William works hard as a royal and has been dignified and royal in almost everything he does

their behavior and history threaten the Monarchy as much as the Hanoverians did until Victoria.

Are you really comparing like two minor drunken antics of some teenage princes to the threat possed by the Hannovers?

Reply 26

SolInvictus

OP

11

AnythingButChardonnay

Charles aint that bad. A bit of an organicist/greeno, but not a bad fellow at all.

He's settled down now he's married someone good, too.

She'll be the first queen to have been chosen from the Royal Stables.

Reply 27

L i b

19

SolInvictus

The problem is that they are not two normal boys. They are two extremely priviledged boys, who have yet to have distinguished themselves in any way, save for their bratish behavior.

Ridiculous - how does that remotely distinguish them? Neither one of them have behaved in any way that is remotely abnormal - indeed, they are exceptionally well-behaved generally. What exactly has Prince Harry done? Come out of a few nightclubs looking bleary-eyed? Last time I checked, we were not some bizarre puritanical nation that looks down on consuming alcohol.

As for excelling in any significant fields, so what? I doubt the present Queen particularly excelled in anything, yet has made an excellent monarch.

Reply 28

ConservativeNucleophile

8

I lie somewhere between the first and second options. In principle, I support the monarchy, but also have some reservations about Charles. H.M. Queen Elizabeth has been a fine monarch.

Reply 29

Shask

7

I'm a republican and against monarchy on principle. It's shocking that humans are semi-worshipped by people simple by birthright, does that not breach the same boundaries as racism/homophobia?

Reply 30

Bagration

18

Eh, I don't care about democracy. Better that we have a small, unelected Government than a large elected one. God Save the Queen.

I like Charles, anyway. He's better than all the slimy gits that rule the continent, ESPECIALLY Barroso.

Reply 31

manderlay in flames

12

See under the old system if your monarch was a bit soft (i can't say poof or i get like 50 angry pms) then another one would depose him in a bloody power struggle, but now they just linger :frown:

Reply 32

Marlowe

I find it more irritating that our head of state is essentially useless than the fact that they are typically of low intellect and high birth. We are ruled entirely from the Commons and Downing Street, the Lords being a mostly tired and effete onlooker packed with low grade humans of little inclination.

Surely having an elected president with some actual powers and opinions wouldn't hurt our democratic rankings? Then again, if I could choose a governing system, it would mimic absolutely the USA. I should probably just leave for greener, more gunny pastures.

Reply 33

Bagration

18

Marlowe

low grade humans of little inclination.

Do I have to list the amount of times the Lords have tried to protect your freedom in the face of a 'democratic' Government?

Reply 34

largebrandon

I'm a die hard royalist, and would tick the "I think the monarch should have more power" option, if it were there.

Having a hereditary ruler takes away the corruption that democracy has. She won't make decisions based upon whether she will be re-elected or not, she will actually make decisions upon what is right. In terms of accountability, she knows that she can't and won't make outlandish decisions that the whole of her people will disagree with. If anything, this form of government is MUCH better than any democratically elected individual.

A monarch is also more qualified for the position because they are a monarch and they have been raised and taught as such. The hereditary part means that from birth, they are being raised and taught how to become a monarch; how to treat people, what to do, etc. And that is what makes them more qualified than anyone else to be the monarch. It really boils my blood to think that people are jealous enough to condemn the monarch because "they aren't better than anyone else from birth"; which, in fact, they ARE better than anyone else because of birth.

Reply 35

Huw Davies

11

largebrandon

I'm a die hard royalist, and would tick the "I think the monarch should have more power" option, if it were there.

Having a hereditary ruler takes away the corruption that democracy has. She won't make decisions based upon whether she will be re-elected or not, she will actually make decisions upon what is right.

Or because of personal prejudice, self-interest, or any other less-than-perfect motive which afflicts all human beings.

In terms of accountability, she knows that she can't and won't make outlandish decisions that the whole of her people will disagree with.

Why not? There are no ill-consequences to do so, if his\her power is sufficiently secure?

If anything, this form of government is MUCH better than any democratically elected individual.

All the reasons you've listed so far apply also to any sort of supreme unelected ruler or dictator, not just a monarch. Are these superior to republican government too?

Historically, I'd argue that the era of constitutional monarchy following the Glorious Revolution was much more successful for the nation than that under the previous absolute monarchs. Though the Republican period was also a disaster due to its dictatorial quality and tremendous illiberalism.

A monarch is also more qualified for the position because they are a monarch and they have been raised and taught as such. The hereditary part means that from birth, they are being raised and taught how to become a monarch; how to treat people, what to do, etc. And that is what makes them more qualified than anyone else to be the monarch. It really boils my blood to think that people are jealous enough to condemn the monarch because "they aren't better than anyone else from birth"; which, in fact, they ARE better than anyone else because of birth.

Elected heads of state do seem to pick things up quite adequately. They also have the advantage of not spending their entire lives in the public eye (which has afforded the current Royals-in-Waiting large amounts of embarrassment which a private citizen would have been spared).

Reply 36

Cocaine Socialist

11

Republican on principle, but no particular problem with the current leeches. The poll results are really depressing (though hardly surprising).

Reply 37

Bagration

18

Cocaine Socialist

no particular problem with the current leeches.

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

Reply 38

Collingwood

15

Prince Charles is extremely irritating, but if the Queen lives as long as her mother we won't have him for long. The boys seem to be alright really; getting stuck in in Afghanistan and all that.