The Royals

[Stive Pesley]

1 minute ago, WhiteHorseRam said:

She is a symbol of home and Britishness (if that's a word).

Yeah I get that, but it still makes no sense to me why our armed forces apparently "do it for the queen" as they kill people in foreign lands that have nothing to do with our monarchy.

[WhiteHorseRam]

1 minute ago, StivePesley said:

Yeah I get that, but it still makes no sense to me why our armed forces apparently "do it for the queen" as they kill people in foreign lands that have nothing to do with our monarchy.

They fight for their mates

[jono]

I can't help loving the bit in our passports where Johnny Foreigner is urged by her Brittanic Majesty to render assistance to the bearer. ... And quite right too !

[Joe.]

4 hours ago, StivePesley said:

Yeah I get that, but it still makes no sense to me why our armed forces apparently "do it for the queen" as they kill people in foreign lands that have nothing to do with our monarchy.

  It's because the queen is the commander of the armed forces

[Highgate]

11 hours ago, jono said:

Great counter 

I should have used a phrase more like "weight of history" rather than dignity.

i think we differ because I see the monarchy not as something that sees us a pawns or serfs but something that we the people have shaped over that 1000 years so that it fulfills its place as a genuine servant of its people. I think we have arrived there pretty well and all that history is part of that struggle and says a lot about us as a nation. The monarch is the head but we put it there by common consent. Starting with the Barons at Magna Carta. 

i honestly would rather have our history and demeanor as a nation that either Russia or the United States. Both are republics and both are so fundamentally more flawed than ours it beggars belief. 

Russia overthrew its vile monarchy and replaced it with a people's revolution which gave us Stalins purges where 1 million deaths were be described a a statistic. Despite the largest fertile steppe it couldn't feed its own people even late in the 20th century. It built walls and machine gun nests to keep its own citizens from leaving. It has changed again to a vastly corrupt oligarchy. 

The USA only managed to describe legal equality of races in the last 50 years and has beneath its Land Of The Free veneer a dreadful underlying authoritarianism and barely hidden mass racism. Yet it is the country that is probably best at creating laws to protect rights probably because it is aware at some base level of the failings of its own phyche as a nation.

All history is a bloody tale of power play but ours has yielded a decent, just and fair nation in comparison to our peers. The monarchy is part of that. It might not always be so  I would never say no to change but as we stand today I suggest that the monarchy is a very nice old coat that we have made to fit us over a very long time with much hard work and sacrifice. For me it fits, it's comfortable and keeps a lot of the weather at bay

Another quality post, despite arguing from a weak position in my opinion (but then i would say that I suppose, seeing as I'm on the opposite side of the debate). I never buy the tradition and history defence. Something either has merit in it's own right or it doesn't. As our society develops and changes we need to continually reassess what is acceptable and what isn't. Think of all the deplorable human practices that could be considered highly traditional. Many still practiced today...based on that very 'tradition' argument. Even so I still find the tradition angle less objectionable than the 'monarchy is worth a few pounds to the economy' point of view.

You say that the monarch rules with the consent of the people, despite the fact that i don't remember the people ever being asked, I'm quite sure that's true. But it's not the debate, nobody is suggesting that the Queen is an absolute monarch ruling against the will of the people, the issue is whether the UK should persist with an unelected head of state and why. There needs to be very good reasons to justify persisting with something so blatantly undemocratic.

I don't think it's fair to compare the situation in the UK with that in Russia or the USA. Larger countries, with wildly different histories, it's impossible to say what would have happened had they maintained royal families. Russia was right to get rid of their vile monarchy (as you aptly described them), but things when horribly wrong afterwards, and they often do in a power vacuum. The USA's declaration of independence was a great step in the right direction, enshrining that 'all' men were created equal'. Unfortunately they meant only 'white' men, and all the horrors against black and native were continued. Not to mention leaving out women of course. But these were the prevailing horrendous beliefs of the times and not symptoms of a people hopelessly lost as soon as they ditched the monarchy. 

It's not logical to infer that stability and harmony are created by the retention of a royal families as some have done....but more realistic to conclude that monarchies survive in stable countries. The UK, at home at least, was such an environment, but who knows how it would differ now, if the ruling class had been shown the door long ago. 

I've never been accused of having good fashion sense, but even I can see that the time has come for you to get yourself a new coat. 

 

 

 

[Highgate]

8 hours ago, WhiteHorseRam said:

The 'vulgar pantomime' also brings in a lot of tourist money. Not long ago I was wandering through central London and ended up being at Buckingham Palace just before 11am when the Guard is changed. There was a MASS of foreign tourists waving selfie sticks like antenna, excited by the fact the Royal standard was flying and so she was 'in.' Bang on time the Irish Guards, complete with the biggest wolfhound I have ever seen, tipped up. It has to be said, she animates the place.

That dog is a disgrace to his ancestry.  He should be in Dublin guarding President Michael D. if he had any class about him.

I don't think I've ever been to Buckingham Palace, however if I were there I think the only thing I'd find majestic about the place is that hound. Beautiful dogs. There might be some nice horses about as well I suppose.  Still, the building itself might scrub up quite nicely if you could rid it of the elitist sect inhabiting it. 

[jono]

This is what a decent debate is all about. 

My coats fine and even if it is a bit retro it cuts a dash from my point of view. But to mirror you, I claim the Keeler/Rice Davies defence. 

I think I might have said in one of my previous missives that from a naked, logical and democratic standpoint a republic appears to be the right solution but as I think my last post suggested this doesn't always provide the expected answer. If I can't use history as a defence then surely you can't use the "wildly different" histories of the USA and Russia in the same way. I.e. As a defence against my previous supposition. 

Some people use margarine in cakes and some use butter. There is more than one way to make an effective system without compromising the basic ideal of a just society. I believe your position is based on too rigid an ideology. And as History shows that ideology while right in 90% of cases has many documented flaws. It would be quite true to reverse that and show that absolute Monarchs don't or havent worked in most cases but in ours it demonstrably has. Then, supposing we  do change. The cost, the power vacuum, the jockeying for position ? I can't help feeling that would make a far far more vulgar pantomime. It might have an outward veneer of greater accountability but to what real gain and what loss to the character of the nation. 

I think my previous ramblings are good reasons for maintaining our Monarchy over an alternative and equally noble republican system. I also believe that should we to adopt the republican system it would cost more, be no more democratic (in reality rather than on paper ) and lose us a head of state that has a very particular a political neutrality that other nations titular heads just don't and can't ever have. 

As a side note I also can't help thinking that a portion of those wanting to remove the monarchy, want to do so not because of the pure logic of a republican system but for deeper political motives more aligned with people's co operative/ communist ideology. That a Monarch is a symbol of a kind of class war, so no matter how good, how effective it just doesn't fit the didactic and must therefore be removed. My own view of this sort of system is that the appearance is good but behind the window dressing another elite emerges and some just end up being more equal than others and we are back to square one.

 

 

[jono]

@Highgate

strewth ! We are giving each other likes. 

Going to bed now to read about Ancient Romans and the Iceni sacking Colchester. .. Yeah I know I am a bit eccentric. 

 

[WhiteHorseRam]

9 hours ago, Highgate said:

That dog is a disgrace to his ancestry.  He should be in Dublin guarding President Michael D. if he had any class about him.

I don't think I've ever been to Buckingham Palace, however if I were there I think the only thing I'd find majestic about the place is that hound. Beautiful dogs. There might be some nice horses about as well I suppose.  Still, the building itself might scrub up quite nicely if you could rid it of the elitist sect inhabiting it. 

See, he has a medal. Maybe for eating a burglar or perhaps biting a republican.

[Stive Pesley]

19 hours ago, Joe. said:

  It's because the queen is the commander of the armed forces

Which again is a bit of nonsense - she no more "commands" the armed forces than I do.

When was the last time a member of our armed forces killed someone to protect the freedom of our country?

[Highgate]

5 hours ago, WhiteHorseRam said:

See, he has a medal. Maybe for eating a burglar or perhaps biting a republican.

That dog has sold out, how many pedigree chum dentastix did it take to turn him?.....that's what I want to know. 

[Highgate]

20 minutes ago, StivePesley said:

Which again is a bit of nonsense - she no more "commands" the armed forces than I do.

When was the last time a member of our armed forces killed someone to protect the freedom of our country?

What an excellent question! The sort of question that people in many countries should be asking.

[WhiteHorseRam]

2 minutes ago, Highgate said:

That dog has sold out, how many pedigree chum dentastix did it take to turn him?.....that's what I want to know. 

Probably none. Like many Irishmen he has probably joined the British Army for a fight.

[RamNut]

On 23 November 2016 at 13:08, WhiteHorseRam said:

She is a symbol of home and Britishness (if that's a word).

So is Yorkshire pudding.

[Highgate]

1 minute ago, WhiteHorseRam said:

Probably none. Like many Irishmen he has probably joined the British Army for a fight.

More like to get a job really....or in the case of many Northern Irishmen because that's the country and army they identify with.  Could be a Nordie hound I suppose, I'll have to concede that much. 

[WhiteHorseRam]

23 minutes ago, StivePesley said:

Which again is a bit of nonsense - she no more "commands" the armed forces than I do.

When was the last time a member of our armed forces killed someone to protect the freedom of our country?

Our armed forces don't set out to kill people as their key objective. 

But they do protect our country and our freedom, 24/7.

[Highgate]

15 hours ago, jono said:

This is what a decent debate is all about. 

My coats fine and even if it is a bit retro it cuts a dash from my point of view. But to mirror you, I claim the Keeler/Rice Davies defence. 

I think I might have said in one of my previous missives that from a naked, logical and democratic standpoint a republic appears to be the right solution but as I think my last post suggested this doesn't always provide the expected answer. If I can't use history as a defence then surely you can't use the "wildly different" histories of the USA and Russia in the same way. I.e. As a defence against my previous supposition. 

Some people use margarine in cakes and some use butter. There is more than one way to make an effective system without compromising the basic ideal of a just society. I believe your position is based on too rigid an ideology. And as History shows that ideology while right in 90% of cases has many documented flaws. It would be quite true to reverse that and show that absolute Monarchs don't or havent worked in most cases but in ours it demonstrably has. Then, supposing we  do change. The cost, the power vacuum, the jockeying for position ? I can't help feeling that would make a far far more vulgar pantomime. It might have an outward veneer of greater accountability but to what real gain and what loss to the character of the nation. 

I think my previous ramblings are good reasons for maintaining our Monarchy over an alternative and equally noble republican system. I also believe that should we to adopt the republican system it would cost more, be no more democratic (in reality rather than on paper ) and lose us a head of state that has a very particular a political neutrality that other nations titular heads just don't and can't ever have. 

As a side note I also can't help thinking that a portion of those wanting to remove the monarchy, want to do so not because of the pure logic of a republican system but for deeper political motives more aligned with people's co operative/ communist ideology. That a Monarch is a symbol of a kind of class war, so no matter how good, how effective it just doesn't fit the didactic and must therefore be removed. My own view of this sort of system is that the appearance is good but behind the window dressing another elite emerges and some just end up being more equal than others and we are back to square one.

 

Fair enough, you are sticking with your coat.  I'll never make a salesman.

Just to clarify my point about history.  I'm not for a moment dismissing history as important.  All that I was saying was that it's difficult to compare countries with vastly different backgrounds and make inferences based on one single difference between them, and then imply that it is that single difference that is responsible for the perceived better circumstances in one country in relation to the other. That and the mere fact that some human practices have long histories behind them does not in itself make them meritorious and worthy of respect. I really don't feel that there is any contradiction in holding both these views simultaneously.

If you do change to a republic (and I don't think you will for a long time), there will be no power vacuum, as only a remnant of power resides currently in monarch. There would simply be an election campaign (if you were going with the presidential system) that would not much more of a distraction than a by-election.  I don't see any reason for 'jockeying for position'. The position open would be relatively powerless.  Speaking of rigid ideologies, I believe the UK should adopt what system it's people are most comfortable with, I'm just expressing why i think a republican presidential system is better than a monarchy. Remember in a monarchy the head of state is determined by birth, in a republic the head of state can be anybody (including Elizabeth II if she wished to run for president). Which system is more rigid?

I think you are right, part of the reason the abolition of the monarchy seems like a good idea to me, is the damage it would do the ingrained class system, which has royalty, lords and whatever else as its foundation. You claim that even in the event of establishing a republic the situation would revert to another elitist class system in time, despite your best efforts.  You could be right...but why not try anyway, and find out if this really is the case.

[jono]

Your point about rigidity is well made. My view is that I am a monarchist as long as the Monarchy continues to perform and distinguish itself as it has done in recent times. I would have no compunction about changing sides if that was to change. I have never believed in blind loyalty.

i think the examples both past and present of the continued existence of an elite prove beyond any doubt that an elite will always exist in a human society. We differ politically speaking and this is one where we will probably never agree. PeverseIy I think I actually prefer the old boys club (which in any case is leaky and you can get in through the side door ) to a political elite driven by an ideology that appears benign, has high ideals but it has a pretty bad reputation when you look under the skin. Once the state is more important than the individual things go bad. 

[Stive Pesley]

2 hours ago, WhiteHorseRam said:

Our armed forces don't set out to kill people as their key objective. 

But they do protect our country and our freedom, 24/7.

So since WWII - we have Korea, Mau Mau, Cyprus, Falklands, Lebanon, Gulf War, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and probably loads more smaller troop deployments. In the name of our beloved Queen - tell me how any of that has protected our country and/or my personal freedom?

[jono]

Crikey Stive .. I think everyone recognises that the numerous interventions in the Middle East for whatever reason, range from  hasty, Ill thought out, or wrong depending on where you stand politically. Jaw Jaw is definitely preferable to War War

But the Falklands ? .. Surely an invasion by a foreign power  of a British Territory populated by people who to a man want to be British must classify as protecting your country. And before anyone says The Malvinas is Argentinian .. It is 400 miles from the continental shore. They have less claim to it than we might have to the Faroe islands.  

Former Yugoslavia ? .. That was a UN operation in an international effort to keep peace when genocide was on the agenda.

No one likes war but there are times when Must stand up. ( I accept that there are elements who want to play the big man and use their deadly toys ) but You can't think for one millisecond that once Argentina (ruled at that time by a very unpleasant military junta ) held the Falklands, that a gentlemanly chat would have sorted it all out and they'd have gone home ? They sailed on to our turf with guns and seized something by force, against the will of the people. We responded in the only way possible if we were to protect ourselves.