Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lothiriel:
Ah, but now that we've got universal health care we don't need her anymore to distinguish ourselves from our neighbours . The second amendment is also handy.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lothiriel:
Ah, but now that we've got universal health care we don't need her anymore to distinguish ourselves from our neighbours . The second amendment is also handy.

---

The right to arm bears?

Seems I posted the same thing twice. Oops.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
So what, your bears push people out windows instead?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Zach82: So what, your bears push people out windows instead?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch: Does that happen in places like France, Germany, Portugal and I think Brazil that have their claimants still living on their soil?

---

In most of those cases the claimants were born in foreign lands and later returned to the country whose throne they theoretically have a claim to.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
At least for Brazil this is true. Prince Luís of Orléans-Braganza was born in France, but I think he lives in São Paulo now.

I don't have the impression that this has stirred much thoughts of a revival of the Empire in Brazil. There is a group of monarchists in of course, but I'd guess the majority of the population doesn't even know that there is still a theoretical pretender to the throne.

---

quote:

---

The likelihood of the House of Bragança’s return to Brazil’s throne seems microscopic, particularly given that the current leader [this was written in 2008], popularly-elected president Luís Inácio “Lula” da Silva, a former metalworker and union leader, is as far from inherited royalty as one can be. The Brazilian people have seemed to cast their stone, and it is not to the House of Bragança’s favor.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
From what I hear, the French monarchists are divided between supporters of the Bourbons and the Bonapartes, and they spend more time hating each other than democracy.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
I do not follow the Holy Roman Empire point . . .

---

It was a callback to a point made by Ricardus (in response to you so I thought you might have remembered it) that although the official constitution of the Holy Roman Empire in theory allowed the election of anyone as Emperor, in actual practice it was just one long line of Habsburgs (and before them Hohenstaufens). This is directly relevant to your claim that it doesn't count as a monarchy if power transfers aren't officially via family relationship. My question is simple. How many Habsburgs in a row does it take before we acknowledge constitution-in-fact, regardless of what constitution-in-theory has to say on the matter?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
The attachment of people in the UK (and the US) to the British monarchy is pretty sentimental, irrational and visceral (as republicans discover when they try to argue the [pretty rational] case against monarchy and primogeniture).

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
The attachment of people in the UK (and the US) to the British monarchy is pretty sentimental, irrational and visceral (as republicans discover when they try to argue the [pretty rational] case against monarchy and primogeniture).

---

Really? I have listened to and read a good number of republic rants here in the UK and very rarely do I hear a political argument for the abolishing the Crown. It's all very personal: in-bred Germans - interfering Big-Ears - Diana was murdered - guillotine the lot of the spongers - Camilla's a cow, Anne's a horse - the Queen doesn't smile - Philip's a racist - they are posh (!) - they are rich - etc, etc.

I never see pragmatic, rational, cerebral (if that's the opposite of visceral) arguments for a British presidency; it's all rather foolish and insulting comments about the royal family which, as intelligent people are aware, is not the same as the Monarchy

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Really? I have listened to and read a good number of republic rants here in the UK and very rarely do I hear a political argument for the abolishing the Crown. It's all very personal: in-bred Germans - interfering Big-Ears - Diana was murdered - guillotine the lot of the spongers - Camilla's a cow, Anne's a horse - the Queen doesn't smile - Philip's a racist - they are posh (!) - they are rich - etc, etc.

I never see pragmatic, rational, cerebral (if that's the opposite of visceral) arguments for a British presidency; it's all rather foolish and insulting comments about the royal family which, as intelligent people are aware, is not the same as the Monarchy

---

That, Mudfrog, is a very good point indeed. I don't think I've ever seen it so well put.

Thinking about it, I too have heard a lot of rants. But I don't think I've ever heard anyone argue a rational case for a republic, rather than simply express resentment towards the Royals. That is saying more about their own inner complexes and problems with authority than anything to do with HRH herself.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I am all about an agreeable status quo. I am sure powerless figureheads provide lots of vague, unverifiable benefits. What I find ridiculous are screeds against democratically elected leaders and their inferiority to a woman who has done nothing more impressive to obtain her office than happening to be born to the previous office holder.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
That sounds like the sort of emotional resentment that Mudfrog and I were commenting on. It seems very odd that a person should feel that strongly about someone far away and in another country.

---

Only if you think expressing a brazen fact, that Elizabeth Two's only qualification is being born, is "emotional resentment."

[ 24. October 2012, 13:39: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
That sounds like the sort of emotional resentment that Mudfrog and I were commenting on. It seems very odd that a person should feel that strongly about someone far away and in another country.

---

Only if you think expressing a brazen fact, that Elizabeth Two's only qualification is being born, is "emotional resentment."

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
And frankly, if the argument is that an hereditary monarchy is a better way to select leaders than some form of popular mandate, then an examination of the leaders thus selected is a perfectly valid criticism of the system.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
And frankly, if the argument is that an hereditary monarchy is a better way to select leaders than some form of popular mandate, then an examination of the leaders thus selected is a perfectly valid criticism of the system.

---

It's not like democracy has a perfect record on that count. Say what you like about Prince Charles, but I'd rather have him running the country in ten years time than another fucker like Blair, Brown or Bush.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

It's not like democracy has a perfect record on that count. Say what you like about Prince Charles, but I'd rather have him running the country in ten years time than another fucker like Blair, Brown or Bush.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
1) To what extent does Queen Elizabeth "run" the UK (and Canada and Australia and any of the other nations of which she is the nominal head of state)?

---

quote:

---

2) Doesn't this comparison implicitly acknowledge the validity of comparing the results of the various selection proceses for heads of state?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete173:
The attachment of people in the UK (and the US) to the British monarchy is pretty sentimental, irrational and visceral (as republicans discover when they try to argue the [pretty rational] case against monarchy and primogeniture).

---

Really? I have listened to and read a good number of republic rants here in the UK and very rarely do I hear a political argument for the abolishing the Crown. It's all very personal: in-bred Germans - interfering Big-Ears - Diana was murdered - guillotine the lot of the spongers - Camilla's a cow, Anne's a horse - the Queen doesn't smile - Philip's a racist - they are posh (!) - they are rich - etc, etc.

I never see pragmatic, rational, cerebral (if that's the opposite of visceral) arguments for a British presidency; it's all rather foolish and insulting comments about the royal family which, as intelligent people are aware, is not the same as the Monarchy

---

That, Mudfrog, is a very good point indeed. I don't think I've ever seen it so well put.

Thinking about it, I too have heard a lot of rants. But I don't think I've ever heard anyone argue a rational case for a republic, rather than simply express resentment towards the Royals. That is saying more about their own inner complexes and problems with authority than anything to do with HRH herself.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
And frankly, if the argument is that an hereditary monarchy is a better way to select leaders than some form of popular mandate, then an examination of the leaders thus selected is a perfectly valid criticism of the system.

---

It's not like democracy has a perfect record on that count. Say what you like about Prince Charles, but I'd rather have him running the country in ten years time than another fucker like Blair, Brown or Bush.

---

At least we can vote them out. And Bush's successor, whoever he is, is likely to have a big say in the running of this country whether we have a monarch or a president.

Nightmare scenario: King Charles with David Icke as Archbishop of Canterbury.

--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
That sounds like the sort of emotional resentment that Mudfrog and I were commenting on. It seems very odd that a person should feel that strongly about someone far away and in another country.

---

Only if you think expressing a brazen fact, that Elizabeth Two's only qualification is being born, is "emotional resentment."

---

That, and that the pool of candidates is restricted to a particular family of upper-class, anglo-German, white people. I mean nothing pejorative by those descriptions, but by definition it rules out for ever a head of state who is working or middle class, from any minority ethnic group or even the greater part of the white majority. It's even more illogical than the view that only a male priest can represent women.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
1) To what extent does Queen Elizabeth "run" the UK (and Canada and Australia and any of the other nations of which she is the nominal head of state)?

---

It was purely a rhetorical flourish.

But frankly, a Head of State is more important in some ways than the people who run the country. They are the country, they define it and what it stands for both at home and on the world stage.

I for one don't want that important role open to any old dickhead who knows how to win a popularity contest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

2) Doesn't this comparison implicitly acknowledge the validity of comparing the results of the various selection proceses for heads of state?

---

I wasn't aware that I'd ever argued otherwise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's quite simple for me - deciding who the Head of State shall be by a democratic process leaves open the possibility that my Head of State - the person who encapsulates and defines my whole country - will be Tony Fucking Blair or (God forbid) even David "Looks Pretty And Can Kick A Ball Well" Beckham. Keeping the monarchy eliminates that possibility. Argument over, as far as I'm concerned.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But frankly, a Head of State is more important in some ways than the people who run the country. They are the country, they define it and what it stands for both at home and on the world stage.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
whether we have a monarch or a president.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
So essentially the monarchy's main job is making sure the British feel good about being British, and that other countries have good feelings towards the UK (and associated Commonwealth nations)? Is that a fair summary?

---

quote:

---

I'm not convinced that a monarchical system automatically eliminates unsuitable candidates as you suggest.

---

quote:

---

There doesn't seem to be a mechanism at hand to remove a truly disasterous monarch on anything other than a voluntary basis,

---

Sure there is. We just haven't had to use it since 1649 .

quote:

---

so it seems as if you're arguing that the process of being raised within the royal family automatically promotes whatever virtues you think are necessary to fulfil the role of national good-feelings generator. That doesn't seem immediately obvious.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
When people think of Germany and Italy, I bet they think of Angela Merkel and Mario Monti (the heads of government) rather than Joachim Gauck and Giorgio Napolitano (the heads of state).

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But frankly, a Head of State is more important in some ways than the people who run the country. They are the country, they define it and what it stands for both at home and on the world stage.

I for one don't want that important role open to any old dickhead who knows how to win a popularity contest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
So essentially the monarchy's main job is making sure the British feel good about being British, and that other countries have good feelings towards the UK (and associated Commonwealth nations)? Is that a fair summary?

---

If you want to phrase it that way, yes. The monarch is a figurehead.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Sure there is. We just haven't had to use it since 1649 .

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I also find some tension in the idea that monarchs are somehow more virtuous than slimy, elected politicians, and the idea that we need a monarch to be above politics. Which is it- are they really more virtuous, or are they merely protected from the realities of running a government? Are they mere cardboard cut-outs standing in for nationalist pretensions, or are they heads of state because they really deserve it?

By the by, while your Queen is cutting ribbons at school openings and pinning medals on people, the people that jump to my mind with the words "the Leader of the United Kingdom" are Winston Churchill, Tony Blaire, and David Cameron. But that's just me.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:
I also find some tension in the idea that monarchs are somehow more virtuous than slimy, elected politicians, and the idea that we need a monarch to be above politics. Which is it- are they really more virtuous, or are they merely protected from the realities of running a government? Are they mere cardboard cut-outs standing in for nationalist pretensions, or are they heads of state because they really deserve it?

---

quote:

---

By the by, while your Queen is cutting ribbons at school openings and pinning medals on people, the people that jump to my mind with the words "the Leader of the United Kingdom" are Winston Churchill, Tony Blaire, and David Cameron. But that's just me.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Sure there is. We just haven't had to use it since 1649 .

---

Strange. I thought we'd done that in 1688 and 1936.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
whether we have a monarch or a president.

---

I dson't see why6 we need either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Sure there is. We just haven't had to use it since 1649 .

---

Strange. I thought we'd done that in 1688 and 1936.

---

Perhaps he only counts the ones which get collects in the BCP.

---

More than just those of course.


1688/89 - James II removed by Parliament (with a bit of assistance from the aforementioned Prince of Orange and John Churchill) Real wars over that one, including the famous Battle of the Boyne (the Pope was on King Billy's side)

1714/15 - George I put in place by a succession of Acts of Parliament (going back a few years) and some nifty stacking of various committees with his friends. There was a war or two over that one as well.

1810/11 - Parliament replaced the king with the Prince Regent - laws were passed without royal assent as there were no royals capable of assenting to them. No war over that one. Maybe because Napoleon was already supplying all the wars the market could bear and we had no need of additional ones.

1936/37 - Parliament made the king an offer he couldn't refuse. Not just one Parliament, a whole gang of them. Even the Kiwis and the Irish got in on the act. If he had tried to say no he'd have been sleeping with the fishes. No shortage of wars round about hten either, but none of them specifically to do with Edward VIII. Even if he was a fan of Mussolini.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
I am not sure that I can see how, without a
non-political constitutional monarch or president, you deal with that, but doubtless, there must be some way because otherwise the US army would only fight if its entire personnel changed each time there was an election.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Who remembers who the head of state of Switzerland is? Not even the Swiss. Are they bothered?

---

They have a "collective" head of state -- the 7-member Federal Council, which currently includes members of five different political parties.

The Swiss always did have their own way of doing things. (And I must say, it sounds rather Calvinist to me, placing power in councils rather than in individuals. )

[ 24. October 2012, 18:06: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
I am not sure that I can see how, without a
non-political constitutional monarch or president, you deal with that, but doubtless, there must be some way because otherwise the US army would only fight if its entire personnel changed each time there was an election.

---

My theory is that this is why the American flag has taken on such significance in American culture and civic life, a significance often not found elsewhere. Our political system leaves something of a void in this regard, and that void has been filled by the flag. It, rather than the president or any other person, has become the symbol and embodiment, as it were, of the nation.

Just for one example: Your national anthem is about your monarch; ours is about our flag.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
A similar significance is often placed around the U.S. Constitution (and, theoretically, the ideas contained therein, thought that's a bit more hit-or-miss).

---

quote:

---

Interesting the U.S. flag wasn't a particularly popular symbol in the early years of the country. It wasn't unpopular, it just wasn't in particularly widespread use. It was flown on army bases, post offices, and other facilities associated with the federal government but wasn't widely displayed in the broader society. The American flag first became really popular around the time of the U.S. Civil War, probably because for the first time there was a competitor flag.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Zach82 you are failing to appreciate that different peoples, even though you think they may speak the same language as you do, look at these things in very different ways.

---

quote:

---

I'm not sure it's a matter of slimy, elected politicians versus non-elected virtuous heads of state.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

I'm not sure it's a matter of slimy, elected politicians versus non-elected virtuous heads of state.

---

That certainly is how it's been framed on this thread again and again, by more than one person. This is my issue. I'm not attacking your monarch. I really don't care about her. Why do I have to keep repeating that?

---

quote:

---

Does that mean I think we should ditch our system for a monarchy? Hardly.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

My guess is that you have to keep repeating it because some perceive you as responding to what you think they meant instead of what they actually said. Reading back through this thread, I just don't see things being framed as slimy politican vs virtuous monarch "again and again" the way you seem to.

---

quote:

---

My monarch? That's me you're quoting, Zach, and I'm an American. I'd have thought that was pretty clear from my posts in this thread, including the post from which you quoted, where I said:

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

My guess is that you have to keep repeating it because some perceive you as responding to what you think they meant instead of what they actually said. Reading back through this thread, I just don't see things being framed as slimy politican vs virtuous monarch "again and again" the way you seem to.

---

Look closer at Marvin the Martian and Aumbry's posts, where it's only the most obvious.

---