|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Born a child and yet a king
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
No, I quite agree it'd be silly.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
You see, this is what I want to know - what does this 'OK' consist of?
As far as I can see, it seems to involve primarily modelling a kind of moral domesticity. More than that, there seems to be a kind of mana involved: young Cambridge comes trailing more than ordinary clouds of glory.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
If the British public really can't stomach having a queen they don't like much, perhaps it is time the British public considered republicanism.
Exactly. The public discussion of the monarch and her family, of whether they are qualified for their jobs, of whether the British people approve of the things that they do -- these things make monarchy itself look ridiculous. You want a hereditary monarchy? Fine, suck it up and take without complaint what that gives you: people who are born into their jobs no matter what their qualifications, character or personal preferences might be.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
If the British public really can't stomach having a queen they don't like much, perhaps it is time the British public considered republicanism.
Exactly. The public discussion of the monarch and her family, of whether they are qualified for their jobs, of whether the British people approve of the things that they do -- these things make monarchy itself look ridiculous. You want a hereditary monarchy? Fine, suck it up and take without complaint what that gives you: people who are born into their jobs no matter what their qualifications, character or personal preferences might be.
But looking ridiculous is all part of it. It is ridiculous, and bitching about it is part of the point. If not complaining about it was part of the deal, we'd have a revolution tomorrow.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Why have a Head of State at all?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Goodness, ken, are you proposing getting rid of the separate head of government and investing all real executive power in the monarch? Seems a bit radical to me- are you sure you realise what you're proposing?
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Why have a Head of State at all?
That, perhaps, is a key consideration which almost no republican deals with. There may be a head-of-state function, but the Swiss manage to share it among a commission and the Swedes split it between the Speaker and the King. Uruguay once considered a nine-man directory to undertake it. However, with a set of clear rules on dealing with parliamentary situations, and perhaps a few dozen judges or other public officials to hand out decorations and preside at functions, there is no real need for one. To speak of presidents and elected governors general rather than monarchs might simply be a waste of time and a basic misunderstanding of what a modern state does.
In any case, the Queen, wherever she might reign, does so by exercise (or non-exercise) of the popular will. She is in effect an oddly-selected president. If the notion of hereditary selection bothers folks, they can change it anytime they want. I suspect that the Queen will return to her horses, Prince Charles to making helpful vague speeches of an environmentally conscious character, and William to his search-and-rescue pilot job and changing nappies.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
RuthW: quote:
The public discussion of the President and [his] family, of whether they are qualified for their jobs, of whether the American people approve of the things that they do -- these things make the Presidency itself look ridiculous.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif) Fixed that for you. Or rather, translated it into American terms to point out that (some of) you bitch about your Head of State too.
More seriously, perhaps being a Head of State is inherently ridiculous; and as Ken points out, some countries combine the functions of Head of Government and Head of State in one person. I think it's better to have a Head of State who is (theoretically at least) outside party politics, but maybe that's just because I'm used to the way things work over here...
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
More than that, there seems to be a kind of mana involved: young Cambridge comes trailing more than ordinary clouds of glory.
I reckon that's got more to do with the way the media has changed since the early 80's than anything else.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
