dpack
|
quuen says charlie gets the firmdiscuss
|
Chez
|
Can we have a 'pension 'em off and give 'em bicycles' option, too, please?
|
sally_in_wales
|
hmm, I need a nice concise option that boils down to "the existence of the monarchy isn't the specific fault of the current batch of royals, so I don't feel inclined to nag them too much no matter how daft/imprudent some of their private escapades and tastes seem to be, and I suppose somebody has to attend those boring state dinners and the tourists seem to quite like them, but on the whole I think its had its day and isn't really doing any major favours for them or us"
|
dpack
|
recon they would squark
|
alice
|
Me? I love 'em 
Or more accurately, couldn't stomach the alternative 
|
Rob R
|
no midway option? I'm struggling to be honest
|
dpack
|
if they want to move to midway (leaving the loot )maybe
|
pricey
|
| Rob R wrote: | | I'm struggling to be honest |
I was honest. Looks like I am the only one though 
|
sean
|
Dunno. I reckon that neither of those answers is honest for most people.
|
boisdevie1
|
I am a democrat. I believe that everyone should be equal. So I don't believe that we should have some people who are judged to be better than the rest. This includes the monarchy but also those who have a title such as Lord and Duke.
|
dpack
|
suggest another poll question then that fits the subject please .
consider the history of the "royal" families
i was polite the way i asked this question
i could have said do we need murderous gangster families to "lead "us
|
Rob R
|
Monarchy is a natural behaviour, many similarities (but would be improved with more) to Chillingham cattle, me thinks.
|
Chez
|
I think every country needs murderous gangster types at some point or other, don't they? It's just that we've pensioned off one lot and turned them in to tourist attractions and we pretend that we now get to choose who holds our head in the noose.
|
dpack
|
its a royal knockout in th walls
moos will win
|
oldish chris
|
Given that to be King of England one doesn't even have to be English (or even speak the language) anyone can do the job! Of course, if we randomly selected anyone we might end up with an imbecile or a lunatic!
|
Penny
|
I don't see any reason why they shouldn't continue to be "Monarchs" as such, but they should have no power, even if it's pretend power.
Did you know that the Queen "owns" 1/6th of the planet? You don't own the land your house stand on - she does, you just have a title to it.
A presidential election may just re-engage a lot of people in the democratic process.
|
Brownbear
|
| boisdevie1 wrote: | | I am a democrat. I believe that everyone should be equal. So I don't believe that we should have some people who are judged to be better than the rest. This includes the monarchy but also those who have a title such as Lord and Duke. |
What a bizarre definition of democracy. There was me thinking it involved government by the will of the people (who wish to retain the monarchy), rather than some sort of pretend-everyone's-the-same idealised version of Pol Pot's Year Zero.
|
colour it green
|
i vote for.. wot Sally said
|
dpack
|
i didnt vote yet
|
Rob R
|
undecided, eh? 
|
dpack
|
i need to keep my head
|
Drewsephine
|
Gotta keep them. She/He is ultimately my boss
|
Simon
|
| Penny wrote: | | You don't own the land your house stand on - she does, |
I beg to differ 
|
TAVASCAROW
|
Considering that politics seems to attract those with megalomaniacal tendencies I think an ineffective royalty is probably a safer option to a so called democracy.
Far rather see Charles as king rather than Blair as president.
|
Penny
|
| Simon wrote: | | Penny wrote: | | You don't own the land your house stand on - she does, |
I beg to differ |
I really must learn to be less insular 
|
Gervase
|
| Drewsephine wrote: | | Gotta keep them. She/He is ultimately my boss |
Nah - when you attest it's to the Queen and 'her heirs and successors'. That could mean President Dale Winton if we become a republic and he succeeds her!
|
Tony Blair
|
Hi Guys
Y'know I'm quite busy these days with middle east peace and after dinner speeches, but y'know, all I'm saying is, I'd be honoured to fit the role into my schedule. Probably couldn't start until February, Christmas first and then Dubbya is coming to visit for a couple of weeks.
Ciao
Tony
|
twoscoops
|
Yo Blair!
I hear you're playing David Frost in a new film?!!
|
toggle
|
| TAVASCAROW wrote: | Considering that politics seems to attract those with megalomaniacal tendencies I think an ineffective royalty is probably a safer option to a so called democracy.
Far rather see Charles as king rather than Blair as president. |
Which from what i can recall, is the reason the aussies voted to keep her as head of state, even those who didn't like the monarchy, what they stand for or the poms, disliked them slightly less than all the potential presidential candidates.
myself, I think they hyold a usefull position in seperating national identity from politics, if you look at the extremes in the US where people start shouting that disagreeing with shrub over TWAT was treason, we don't get that sort of stuff here.
|
Drewsephine
|
| Gervase wrote: | | That could mean President Dale Winton if we become a republic and he succeeds her! |
The worlds first orange gay president ! 
|
Brownbear
|
| Drewsephine wrote: | | Gervase wrote: | | That could mean President Dale Winton if we become a republic and he succeeds her! |
The worlds first orange gay president ! |
I thought the Orangemen were dead set against those sort of frolics.
|
Drewsephine
|
[quote="Brownbear
I thought the Orangemen were dead set against those sort of frolics.[/quote]
He may have a sharp and analytical political mind. Must be all those years on supermarket sweep that does that to a man.
|
vegplot
|
I'm a parliamentary monarchist, if there is such a thing. The people I generally don't care about as long as they're doing their jobs. Diana's boys are pretty good roles models on the whole.
The monarchy serves an important role in parliamentary democracy. It shouldn't in principle but it does.
|
Rob R
|
Cromwell anyone?
|
vegplot
|
| Rob R wrote: | | Cromwell anyone? |
He banned Christmas and all sorts of other fun festivals.
|
thos
|
| Rob R wrote: | | Cromwell anyone? |
"Gentlemen, you have sat here too long for the good you have done" or thereabouts.
Unfortunately he ended up with more autocratic power than Charles I, which is why the Restoration seemed such a good idea.
I approve of limited monarchy and a differently-elected Upper House.
e.g.
CEOs of FT 100 companies - 10 off
Those who have passed their examinations to the middle class (i.e accountants, solicitors, doctors, marketing managers, engineers who are members of specific bodies) 100 off
Judges, religious leaders, senior military, ex-cabinet ministers 20 off
Plebs who have never held elected office 20 off
all randomly-selected
|
Ixy
|
| sally_in_wales wrote: | | hmm, I need a nice concise option that boils down to "the existence of the monarchy isn't the specific fault of the current batch of royals, so I don't feel inclined to nag them too much no matter how daft/imprudent some of their private escapades and tastes seem to be, and I suppose somebody has to attend those boring state dinners and the tourists seem to quite like them, but on the whole I think its had its day and isn't really doing any major favours for them or us" |
yes me too
|
VSS
|
If it ain't broken dont mend it.
I think if most of us had to live our lives in a goldfish bowl like the royal family do, we would have trouble holding a marriage together!
|
alice
|
| VSS wrote: | If it ain't broken dont mend it.
I think if most of us had to live our lives in a goldfish bowl like the royal family do, we would have trouble holding a marriage together! |
My feelings exactly.
|
