Royalist or Republican: Poll

[London Calling]

Just reading "Ghosts of Spain" full of haunting stories of republicans, beaten, tortured and murdered for their beliefs.

The people who did it believe in "God and Spain"?

A republic to me means removing "Royalty" who should serve no function in modern society. It also means reducing the influence and power of vested interests and the major land owning establishments, owned by families that also stole, murdered and put land owning peasants into poverty to gain their land , power and fortune and power.


Just as in Sweden, I want public access to all land (within reason), with the full opening up our land, walkways, country paths, the coast.

Viva Republic.

LC

 

[tedebear]

I like bits of both, I'm not a fence sitter as that implies I'm undecided but I like queenie and her history, but I also like having a democratic state...

 

[beorhthelm]

Just as in Sweden, I want public access to all land (within reason), with the full opening up our land, walkways, country paths, the coast.

should people have the right to walk through your garden? how about a football ground or cricket pitch? where do you draw the line between private land and public land?

removing "royalty" doesnt remove vested interests or the establishment, it just transfers it to others. unless you want to go the whole hog and remove the whole concept of ownership, i dont see how a middle ground works or is fair to those who have worked hard to aquire property.

 

[Gwylan]

Just as in Sweden, I want public access to all land (within reason), with the full opening up our land, walkways, country paths, the coast.

Viva Republic.

Er...do you know who the Swedish head of state is?

 

[Curious Orange]

Is it King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden? One of Her Majesty's relatives btw.

 

[leonidas]

I would just like an option.
Most comparable countries elect the head of state so why can't we.
If the royalists among us are confident that they represent the silent majority I can't see what they have to fear from a referendum.
I think that they realise the majority view the parasitic activities of Andrew, Phil the Greek etc. as totaly unacceptable, and allowed to carry on only because of the bumlickers and hangers on to our medieval class system, who are there because they think they will get a gong or some other reward for a life time of brown nosing.
We are a mature democracy, please let the best rise to the top and allow the people to decide who sits in Buck palace, not some sad accident of history.

 

[Pavilionaire]

I would just like an option.
Most comparable countries elect the head of state so why can't we.
QUOTE]

What sort of logic is that? Where is the evidence that a presidential system is better than a monarchy?

Developed countries like Holland, Denmark, Sweden and Spain have monarchies, Germany and France don't. That really tells us nothing about the effectiveness and value of each system.

Economically the UK gets more money in from having a Royal Family than it costs us. In terms of global influence and prestige our position in the world is FAR more influential because of the monarchy, and the Queen is arguably the most respected Head Of State in the world.

If the Royal Family are replaced by a republic then it is a fact we will have ended centuries of history that reaches into the very fabric of our cultural identity.

Lastly, you will struggle to find any candidate willing to stand as President would would command the respect, loyalty and admiration that the Queen and Prince William already have. And whilst Charles has blotted his copybook with his personal life I still believe he'd make an excellent king.

 

[Gwylan]

Lastly, you will struggle to find any candidate willing to stand as President would would command the respect, loyalty and admiration that the Queen and Prince William already have. And whilst Charles has blotted his copybook with his personal life I still believe he'd make an excellent king.

Then they could stand for president and if they have the respect and admiration that you say, then they'd win. Liz might be getting on a bit, but Charles or William could stand.

There's a precedent for this; Bulgaria's former king, Simeon, stood as president and won. If he could do it, then our lot could.

 

[leonidas]

I understand your point Pavilionaire but the logic is simple. It's our country, not theirs so we should decide who is it's head and not have it dictated to us.

I don't agree that tourism would suffer. The elected head of state would continue with the duties as the Queen now does. Parliament would still be opened, the state coaches would still glide up and down the Mall and the changing of the guards would still take place for the tourists to film. So why would they stop coming?
Would you refuse to go to Paris because they have no King in France, of course not, refuse because its a filthy shithole perhaps but not because its a republic.
How many of the millions of people that go to Spain every year even know that they have a monarchy let alone care. I think this - the tourists would stop coming argument - is a con to scare people.

We are one of the worlds most advanced economies and a major player globaly both in industry and politics, we are not a theme park.
The same arguments were trotted out when the Royal yacht was going to be scrapped, we wont get foreign arms deal, we will loose international prestige etc. etc. yet we have gone from strength to strength without it.

If the people of this nation choose, in a referendum, to retain a medieval system then thats fine by me yet it always seems to be the pro royalists that oppose a vote on the subject.

I do not belive that William commands respect. Many view him as just the next generation of the self perpetuating elite that can never be removed from high office no matter how incapable they prove to be. A paid soldier that can't even be deployed against our enemys, but that to me, sums up the whole arse licking royal establishment. Bloody pointless.

 

[Simster]

There's a precedent for this; Bulgaria's former king, Simeon, stood as president and won. If he could do it, then our lot could.

He sounds like a particularly QUALLA indiviual.

 

[Cian]

Lastly, you will struggle to find any candidate willing to stand as President would would command the respect, loyalty and admiration that the Queen and Prince William already have. And whilst Charles has blotted his copybook with his personal life I still believe he'd make an excellent king.

I've a feeling that none of them would get elected if they ran for President.

Additionally, we've had a President here who's got the whole respect/loyalty stuff and would be instantly re-elected if she stood again - Robinson. I didn't like her however

 

[London Calling]

Er...do you know who the Swedish head of state is?

Yep and they have probably the most egalitarian society in the world, despite having the wealthiest man in the world, the establishment/upper class has been severely curtailed, as an economy it bats way above a 9m country, its GDP per head is often the highest in the world, and it also has an open access to all land policy.

Yes there are some restrictions, you can't park your tent too close to a building, but we are talking gaining access to the countryside and wilds of Britain, of which the overwhelming majority is in private hands and public access is restricted.

 

[London Calling]

I understand your point Pavilionaire but the logic is simple. It's our country, not theirs so we should decide who is it's head and not have it dictated to us.

I don't agree that tourism would suffer. The elected head of state would continue with the duties as the Queen now does. Parliament would still be opened, the state coaches would still glide up and down the Mall and the changing of the guards would still take place for the tourists to film. So why would they stop coming?
Would you refuse to go to Paris because they have no King in France, of course not, refuse because its a filthy shithole perhaps but not because its a republic.
How many of the millions of people that go to Spain every year even know that they have a monarchy let alone care. I think this - the tourists would stop coming argument - is a con to scare people.

We are one of the worlds most advanced economies and a major player globaly both in industry and politics, we are not a theme park.
The same arguments were trotted out when the Royal yacht was going to be scrapped, we wont get foreign arms deal, we will loose international prestige etc. etc. yet we have gone from strength to strength without it.

If the people of this nation choose, in a referendum, to retain a medieval system then thats fine by me yet it always seems to be the pro royalists that oppose a vote on the subject.

I do not belive that William commands respect. Many view him as just the next generation of the self perpetuating elite that can never be removed from high office no matter how incapable they prove to be. A paid soldier that can't even be deployed against our enemys, but that to me, sums up the whole arse licking royal establishment. Bloody pointless.

Leonidas didn't you die about 2487 years ago. I know wonder you've done only 49 posts, but I agree with this one.

Long Live the Republic.

LC

 

[beorhthelm]

If the people of this nation choose, in a referendum, to retain a medieval system then thats fine by me yet it always seems to be the pro royalists that oppose a vote on the subject.

I do not belive that William commands respect. Many view him as just the next generation of the self perpetuating elite that can never be removed from high office no matter how incapable they prove to be. A paid soldier that can't even be deployed against our enemys, but that to me, sums up the whole arse licking royal establishment. Bloody pointless.

bring on a referendum. waste of money though if you ask me. Australia and i believe Canada have had referendum on this issue and kept the monarchy. Even the SNP would see the Queen as head of state in the event of independance. Theres no appetite to change the status quo because, at the end of the day, it works. BTW, the existance of the armed forces are by agreement of Parliament. Read the Bill of Rights. the only thing medieval is the idea of succession by birth, which is not entirely without merit.

 

[leonidas]

Leonidas didn't you die about 2487 years ago. I know wonder you've done only 49 posts, but I agree with this one.

Long Live the Republic.

LC

God, was it really that long ago!

 

[Yorkie]

Pick one house Liz, we'll turn the others into theme parks so leave the keys with the security man on your way out.

She only owns two. The rest belong to the state. Liz inherited Windsor Castle as did her father, grandfather, great grandfather, great great grandmother etc etc.
Sandringham is the other btw. Just because her relatives conquered land back in 1066 who are we to grab it back 900 odd years later. Quite a bit of it has been lost.
I'm interested to know what parts of the royal land that we don't have access to. Windsor Great Park is open as is much of Sandringham.

 

[leonidas]

She only owns two. The rest belong to the state. Liz inherited Windsor Castle as did her father, grandfather, great grandfather, great great grandmother etc etc.
Sandringham is the other btw. Just because her relatives conquered land back in 1066 who are we to grab it back 900 odd years later. Quite a bit of it has been lost.
I'm interested to know what parts of the royal land that we don't have access to. Windsor Great Park is open as is much of Sandringham.

Just curious here Yorkie as I really don't know the answer to this -
When you say she owns the two you mention, do you mean as in Liz Windsors name is on the title deeds, or she owns it in her capacity as the queen?
In other words, are they family owned or do they go with the job?

And who owns the rest? The crown, the government?
God it's gonna be one hell of a mess sorting this out when they have gone, but worth it.

 

[leonidas]

Leonidas didn't you die about 2487 years ago. I know wonder you've done only 49 posts, but I agree with this one.

Long Live the Republic.

LC

And I did have to wait about 2480 years for NSC to show up. What took you so long!

 

[Yorkie]

Just curious here Yorkie as I really don't know the answer to this -
When you say she owns the two you mention, do you mean as in Liz Windsors name is on the title deeds, or she owns it in her capacity as the queen?
In other words, are they family owned or do they go with the job?

And who owns the rest? The crown, the government?
God it's gonna be one hell of a mess sorting this out when they have gone, but worth it.

Windsor Castle and Sandringham belong to the family (or rather her, because she is the heir in her family)
The rest of the residences Buck House, Balmoral, Holyrood House etc go with the job but actually belong to the state. Balmoral for example is leased.
The Royal Pavilion was a royal residence but Queen Vic didn't like it when she inherited so she sold it to the people of Brighton and bought Osborne House (Isle of Wight)with the proceeds.

 

[leonidas]

bring on a referendum. waste of money though if you ask me. Australia and i believe Canada have had referendum on this issue and kept the monarchy. Even the SNP would see the Queen as head of state in the event of independance. Theres no appetite to change the status quo because, at the end of the day, it works. BTW, the existance of the armed forces are by agreement of Parliament. Read the Bill of Rights. the only thing medieval is the idea of succession by birth, which is not entirely without merit.

Sorry, can't agree, succession by birth has no merit whatsoever!

I'm not talking about inheriting your parents house or the family fish and chip shop, but public office.

It has taken centuries to shift the mouldy backsides of the peers from the benches of the house of Lords but, now they've gone, no sane person would suggest such a ridiculous idea as good governance for the new century.

I belive we will view the idea of monarchy the same way in the future. Our grand children will laugh at the idea of someone being born with an inherited right to be a councilor, mayor, MP, MEP, prime minister or head of state simply because your mum used to do the job.

The idea is totaly daft, THIS IS A DEMOCRACY. it's not me upseting the system but the monarchists that want to prevent the progression of democracy and preserve the rotten system we now have. Thanks to succession the good people of this nation are going to be the laughing stock of the world. Our next head of state - talks to trees, plays about despite being married and being the head of our church, and has a tax paying history that would see you or me locked up.
A fine example for our children to look up to.

And you really think that that will encourage other nation to aspire to be like us?

Power to the people.