Should the British Monarchy be abolished?

Undesired Walrus · 14th March 2008, 08:05 AM

Common reply: 'I don't want a President Blair'

Well at least you get a choice!

I think, at the dawn of the 21st century, it will be best if we do away with the archaic system. I'm surprised I am living in an age in which we still believe we should have human representatives to reign over us because of the position they happened to be born into.

Out of interest though, how would this system work? Would Britain keep a prime minister? What powers and influence would the president have?

D'rok · 14th March 2008, 08:27 AM

The symbolism of the separation of state and government is vitally important, IMO. It immunizes (more so, at least) dissent against the government from accusations of treason. The head of govt is there to do a job, not to be the living embodiment of the soul/honour/majesty of the state. If you combine those two roles into the head of government, it's a heck of a lot harder to kick that person to the curb. And It just doesn't works as well with a PM/President combo as it does with PM/Monarch.

But...please skip a generation come succession time. Charles, King of Canada, is really not the way we want to go here in the colonies.

Undesired Walrus · 14th March 2008, 08:33 AM

Ah yes, but what about seperation of church and state?

D'rok · 14th March 2008, 08:37 AM

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

Ah yes, but what about seperation of church and state?

Not a problem when the church is attached to the almost entirely symbolic head of state. Attach it to government and you've got a problem.

egslim · 14th March 2008, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by D'rok

The symbolism of the separation of state and government is vitally important, IMO. It immunizes (more so, at least) dissent against the government from accusations of treason. The head of govt is there to do a job, not to be the living embodiment of the soul/honour/majesty of the state.

I agree. In addition the two roles require entirely different abilities that very few people combine in their person.

During the Monica affaire Clinton's government was more or less paralyzed, because anything he did was considered as a smokescreen for Monica. But during the entire soap opera around Diana the British government kept functioning just fine, and the Royal family functions as a lightning rod to keep paparazzi away from government officials who actually have work to do.

I think the concept of maintaining hereditary rulers is theoretically both archaic and ridiculous, but it does seem to work very well in practice. And I prefer function over form anytime.

DaChew · 14th March 2008, 09:09 AM

I believe that the Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, should hold aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, DaChew, am to carry Excalibur and be your King.

ravdin · 14th March 2008, 09:24 AM

Originally Posted by DaChew

I believe that the Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, should hold aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, DaChew, am to carry Excalibur and be your King.

If I went around saying I was your Emperor because some watery tart lugged a scimitar at me, they'd put me away. Supreme executive power derives from the masses!

LibraryLady · 14th March 2008, 09:41 AM

Can you keep the monarchy but get rid of that pesky royal family?

Sefarst · 14th March 2008, 09:49 AM

A quick question, forgive my ignorance of the British system, but is the House of Lords elected?

DaChew · 14th March 2008, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by ravdin

If I went around saying I was your Emperor because some watery tart lugged a scimitar at me, they'd put me away. Supreme executive power derives from the masses!

~~Shut up! Bloody PEASANT!~~

Undesired Walrus · 14th March 2008, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by Sefarst

A quick question, forgive my ignorance of the British system, but is the House of Lords elected?

Some of them are non-hereditary.

dudalb · 14th March 2008, 10:21 AM

The Brits have a right to do what they want, but IMHO they should keep the Monarchy for one reason: The Royal Mystique is great for the Tourist industry.

dudalb · 14th March 2008, 10:22 AM

Originally Posted by LibraryLady

Can you keep the monarchy but get rid of that pesky royal family?

Bring The Auld Stuarts Back Again!

brodski · 14th March 2008, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

Some of them are non-hereditary.

All of them are now non hereditary. They are either appointed or former heredity Lords who where elected by the old Lords membership before the reforms.

ravdin · 14th March 2008, 10:34 AM

I think the idea of a head of state who is appointed for life and whose only qualification is to have the right parents is an anachronism. Like other relics, it's currently popular and it's also (at least in the UK) a draw for tourists. So maybe the British monarchy doesn't have to be abolished tomorrow, but I think it is inevitable that it will be abolished someday. I wonder if it will last long after QE2 is gone.

A word to my skeptical friends in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand: we decided in the USA over 230 years ago that we have no need for foreign monarchs. As you can see, we've done quite well for ourselves in the meantime. We were even able to break up with Great Britain and stay friends!

You have the option of declaring a republic with a vote, for crying out loud- you don't even have to fight your way out like we did. So why stay? Do you like having the Queen of England on your money?

Pardalis · 14th March 2008, 10:35 AM

It's the second time the thread title and the question poll are not the same.

So to the thread title I say yes, and to the question I say no.

ETA: and I have my say because the queen is still technically Canada's head of state.

D'rok · 14th March 2008, 10:36 AM

Another side benefit of Westminster systems...we have a Mace as our symbol of Parliamentary authority and power. A frickin' mace. How cool is that?

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/ab...HoC_mace-e.asp

The Speaker of the House oughta wield it and bash a few MP heads every now and again when they get out of hand. Just a thought.

Professor Yaffle · 14th March 2008, 10:36 AM

The monarchy should be kept for it's comedy value only.

D'rok · 14th March 2008, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by ravdin

You have the option of declaring a republic with a vote, for crying out loud- you don't even have to fight your way out like we did. So why stay? Do you like having the Queen of England on your money?

See posts #2 and #5 for a start. Although I have always liked the idea of a domestic non-president head of state. (Like a First Nations elder or something equally honourable). Symbolism is important. The problem is, in Canada, we'd never be able to agree on how to modify the Constitution to do that. If we touch it, we'll probably break it.

Pardalis · 14th March 2008, 10:44 AM

What constitution?

D'rok · 14th March 2008, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by Pardalis

What constitution?

Just because you folks in Lower Canada pout about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Pardalis · 14th March 2008, 10:49 AM

Just teasing.

D'rok · 14th March 2008, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by Pardalis

Just teasing.

Go Sens!

Pardalis · 14th March 2008, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by D'rok

Go Sens!

In your dreams.

Architect · 14th March 2008, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by ravdin

You have the option of declaring a republic with a vote, for crying out loud- you don't even have to fight your way out like we did. So why stay? Do you like having the Queen of England on your money?

(cough) Who? (cough)

tkingdoll · 14th March 2008, 11:02 AM

I'm not qualified or informed enough to say, really. I have no idea what value the monarchy has to my country. I know what they cost, but I don't know what they add in terms of tourism, diplomatic relations, etc. No idea at all. So I can't make a judgement on whether or not we'd be better off without them.

I don't like the concept of a monarchy in 2008, that's for sure, and I don't like the influence Charles about alt medicine and the NHS, but it's entirely possible the benefits of the monarchy outweigh my objections.

Can we do a SWOT analysis?

Architect · 14th March 2008, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by D'rok

The Speaker of the House oughta wield it and bash a few MP heads every now and again when they get out of hand. Just a thought.

The Westminster speaker is from Glasgow......it would be practically compulsory, I should imagine!

Architect · 14th March 2008, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

Ah yes, but what about seperation of church and state?

Not a problem. The Queen is not head of the Church of Scotland.

Upchurch · 14th March 2008, 11:08 AM

Speaking as an American, King George is an unfair, unholy tyrant! I'll be happy if he never rules over anyone ever again!

Jekyll · 14th March 2008, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by egslim

During the Monica affaire Clinton's government was more or less paralyzed, because anything he did was considered as a smokescreen for Monica. But during the entire soap opera around Diana the British government kept functioning just fine, and the Royal family functions as a lightning rod to keep paparazzi away from government officials who actually have work to do.

Well that's just because you can't tell the difference between the Royal family being too paralysed to work and business as usual.

The Royal family doesn't do anything to protect the actual *working* government from the effects of scandal.

Sefarst · 14th March 2008, 11:18 AM

Originally Posted by dudalb

The Brits have a right to do what they want, but IMHO they should keep the Monarchy for one reason: The Royal Mystique is great for the Tourist industry.

Royal Mystique? A little old lady with a handbag does not Mystique make. To be honest, I would rather hear about Paris Hilton than the royal family. She's more relevant than any of them.

ravdin · 14th March 2008, 11:27 AM

Originally Posted by Architect

(cough) Who? (cough)

Are you from Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland? Then I suppose the same question would apply to you as well.

dudalb · 14th March 2008, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by D'rok

Another side benefit of Westminster systems...we have a Mace as our symbol of Parliamentary authority and power. A frickin' mace. How cool is that?

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/ab...HoC_mace-e.asp

The Speaker of the House oughta wield it and bash a few MP heads every now and again when they get out of hand. Just a thought.

I know the in the US the Senate uses a Fasces as it's symbol of power....swiped directly from the Roman Senate.
I think the House uses a mace,though.

Almo · 14th March 2008, 12:05 PM

I don't like the PM system. As long as the PM's constituency keeps voting for him, you have no choice about who's PM since the party decides who gets the post.

It's a different issue, but I don't like how in the UK the party in power creates the budget, with no discussion. The chancellor just presents it. Should have to be approved in the house of commons.

dudalb · 14th March 2008, 12:09 PM

Correction: The US House of Representatives DOES use a Mace as it;s symbol of power.
The Senate uses the Fasces.

D'rok · 14th March 2008, 12:21 PM

Oh yeah! Well, our Mace can kick your Mace's ass. Smashy, smashy!

brodski · 14th March 2008, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by ravdin

Are you from Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland? Then I suppose the same question would apply to you as well.

You clerly do not udnertand the UK constution.

It is no more correct to refer to her as the Queen of England than it would be to refer to her as the Queen of Berkshire.

Fiona · 14th March 2008, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by Almo

.

It's a different issue, but I don't like how in the UK the party in power creates the budget, with no discussion. The chancellor just presents it. Should have to be approved in the house of commons.

It does have to be approved.

brodski · 14th March 2008, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by Almo

I don't like the PM system. As long as the PM's constituency keeps voting for him, you have no choice about who's PM since the party decides who gets the post.

We get to influence the election of a PM by our choice of MP. If we want a greater say in the choice of the PM we join a political party.

Quote:

It's a different issue, but I don't like how in the UK the party in power creates the budget, with no discussion. The chancellor just presents it. Should have to be approved in the house of commons.

Um, they have a debate and a vote on the budget every year. Where did you get the idea that it isn't voted on?

egslim · 14th March 2008, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by Jekyll

Well that's just because you can't tell the difference between the Royal family being too paralysed to work and business as usual.

Actually that's the whole idea: The Royal family isn't supposed to do any work, elected government officials do all that. The Royal's mere existance keeps paparazzi away from the head of government, so the government can do its job uninterupted by trivial tabloid matters.

Of course the government is still vulnerable to policy scandals, but that's a good thing.

Yes, keep it.	33	25.00%
It's too much of a problem to get rid of it.	19	14.39%
About time, introduce a republic	71	53.79%
On Planet X I read 'The Queen and I'	9	6.82%
Voters: 132. You may not vote on this poll

14th March 2008, 08:05 AM	#1
Undesired Walrus Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 8,140	Should the British Monarchy be abolished? Common reply: 'I don't want a President Blair' Well at least you get a choice! I think, at the dawn of the 21st century, it will be best if we do away with the archaic system. I'm surprised I am living in an age in which we still believe we should have human representatives to reign over us because of the position they happened to be born into. Out of interest though, how would this system work? Would Britain keep a prime minister? What powers and influence would the president have?
	__________________ Man's material discoveries have outpaced his moral progress. - Clement Attlee, 1945

14th March 2008, 08:33 AM	#3
Undesired Walrus Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 8,140	Ah yes, but what about seperation of church and state?
	__________________ Man's material discoveries have outpaced his moral progress. - Clement Attlee, 1945

14th March 2008, 08:37 AM	#4
D'rok Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Ottawa Posts: 3,791	Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus Ah yes, but what about seperation of church and state? Not a problem when the church is attached to the almost entirely symbolic head of state. Attach it to government and you've got a problem.
	__________________ "War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC

14th March 2008, 09:09 AM	#6
DaChew Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,043	I believe that the Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, should hold aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, DaChew, am to carry Excalibur and be your King.
DaChew Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,043	__________________ I'm not as smart as I think I am. Most people aren't. Except me. Because I know I'm not.

14th March 2008, 08:27 AM	#2
D'rok Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Ottawa Posts: 3,791	The symbolism of the separation of state and government is vitally important, IMO. It immunizes (more so, at least) dissent against the government from accusations of treason. The head of govt is there to do a job, not to be the living embodiment of the soul/honour/majesty of the state. If you combine those two roles into the head of government, it's a heck of a lot harder to kick that person to the curb. And It just doesn't works as well with a PM/President combo as it does with PM/Monarch. But...please skip a generation come succession time. Charles, King of Canada, is really not the way we want to go here in the colonies.
	__________________ "War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC

14th March 2008, 08:51 AM	#5
egslim Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 1,336	Originally Posted by D'rok The symbolism of the separation of state and government is vitally important, IMO. It immunizes (more so, at least) dissent against the government from accusations of treason. The head of govt is there to do a job, not to be the living embodiment of the soul/honour/majesty of the state. I agree. In addition the two roles require entirely different abilities that very few people combine in their person. During the Monica affaire Clinton's government was more or less paralyzed, because anything he did was considered as a smokescreen for Monica. But during the entire soap opera around Diana the British government kept functioning just fine, and the Royal family functions as a lightning rod to keep paparazzi away from government officials who actually have work to do. I think the concept of maintaining hereditary rulers is theoretically both archaic and ridiculous, but it does seem to work very well in practice. And I prefer function over form anytime.
egslim Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 1,336

14th March 2008, 09:24 AM	#7
ravdin Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: The People's Republic of Berkeley, CA Posts: 1,903	Originally Posted by DaChew I believe that the Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, should hold aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, DaChew, am to carry Excalibur and be your King. If I went around saying I was your Emperor because some watery tart lugged a scimitar at me, they'd put me away. Supreme executive power derives from the masses!

14th March 2008, 09:41 AM	#8
LibraryLady Hunter of the SnarK Moderator Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Digging for apples, yer honor! Posts: 10,120	Can you keep the monarchy but get rid of that pesky royal family?
	__________________ SHARE for Haiti Post your good news here! "I shall sit here," he said, "on and off, for days and days."

14th March 2008, 09:49 AM	#9
Sefarst Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,238	A quick question, forgive my ignorance of the British system, but is the House of Lords elected?
Sefarst Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,238

14th March 2008, 09:53 AM	#10
DaChew Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,043	Originally Posted by ravdin If I went around saying I was your Emperor because some watery tart lugged a scimitar at me, they'd put me away. Supreme executive power derives from the masses! ~~Shut up! Bloody PEASANT!~~
DaChew Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,043	__________________ I'm not as smart as I think I am. Most people aren't. Except me. Because I know I'm not. Last edited by DaChew; 14th March 2008 at 10:02 AM. Reason: Oh, what a give away.

14th March 2008, 10:11 AM	#11
Undesired Walrus Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 8,140	Originally Posted by Sefarst A quick question, forgive my ignorance of the British system, but is the House of Lords elected? Some of them are non-hereditary.
	__________________ Man's material discoveries have outpaced his moral progress. - Clement Attlee, 1945 Last edited by Undesired Walrus; 14th March 2008 at 10:11 AM.

14th March 2008, 10:21 AM	#12
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 16,887	The Brits have a right to do what they want, but IMHO they should keep the Monarchy for one reason: The Royal Mystique is great for the Tourist industry.

14th March 2008, 10:22 AM	#13
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 16,887	Originally Posted by LibraryLady Can you keep the monarchy but get rid of that pesky royal family? Bring The Auld Stuarts Back Again!

14th March 2008, 10:33 AM	#14
brodski faceless bureaucrat Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: the three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham Posts: 12,031	Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus Some of them are non-hereditary. All of them are now non hereditary. They are either appointed or former heredity Lords who where elected by the old Lords membership before the reforms.
	__________________ This toilet is not a designated bomb shelter.

14th March 2008, 10:34 AM	#15
ravdin Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: The People's Republic of Berkeley, CA Posts: 1,903	I think the idea of a head of state who is appointed for life and whose only qualification is to have the right parents is an anachronism. Like other relics, it's currently popular and it's also (at least in the UK) a draw for tourists. So maybe the British monarchy doesn't have to be abolished tomorrow, but I think it is inevitable that it will be abolished someday. I wonder if it will last long after QE2 is gone. A word to my skeptical friends in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand: we decided in the USA over 230 years ago that we have no need for foreign monarchs. As you can see, we've done quite well for ourselves in the meantime. We were even able to break up with Great Britain and stay friends! You have the option of declaring a republic with a vote, for crying out loud- you don't even have to fight your way out like we did. So why stay? Do you like having the Queen of England on your money?

14th March 2008, 10:35 AM	#16
Pardalis Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 20,674	It's the second time the thread title and the question poll are not the same. So to the thread title I say yes, and to the question I say no. ETA: and I have my say because the queen is still technically Canada's head of state.
	__________________ "It is best to change your point of view in response to reality than to insist reality has it wrong because it doesn't agree with your point of view." aggle-rithm "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin "All we know is that we know much less and less, but at least we know less and less about much more and more" Christopher Hitchens Last edited by Pardalis; 14th March 2008 at 10:36 AM.

14th March 2008, 10:36 AM	#17
D'rok Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Ottawa Posts: 3,791	Another side benefit of Westminster systems...we have a Mace as our symbol of Parliamentary authority and power. A frickin' mace. How cool is that? http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/ab...HoC_mace-e.asp The Speaker of the House oughta wield it and bash a few MP heads every now and again when they get out of hand. Just a thought.
	__________________ "War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC

14th March 2008, 10:36 AM	#18
Professor Yaffle Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs Moderator Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Emily's shop Posts: 8,701	The monarchy should be kept for it's comedy value only.
	__________________ I think you'll find it's a little bit more complicated than that.

14th March 2008, 10:41 AM	#19
D'rok Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Ottawa Posts: 3,791	Originally Posted by ravdin You have the option of declaring a republic with a vote, for crying out loud- you don't even have to fight your way out like we did. So why stay? Do you like having the Queen of England on your money? See posts #2 and #5 for a start. Although I have always liked the idea of a domestic non-president head of state. (Like a First Nations elder or something equally honourable). Symbolism is important. The problem is, in Canada, we'd never be able to agree on how to modify the Constitution to do that. If we touch it, we'll probably break it.
	__________________ "War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC

14th March 2008, 10:44 AM	#20
Pardalis Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 20,674	What constitution?
	__________________ "It is best to change your point of view in response to reality than to insist reality has it wrong because it doesn't agree with your point of view." aggle-rithm "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin "All we know is that we know much less and less, but at least we know less and less about much more and more" Christopher Hitchens

14th March 2008, 10:46 AM	#21
D'rok Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Ottawa Posts: 3,791	Originally Posted by Pardalis What constitution? Just because you folks in Lower Canada pout about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
	__________________ "War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC

14th March 2008, 10:49 AM	#22
Pardalis Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 20,674	Just teasing.
	__________________ "It is best to change your point of view in response to reality than to insist reality has it wrong because it doesn't agree with your point of view." aggle-rithm "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin "All we know is that we know much less and less, but at least we know less and less about much more and more" Christopher Hitchens

14th March 2008, 11:00 AM	#23
D'rok Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Ottawa Posts: 3,791	Originally Posted by Pardalis Just teasing. Go Sens!
	__________________ "War exists within the continuum of politics, in which play is continuous, and no outcome is final, save for a global thermonuclear war, which might be." - Darth Rotor "Life, like a Saturday afternoon, finds its ruination in purpose." - MdC

14th March 2008, 11:01 AM	#24
Pardalis Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 20,674	Originally Posted by D'rok Go Sens! In your dreams.
	__________________ "It is best to change your point of view in response to reality than to insist reality has it wrong because it doesn't agree with your point of view." aggle-rithm "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin "All we know is that we know much less and less, but at least we know less and less about much more and more" Christopher Hitchens

14th March 2008, 11:02 AM	#25
Architect Chief Punkah Wallah Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: UK Posts: 6,422	Originally Posted by ravdin You have the option of declaring a republic with a vote, for crying out loud- you don't even have to fight your way out like we did. So why stay? Do you like having the Queen of England on your money? (cough) Who? (cough)
	__________________ GodisEnergy: This coming from a bus tour driver ,where's your structural engineering degree. Architect: I'll raise you two architecture degrees, ARB registration, RIBA membership, and 15 years experience in tall buildings.

14th March 2008, 11:02 AM	#26
tkingdoll AKA TEEK Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Up Myself Posts: 12,471	I'm not qualified or informed enough to say, really. I have no idea what value the monarchy has to my country. I know what they cost, but I don't know what they add in terms of tourism, diplomatic relations, etc. No idea at all. So I can't make a judgement on whether or not we'd be better off without them. I don't like the concept of a monarchy in 2008, that's for sure, and I don't like the influence Charles about alt medicine and the NHS, but it's entirely possible the benefits of the monarchy outweigh my objections. Can we do a SWOT analysis?
	__________________ www.stormmovie.net Official website of Tim Minchin's Storm Movie Last edited by tkingdoll; 14th March 2008 at 11:03 AM.

14th March 2008, 11:05 AM	#27
Architect Chief Punkah Wallah Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: UK Posts: 6,422	Originally Posted by D'rok The Speaker of the House oughta wield it and bash a few MP heads every now and again when they get out of hand. Just a thought. The Westminster speaker is from Glasgow......it would be practically compulsory, I should imagine!
	__________________ GodisEnergy: This coming from a bus tour driver ,where's your structural engineering degree. Architect: I'll raise you two architecture degrees, ARB registration, RIBA membership, and 15 years experience in tall buildings.

14th March 2008, 11:07 AM	#28
Architect Chief Punkah Wallah Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: UK Posts: 6,422	Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus Ah yes, but what about seperation of church and state? Not a problem. The Queen is not head of the Church of Scotland.
	__________________ GodisEnergy: This coming from a bus tour driver ,where's your structural engineering degree. Architect: I'll raise you two architecture degrees, ARB registration, RIBA membership, and 15 years experience in tall buildings.

14th March 2008, 11:08 AM	#29
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 20,158	Speaking as an American, King George is an unfair, unholy tyrant! I'll be happy if he never rules over anyone ever again!

14th March 2008, 11:11 AM	#30
Jekyll Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: The other other place Posts: 1,589	Originally Posted by egslim During the Monica affaire Clinton's government was more or less paralyzed, because anything he did was considered as a smokescreen for Monica. But during the entire soap opera around Diana the British government kept functioning just fine, and the Royal family functions as a lightning rod to keep paparazzi away from government officials who actually have work to do. Well that's just because you can't tell the difference between the Royal family being too paralysed to work and business as usual. The Royal family doesn't do anything to protect the actual working government from the effects of scandal.
	__________________ And I looked. And behold a green horse, and his name that sat on him was death. ~Tyndale New Testament

14th March 2008, 11:18 AM	#31
Sefarst Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,238	Originally Posted by dudalb The Brits have a right to do what they want, but IMHO they should keep the Monarchy for one reason: The Royal Mystique is great for the Tourist industry. Royal Mystique? A little old lady with a handbag does not Mystique make. To be honest, I would rather hear about Paris Hilton than the royal family. She's more relevant than any of them.
Sefarst Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,238

14th March 2008, 11:27 AM	#32
ravdin Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: The People's Republic of Berkeley, CA Posts: 1,903	Originally Posted by Architect (cough) Who? (cough) Are you from Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland? Then I suppose the same question would apply to you as well.

14th March 2008, 12:05 PM	#33
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 16,887	Originally Posted by D'rok Another side benefit of Westminster systems...we have a Mace as our symbol of Parliamentary authority and power. A frickin' mace. How cool is that? http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/ab...HoC_mace-e.asp The Speaker of the House oughta wield it and bash a few MP heads every now and again when they get out of hand. Just a thought. I know the in the US the Senate uses a Fasces as it's symbol of power....swiped directly from the Roman Senate. I think the House uses a mace,though.

14th March 2008, 12:05 PM	#34
Almo Masterblazer Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Montreal, Quebec Posts: 3,462	I don't like the PM system. As long as the PM's constituency keeps voting for him, you have no choice about who's PM since the party decides who gets the post. It's a different issue, but I don't like how in the UK the party in power creates the budget, with no discussion. The chancellor just presents it. Should have to be approved in the house of commons.
	__________________ Almo! My Blog My boardgame "Linkage" "God may not play dice with the universe, but something strange is going on with the prime numbers." — Paul Erdős "It may be that there is no body really at rest, to which the places and motions of others may be referred." –Issac Newton in the Principia