Monarchy vs Republic.

#1
What are pluses and minuses? What style of rule do you personally prefer?
 
#2
An absolute monarchy could hardly be any worse than the elected dictatorship we have at present.
 
#3
Having been born in a Monarchy and now living in a Republic. Have to say I prefer the Monarchy.
1, You don't have a circus every 4 or 5 years to elect a new leader.
2, The taxpayer saves a fortune, by not having to pay for the said election.
3, The taxpayer saves a fortune, by not having to pay over inflated pensions to retired Presidents.
4, You know who is going to be your next Head of State.
5. HM Queen, she generates a lot of income, just by being there, how many tourists would want to see where that twat Blair lives?
Our Queen, does not rule as you so errenously stated, she is head of state, parliament rules.
On the whole, it doesn't really matter who rules, Joe public gets shafted by them all.
Why the question? Missing your Monarchy, think you'll find them in the woods.
 
#4
I touched on it previously but I shall repeat myself. I am an adament Royalist (although am very much in favour of democracy-contradiction I know)

I prefer the British system in which there is a hereditary monarch but does not decide policy but rather acts as a head of state, diplomat and role model all in one with ministers deciding policy. Furthermore I believe that our constitution or rather lack of codified constitution is a very good thing as it allows our legislation to be flexible and adaptive with times. If a revolution were to have taken place in England then a written constitution would have certainly been written (a huge negative in my opinion).

Russia's transformation from monarchy to Socialist Republic was an awful disgusting affair in which one ruling class was replaced with another that was worse and blood thirsty. The Communists murdered the Tsars in a horrible fashion and left the country worse than ever. With random executions of many innocent people who presented even the slightest threat to the new regime that was installed, which coincidentally was the educated and moderate.
 
#5
Well Betty Windsor would definitely do a better job of running the country than the idiots we've had since Maggie went.
 
#6
fusil89 said:
I touched on it previously but I shall repeat myself. I am an adament Royalist (although am very much in favour of democracy-contradiction I know)

I prefer the British system in which there is a hereditary monarch but does not decide policy but rather acts as a head of state, diplomat and role model all in one with ministers deciding policy. Furthermore I believe that our constitution or rather lack of codified constitution is a very good thing as it allows our legislation to be flexible and adaptive with times. If a revolution were to have taken place in England then a written constitution would have certainly been written (a huge negative in my opinion).

Russia's transformation from monarchy to Socialist Republic was an awful disgusting affair in which one ruling class was replaced with another that was worse and blood thirsty. The Communists murdered the Tsars in a horrible fashion and left the country worse than ever. With random executions of many innocent people who presented even the slightest threat to the new regime that was installed, which coincidentally was the educated and moderate.
Their was, and one was written. It forms a major part of our constitution.

Linky
 
#7
We have, essentially, a democratic republic with the trappings of a monarchy.


You have the opposite.
 
#9
Noblesse oblige is always better than snout in the trough...
 
#10
EX_STAB said:
fusil89 said:
I touched on it previously but I shall repeat myself. I am an adament Royalist (although am very much in favour of democracy-contradiction I know)

I prefer the British system in which there is a hereditary monarch but does not decide policy but rather acts as a head of state, diplomat and role model all in one with ministers deciding policy. Furthermore I believe that our constitution or rather lack of codified constitution is a very good thing as it allows our legislation to be flexible and adaptive with times. If a revolution were to have taken place in England then a written constitution would have certainly been written (a huge negative in my opinion).

Russia's transformation from monarchy to Socialist Republic was an awful disgusting affair in which one ruling class was replaced with another that was worse and blood thirsty. The Communists murdered the Tsars in a horrible fashion and left the country worse than ever. With random executions of many innocent people who presented even the slightest threat to the new regime that was installed, which coincidentally was the educated and moderate.
Their was, and one was written. It forms a major part of our constitution.

Linky

I should have specified. I know we have some elements of codification in our constitution such as Common law, statute law, judiacial precedents etc but it they all make our constitution but are not part of the same documentment i.e. we do not have a written bill of rights like the Americans but rather some elements from a number of different sources which can be overturned by any government hence our flexibility.
 
#11
I am from a constitutional monarchy and I see no reason for changing it. No one has yet come up with any other system that makes me want to change. Becoming a republic for no other reason than to be one is pointless. I do not see any republican models that offer the public any more benefits than we have already, and indeed some types of republic could be dangerous. In fact the only people who might personally benefit are the very politicians we dispise so much. Mr. Average wold get nothing from a republic.

I swore an Oath of Allegiance which is something I take very seriously. I clearly stated that:

"I swear by Almighty God, that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors, in person, crown and dignity against all enemies, and will observe ad obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors, and the generals and officers set over me."
I note it says nothing about the allegiance ending upon leaving the army. Thus my loyalty remains to:

Elizabeth the Second, By the Grace of God, Queen of New Zealand and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

Who also happens to be:

Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

Anyone who thinks that I would ever offer my loyalty to some scum politician, particularly one from either those nests of traitors in the Labour or Liberal Party need to think again. As for the EU I will never owe it anything more than my utmost contempt.

I remember I once saw her full titles as set out in the Army List. It was quite a long affair, hence the abbreviated titles shown above for normal use. I have tried to find them on the internet, but no luck, so if anyone has a copy of the Army List and would like to post them I thik others might find them interesting.
 
#13
I beg to differ Scabster. I cannot remember where I saw the figures, but it was clear that a presidentail system was likely to involve more money than our current monarchy.
 
#14
So the essential question remains: do you want to be booted in the right nut or the left nut? Nice indeed!

MsG
 
#15
fusil89 said:
EX_STAB said:
fusil89 said:
I touched on it previously but I shall repeat myself. I am an adament Royalist (although am very much in favour of democracy-contradiction I know)

I prefer the British system in which there is a hereditary monarch but does not decide policy but rather acts as a head of state, diplomat and role model all in one with ministers deciding policy. Furthermore I believe that our constitution or rather lack of codified constitution is a very good thing as it allows our legislation to be flexible and adaptive with times. If a revolution were to have taken place in England then a written constitution would have certainly been written (a huge negative in my opinion).

Russia's transformation from monarchy to Socialist Republic was an awful disgusting affair in which one ruling class was replaced with another that was worse and blood thirsty. The Communists murdered the Tsars in a horrible fashion and left the country worse than ever. With random executions of many innocent people who presented even the slightest threat to the new regime that was installed, which coincidentally was the educated and moderate.
Their was, and one was written. It forms a major part of our constitution.

Linky

I should have specified. I know we have some elements of codification in our constitution such as Common law, statute law, judiacial precedents etc but it they all make our constitution but are not part of the same documentment i.e. we do not have a written bill of rights like the Americans but rather some elements from a number of different sources which can be overturned by any government hence our flexibility.
I've just given you a link to the Bill of Rights and you say we do not have a Bill of Rights. :roll:

Go away and do your homework.
 
#16
As I see many prefer Monarchy. But is it only a custom, a tradition, a way of life that you don't wish to change. Or there are some significant practical benefits.

If a monarch is is absolutely rightless in politics then what are practical benefits from such a monarch?
 
#17
Inf/MP said:
I am from a constitutional monarchy and I see no reason for changing it. No one has yet come up with any other system that makes me want to change. Becoming a republic for no other reason than to be one is pointless. I do not see any republican models that offer the public any more benefits than we have already, and indeed some types of republic could be dangerous. In fact the only people who might personally benefit are the very politicians we dispise so much. Mr. Average wold get nothing from a republic.

I swore an Oath of Allegiance which is something I take very seriously. I clearly stated that:

"I swear by Almighty God, that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors, in person, crown and dignity against all enemies, and will observe ad obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors, and the generals and officers set over me."
I note it says nothing about the allegiance ending upon leaving the army. Thus my loyalty remains to:

Elizabeth the Second, By the Grace of God, Queen of New Zealand and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

Who also happens to be:

Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

Anyone who thinks that I would ever offer my loyalty to some scum politician, particularly one from either those nests of traitors in the Labour or Liberal Party need to think again. As for the EU I will never owe it anything more than my utmost contempt.

I remember I once saw her full titles as set out in the Army List. It was quite a long affair, hence the abbreviated titles shown above for normal use. I have tried to find them on the internet, but no luck, so if anyone has a copy of the Army List and would like to post them I thik others might find them interesting.
Look here Full List Hope you've got a while - its a big list.
 
#18
I find that quite difficult to belief because it seems to defy logic.

President = 1 man.

Mornarch = 1 Woman/Man + children + husband + Grand children + aunty + uncle + children's spouse etc.

OK. That is the situation with some of the MPs we have, but that is reflective of an improperly implemented system rather than the system itself. A Monarchy appears to be to me inherently expensive.

Btw, why does a country need a head of state? Why not just do away with el presidente altogether?
 
#19
EX_STAB said:
fusil89 said:
EX_STAB said:
fusil89 said:
I touched on it previously but I shall repeat myself. I am an adament Royalist (although am very much in favour of democracy-contradiction I know)

I prefer the British system in which there is a hereditary monarch but does not decide policy but rather acts as a head of state, diplomat and role model all in one with ministers deciding policy. Furthermore I believe that our constitution or rather lack of codified constitution is a very good thing as it allows our legislation to be flexible and adaptive with times. If a revolution were to have taken place in England then a written constitution would have certainly been written (a huge negative in my opinion).

Russia's transformation from monarchy to Socialist Republic was an awful disgusting affair in which one ruling class was replaced with another that was worse and blood thirsty. The Communists murdered the Tsars in a horrible fashion and left the country worse than ever. With random executions of many innocent people who presented even the slightest threat to the new regime that was installed, which coincidentally was the educated and moderate.
Their was, and one was written. It forms a major part of our constitution.

Linky

I should have specified. I know we have some elements of codification in our constitution such as Common law, statute law, judiacial precedents etc but it they all make our constitution but are not part of the same documentment i.e. we do not have a written bill of rights like the Americans but rather some elements from a number of different sources which can be overturned by any government hence our flexibility.
I've just given you a link to the Bill of Rights and you say we do not have a Bill of Rights. :roll:

Go away and do your homework.
Your BoR is not the same as the BoR of say the US because the latter is sacred and cannot be changed without having to jump through rings of fire blind folded.

In the UK, the principle of Parliamentary Supremacy means that there is no constitutional BoR as such.
 
#20
Ah what was the lyric on unpalatable choices:

"Being kicked in the mouth
or smiling with no teeth
They're both choices, yes
but it's impossible to eat
..."

Well given republic versus constitutional monarchy, a "choice" is what?
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top