This is just getting stupid, now

Yes, we all know of the artificial scandal inflated by the media of Prince Harry’s “Nazi gaffe”. We know that legions upon legions of E-list celebrities and unknown politicians queued up, slavering at the chance to vomit compassion over the television and newspapers, to demand that he be branded, whipped naked through the streets of London and stoned at the door of the Liberal Democrats’ head office, before having a pound of his flesh sent to AIDS oprhans. We know that the Queen’s great-great-great-great-grand-uncle’s wife’s niece’s son’s cousin thrice removed cleaned the windows at Nuremberg. We all know that the agonised theatrics and confused confabulations concerning that ‘incident’ were completely and absolutely pointless and served no purpose whatsoever other than to let a few particularly venomous journalists bellyache for some column inches. We all know that as far as most are concerned that episode has been thankfully forgotten.

Or so I hoped. This is just taking the biscuit!

Disregarding for the present moment the shamefully obvious fact that this initiative seems little more than the ruling party deciding to selfishly seize more power with a presidential reformation a la Zimbabwe, it seems that the Rt. Hon. Mr. Arthur is labouring under quite a number of misconceptions. Most prominently is that should he acede to the throne, Prince Harry will not be “King Harry” but rather King Henry IX. If he wants to consider himself in a legitimate position to dictate his country’s constitutional status then Mr. Arthur should actually have at least a vaguely coherent grasp of what that constitution is, something that’s obviously lacking from this puerile statement.

Furthermore, by his belittling use of the term “King Harry” and the extreme improbability of his personal “nightmare scenario” ever coming to pass anyway, the Barbados Prime Minister seems to be basing his demand for a republic not actually on any sensible and reasoned basis but rather on nothing more than personal caprice and antipathy - which is hardly the decent way to massively convulse any country’s system, or a promising precedent for the way in which the ‘free’ Barbados will be ruled should this idiot scheme ever come to pass (heaven forbid). Now, I’m willing to admit that This Scept’red Isle has had a few duds in the royal arsenal, such as Aethelred the Unready or Edward VIII. Even so, that doesn’t affect the fact that I’m a devout and determined monarchist - “The man may be flawed but the instituion is divine”. Mr. Arthur’s ‘fear’ is a pathetic excuse at best and outright deception at worst, and he seems to have forgotten that you can have a bad president as easily as a bad king (and the bad president is much more dangerous since he actually is present in government).

He also seems incapable of comprehending that Prince Harry will most likely change and become much more suitable as a monarch of the U.K. and Commonwealth by the time he reaches the age where there’s the remotest chance of him becoming King. In visiting nightclubs and so forth, Prince Harry has done no more than prove that he’s just like nine-tenths of all other teenagers - and I thought that was supposed to be an admirable qality because it shows he’s in tune with the common folk? There’s no pleasing some Guardian commentators…
Even if Prince Harry is currently the ‘wayward’ prince, don’t forget that he shall be entering Sandhurst next year and the Army will readily bludgeon a healthy amount of sense into anyone.

So, will people please desist from creating international incidents about Prince Harry’s ‘misdemeanours’… and will someone please inform the Barbodos Prime Minister rather forcefully that his dislike of the Prince is no excuse for degrading his country into yet another tired, unspectacular, anonymous, also-ran republic? :anjou_angry:

At least Barbados HAS a written constitution. And doesn’t have some stupid law which prohibits the royalty from marrying anyone who isn’t a W.A.S.P.*

White Anglo-Saxon Protestant

I dind’t knew of any relation between Brabados and the UK.I thought that only happened with countries with a UK flag on their flag’s upper left corner.

Btw : Does the UK have any power over those countries?

No. Technically though, her Majesty Elizabeth the Second is their head of state, but even in her own country the Queen has very little power. Her main role is fixing seals to the bottom of Blair’s newest ideas.

Why do we even have a royal family? As far as I’m concerned, they are ponses who sponge off the British tax payer. Cut their heads off!

I’m with Geof here, couldn’t that money be better spent on more important things? The royal family don’t actually do anyting.

Well she does sign laws and go to opening ceremonies.

I don’t think it could be better spent than on the Tsunami relief.

…really Geoffrey, I’m surprised by you. I would have thought that you of all people wouldn’t be some blockhead that actually believes that tripe. :anjou_sigh:

Do you know how much the Civil List (the parliamentary allowance for the monarchy) costs each Briton? A grand total of…

When you compare that to the lavish pensions and salaries MPs in the Commons vote themselves, masses of petty corruption, the thousands of millions squandered on minsters’ useless pet-projects (regional assemblies and ID cards, anyone?) and bureaucratic incompetence (such as the incumbent Government’s less-than-stellar record with IT projects - national fingerprint database, child support agency… ho hum) you republicans are in absolutely no position to petulantly whinge like spoilt children about who is “sponging”. :anjou_angry:

And I’m surprised that you people have the sheer nerve to suggest that the monarchy’s useless either. Beyond the fact that it does have an absolutely pivotal constitutional role, and is the lynch-pin about which the whole government revolves - the only final barricade against an overbearing executive for one, now that the House of Lords has been emasculated - the monarch is absolutely ital for this country’s integrity. Rather than havinga divisive and sectarian head of state, the monarch is one who, being above politics, everyone can appeal to. During the splendid Golden Jubilee celebrations, people from as far away as Mozambique were coming to celebrate the Queen’s rule. Could the same be said of an US president’s inaugeration, I wonder? The monarch provides an invaluable adviser to the Prime Minister - the Queen is the only person Blair can speak to in complete confidence because she is the only person not lusting for his job or a newspaper headline! - and is the best and most respectful ambassador to the world that anyone could ever produce. When people speak of the Queen, they mean THE Queen of THE UNITED KINGDOM.

And if you despise the ‘pomp and circumstance’ associated with the monarchy, then you are nothing but a bigot and an inconsolable killjoy. People want ceremony, they enjoy celebrations. They have ceremonial troops in republics too, you know. Do you need a large television? Do you need more than one toilet? Do you need a setee? A wooden chair would serve its purpose just as well. Abolish the monarchy and you shear away all of the invaluable colour that defines this country. Why is it necessary to replace it with some blank, sterile, concrete, faceless Sovietesque bureaucratic hell? Someone who denies his history is blinded for the future, isn’t that what they’ve been repeating over and over in these Holocaust Memorial Day services?

And if you absolutely have to voice it in blasted economics, the monarchy retrieves ten times as much and more in tourism as it does in “sponged taxes”.

When you have even president Clinton voicing his support for the monarchy, republicans are speaking nothing but concentrated bunkum. I honestly despair for this country sometimes. :anjou_sad:

Do you have any idea how incredibly biased you sound?

I see you’re a staunch defender of the monarchy, Robert. I’ve never been a fan of something that I personally regard as redundant. But if they serve a real purpose that provides a solid foundation for the growth of our economy, then I stand corrected.

Thank you, Geoffrey. And Arcie, I apologise if I worded my response a little agressively, but that doesn’t detract from the truth of it.

Whilst I’m here - before somone starts wittering on about how republicans represent “the will of the people” etcetera etcetera (which they don’t incidentally - support for the monarchy in the UK remains at a healthy 84%. And in their last party confidence the Liberal Democrats, of all people - the party you’d expect to be falling over itself to declare itself republican - refused even to discuss the potential future of the monarchy. :stuck_out_tongue: ), tell me - are you willing to trample roughshod over the opinions of those in Anguilla, Antigua and Bardbuda, Ascension Island, Australia, the Bahamas, Barbados (for the present, at least), Bermuda, Belize, Canada, The Cayman Islands, the Falklands, Gibraltar, Jamiaca, Monserrat, New Zealand, Pitcairn, St. Helena, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, the Solomon Islands, Tristan de Cunha, Tuvalu, and the Virgin Islands - all of whom have the Queen as their head of state?

Brilliant victory for democracy, there. :anjou_sigh:

[quote=“Robert Frazer”]

…really Geoffrey, I’m surprised by you. I would have thought that you of all people wouldn’t be some blockhead that actually believes that tripe. :anjou_sigh:

Do you know how much the Civil List (the parliamentary allowance for the monarchy) costs each Briton? A grand total of…


But that 59p from each person could go to something like the health service, or things like, as Shadow said, the Tsunami appeal.

Still, you do make some good points, and it is my firm beleif that there is no point in voicing your veiws if no-one is going to challenge them, but I don’t like dissucssions degrading into calling people “Republicans” as if their veiws a) are that simple, it doesn’t instantly make you republican if you want to get rid of the monarchy, does it? I could be a Nihilist for all you know and b) should be taken as an insult, whats wrong with being republican? I wouldn’t expect someone of your level of literacy to sound so bias and to shun what other think in a manner that sounds so insulting.

EDIT: sorry I post slowly, so I haven’t read you most recent post yet.

Robert - the queen of England is celebrated outside England because she is seen as a pop star.Just like any member of any living monarchy nowadays.Yes they are above politics and that’s why they are loved by the people.

I think the very concept of monarchy is something that goes agehnst all that democracy represents.The head of state of a country shouldn’t be attached to ONE family.

Imagine some dodo is crowned.Then what?People should be given the option to choose their leaders.That’s democracy.

I don’t mean to insult the UK but if I were to revise the politics of one country it would it.4 different nations,4 different cultures,1 on top of them all.
The time of the “glory of the kings” is over.

And out of those, how many elected the Queen to be their head of state when the British Empire began colonising? I seem to remember India and Pakistan being ****ing happy when they gained independance.

As post 69, this is officially my “sexy post” and you all must therefore agree with it. :stuck_out_tongue:

“Do you have any idea how incredibly biased you sound?” :anjou_sigh:

And why does it follow suddenly that all those other territories and countries have the same opinions as India and Pakistan, then? I’m not detecting much logical consistency there.

Incidentally, what do you think the Falklands War was all about? It was defending a people who passionately want to remain British.

(Aside: Fun Fact for today - the modern Indian Republic is actually more imperialistic than the Raj ever was, considering that it’s devoured most of the previously-independent principalities (e.g. Hyderabad). India is also still quite happy to forcefully stamp out revolts in its provinces, too. Not much self-determination there.)

I think you’re confusing “monarchy” with “tyranny”. The basis of the British monarchy from the times of the Anglo-Saxon Bretwaldas like Offa, Edgar or Alfred the Great to the evolution of “King-in-Parliament” in the 16th century has been consultation and co-operation with others. King Cnut (Canute), the naturalised Englishman, made a powerful statement of this when he ordered his throne be carried down to the shore. Seated on it, he imperiously demanded that the waves retreat. What happened? He got his feet wet of course - and that was the entire point. He was symbolically accepting that Kings did not have absolute dominion over everything and everyone. Democracy is wholly compatible with monarchy - where do you think “Prime Minister” comes from? And anyway, if what you call a “dodo” should eventually arise, you appoint a Prince Regent (cf. King George III) :anjou_happy:
And democracy doesn’t stop a fool from being elected, it depends upon who has the most convincing spin machine.

That actually isn’t true. It was a Welsh dynasty (the Tudors) that formally incorporated Wales into Britain, and a Scottish King (James VI and I) that effected a Union of Crowns between Scotland and England. And as I remember, the great republic of the USA hasn’t exactly had rosy relations with a number of her ethnic minorities… :anjou_wow:

No, it isn’t. And why should being old suddenly be a disqualification for legitimacy? I’m amazed that people can even give a mote of regard for that ancient and geriatric obsolescent relic that is democracy - why, it’s existed in an institutionalised form for over 2,500 years! :anjou_sigh:

Altogether, I fail to see how this republic you regard with such starry-eyed fantasy can usher in the New Jerusalem. It won’t, and you’re deluding yourself with your own propoganda if you believe it can.

[quote=“Robert Frazer”]As post 69, this is officially my “sexy post” and you all must therefore agree with it. :stuck_out_tongue:

“Do you have any idea how incredibly biased you sound?” :anjou_sigh:

When discussing democratic party issues, bias is OK, as it is expected. :anjou_happy:

1-The competence to serve should be earned with work.Not by just beeing the son of the king.Monarchy is as right as me beeing given the power to dictate laws.

2-I prefer to admit I didn’t understand your last statement just so I don’t get you wrong : What do you mean by “mote of regard”?

3-Oh When I say english is on top of them all I mean it’s the country other people see in the news.The face of the UK other people around the world see is England.

to be honest, i don’t see royalty as doing anything for the country apart from the “british pride” citizens.

I shall wait for King Harry.

It is acceptable? News to me. So it’s alright for you to be as brash and brutal as you like and sling about slander and aspersions, yet the moment I defend my principles I’m prejudiced? Uh… huh. Right. :anjou_sigh:

But monarchs don’t dictate laws as I already said. Monarchs and tyrants are two different things. Consider King Edward III: “The affairs that concern the King and the estate of his realm shall be directed by the common counsel of his realm and in no other wise.”

If it’s the “accident of birth” that gets up your nose, perhaps you should acknowledge that everyone is dictated by an accident of birth. It was an accident that made me fortunate enough to be male, English, and live in a well-off home with a good family, and mercifully free from blight or deformity. We all could quite easily have been born in very, very different circumstances.

"how anyone could pay the slightest attention to"
mote= minute, tiny, insignificant (“dust mote”)

How does this appertain to the monarchy? The Basques’ and Corsicans’ feathers probably get rather ruffled when I think of Frenchmen in terms of baguettes and berets.

One more point - If republicanism is so wonderful, fair, and just, why is it “the Kingdom of Heaven”? Also, Jesus Christ was an elitist, with His entourage of twelve lieutenants, the Apostles, elevated in stature above His other disciples. :anjou_happy: