| View Poll Results: Time for a Republic | |||
| Yes, it's outdated |
   
|
10 | 27.78% |
| No, the Royal Family are an asset to the country |
  
|
23 | 63.89% |
| Neither for or against. |
  
|
3 | 8.33% |
| I have never met them, so I don't know |
  
|
0 | 0% |
| Voters: 36. You may not vote on this poll | |||
02-09-2016, 01:33 AM
41
Re: The argument for and against a republic.
Originally Posted by Pumicestone
->
If the British monarch is also the head of the C of E, wouldn't it be fun if Charlie or Willy converted to Islam ?
02-09-2016, 08:27 AM
43
Re: The argument for and against a republic.
the existence of Kings and Queens are seen as throwbacks to another age. And despite her personal wealth, I understand that the British Monarch gets a small 'annual salary' in comparison.A question that can be asked is "would UK be a less interesting, colorful place without the monarchy. Would indeed the Commonwealth and its nations be less so too?
I see the British Monarchy as a larger than life "Internationally running Serial" - something like "Dallas" but much much bigger and brighter. It brings entertainment to our lives; fills the tourist coffers too and continues to offer us all an historic picture of what life was once like in UK but without the pain and injustices of those days.
02-09-2016, 08:31 AM
44
Re: The argument for and against a republic.
Originally Posted by gumbud
->
the existence of Kings and Queens are seen as throwbacks to another age. And despite her personal wealth, I understand that the British Monarch gets a small 'annual salary' in comparison.A question that can be asked is "would UK be a less interesting, colorful place without the monarchy. Would indeed the Commonwealth and its nations be less so too?
I see the British Monarchy as a larger than life "Internationally running Serial" - something like "Dallas" but much much bigger and brighter. It brings entertainment to our lives; fills the tourist coffers too and continues to offer us all an historic picture of what life was once like in UK but without the pain and injustices of those days.
02-09-2016, 08:34 AM
45
Re: The argument for and against a republic.
I dont think the RF fills the tourist coffers.Tourists come to see the historic places and pageantry changing of the guards etc not to take tea with the Queen.
Its unlikely that most tourists will ever see the RF.
France fare exceeds us in tourism for the same reasons and they have no
royals.
02-09-2016, 11:20 AM
46
Re: The argument for and against a republic.
Originally Posted by Pumicestone
->
Interesting stuff, Rehab.All the theoretical powers which everyone knows will never be exercised. Quaint.
It is true that the Queen's representative, the Governor General, sacked the elected Australian government in 1975.
But it is questionable whether the Queen even knew about it at the time.
And it was a constitutional crisis in which the government of the day could not guarantee 'supply' - they did not have the numbers in both houses of parliament to pass money-bills like paying public servants or defence or whatever.
And the GG is appointed by the PM who can sack him so it's a bit of a race to see who sacks whom first.
But it caused such a furore that it will never happen again.
It would make an Australian republic a certainty.
02-09-2016, 01:19 PM
47
Re: The argument for and against a republic.
Originally Posted by gumbud
->
the existence of Kings and Queens are seen as throwbacks to another age. And despite her personal wealth, I understand that the British Monarch gets a small 'annual salary' in comparison.A question that can be asked is "would UK be a less interesting, colorful place without the monarchy. Would indeed the Commonwealth and its nations be less so too?
I see the British Monarchy as a larger than life "Internationally running Serial" - something like "Dallas" but much much bigger and brighter. It brings entertainment to our lives; fills the tourist coffers too and continues to offer us all an historic picture of what life was once like in UK but without the pain and injustices of those days.
02-09-2016, 01:26 PM
48
Re: The argument for and against a republic.
Originally Posted by gumbud
->
when will you monachists stop harking on about your beloved Royals - they are all usurpers to the throne as demonstrated by Tony Robinsons documentaryhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG4Ec9nEwwk
the true King of England died as a dinky di aussie several years ago in a small rural town, but his son lives on.
http://www.abroadintheyard.com/real-...itish-history/
All your royalty are usurpers and foreigners tabout - German no less! so stop bowing down to them and curtsying we the aussie will rule you from now on - starting with the excellent netball result!!
I also don't see where Britain is a democracy. Everyone living in Britain is referred to as the monarch's 'subjects'. To be subject, as I understand it, is to be subservient. In a genuine democracy, nobody would be subservient to anyone else.
I refuse to be referred to as a subject. Nobody is superior to me.
02-09-2016, 07:37 PM
49
Re: The argument for and against a republic.
Originally Posted by Rehab44
->
I am impressed, no sarcasm and no abuse, you are normal after all.
However, 'sarcasm or abuse' are only ever in response to extreme provocation
02-09-2016, 10:48 PM
50
Re: The argument for and against a republic.
Originally Posted by CailinRua
->
I wouldn't curtsey anyway.I also don't see where Britain is a democracy. Everyone living in Britain is referred to as the monarch's 'subjects'. To be subject, as I understand it, is to be subservient. In a genuine democracy, nobody would be subservient to anyone else.
.
There is no requirement to curtsey to the Queen .
But some people like to be subservient .
Didnt Mrs Whiplash make a fortune out of this?
|
|
