Would getting rid of the monarchy give Britain a gr

[cosmicB]

The monarchy will never be abolished.

Only way it could happen, is if they saw the light of what they do is essentially being just a pest parasite...
If they were honest, they would abolish themselves... but they can't, because their whole life is based upon feeding from the veins of the populous.. whist pretending loudly-enough to be viewed as an integral feature in the life of the common people...

When the Crown cries-out for fairness and honesty, it should be looking into the mirror of truth whilst doing its sobbing.. and better yet, it should be playing "russian roulette" with all chambers loaded, whilst looking into said mirror...

Monarchies and candidates give us only their evolving front pages...

The thing is that they've all got a little devil, plus shidt, mixed-in with their "book".. We only find-out they are parasites after we've elected them, or after they've seized control over our lives, and have become comfy... The moment their comfort is challenged, is the only thing that will set a monarchy into any direction of action... like we've had in Canada for the past hundred years... Now being parasite food is humanity's status-quo norm... It seem, about 750 major parasites are perpetually feeding upon the essence of humanity.. Monarchies are included in that list of bugs...

In the case of a monarchy, you are stuck with their devolving inbred sewage-class bloodlines, forever... First they start to lose their chins, and their bum-cracks start to fill-in, as they loose height... Then their legs spread too-much at the hips, like it all be the first stages of total bio-collapse... and still you feed them, and bows to them, like they were more than just parasitic zoo-inhabitants...
I suppose I'll never fully understand humanity's stupidities...

Monarchies are history... We've outgrown them, yet our lives are still tangled in their barbed traps, and trappings, including string-balls and scab-collections... Not only bats sleep on the ceiling... A few still believe monarchies are of value.. probably because they need such a parental control figure, to make them feel something, or "complete"...

Do you think if a monarchy knew itself in all honesty, that it would have the balls to abolish itself..?

[Gibbous Moon]

I used to be republican. I'm not so sure now.

I think the Queen works very hard. She's long past the retirement age and, as she has a personal fortune worth several billion pounds, I think she would be forgiven for putting her feet up and enjoying the prospect of some great grandchildren. However, she keeps going. Whether I think we should have a hereditary monarchy I admire the current incumbent’s commitment to her duty. She also continues to work in a very challenging environment where her family affairs are pried into relentlessly, up to the point where her husband is accused of orchestrating the murder of her daughter-in-law.

I also think having a monarchy does bring in a lot of tourist revenue to the UK. I often visit Braemar in the Highlands of Scotland and you can see the economic benefit that that town gains from being next to Balmoral. The institution is at least self-supporting.

I also like the idea of having a neutral referee of last resort. Our constitution would be crowded if we had an elected president. As, in practical terms the Queen can only heavily intervene in UK politics once (because as soon as she does so she would trigger a constitutional crisis) I think her right to intervene and the elected politicians right not to be interfered with are nicely balanced.

Strangely, I’m looking forward to the kingship of Charles (though I suspect he might adopt the name George upon assuming the throne).

I think if we did replace the monarchy (or to be technically correct the monarchical kingship) I think I might favour a raffle or a lottery or the election of a life president from those who are not currently serving in any Parliament, Assembly or Council. There are a number of people; retired politicians, businessmen or military leaders, charity workers or other public figures who I think would treat the office with respect, comport themselves with the required dignity and work hard at representing us.

GM

[cosmicB]

We needed instant monarchies, and their armies organizational skills to organize the peasants in fighting machines, when the world was in chaos, and armies were conquering neighbors for land, treasure, and slaves, in the name of kings and gods.. "justified plundering"... same as the guy who rapes a babe cuz she smiled at him.. ["duhh keyuK!..?.. she smiled at me, so she wanted it right Now.. duhhh??" is why babes try not to smile at strangers and gorillas these days...]

Now days a few nations are dissolving their governments, and giving the world back to the people.. and it's working.. those peoples are free and happier and healthier for it... It seems we don't need governments, nor anyone "representing our lives", when we can just go and represent ourselves in the world... That's what all the body enhancementing is about, it's individuals making the statement that they are themselves.. essentially they are saying, "Like it or Vanish!"

[mogadishu]

Strangely, I’m looking forward to the kingship of Charles (though I suspect he might adopt the name George upon assuming the throne).

It used to be that an heir to the throne had to abdicate in order to marry a divorcee.

What became of that law?

[Gibbous Moon]

I think the requirement to abdicate has more to do with the king's role as head of the Church of England than being King of Great Britain. As the the headship of the CofE is ex officio it's a bit hair splitting.

Edward abdicated because his desire to marry Mrs Wallace Simpson was incompatable with his role as head of the church.

Technically Charles is not a divorcee but a widower who remarried. As the Duchess of Cornwall is also a widow I don't there is any impediment to him becoming head of the CofE.

GM

[Ady6970]

Gibbous Moon wrote:

"As the Duchess of Cornwall is also a widow I don't there is any impediment to him becoming head of the CofE."

I didn't know that Andrew Parker-Bowles was deceased. The last I heard he was still very much alive and kicking.

[cosmicB]

I think the requirement to abdicate has more to do with a king's failed mental stability.. to the point that he can't do the basic things required in living a life.. which probably isn't very far from what royalty is today, and has been yesterday... It would take a lot to force an abdication... It would take ten times more to force an abdication of a British monarchy, than it would to impeach a president... "I did not have sexual relations with the woman!".. In the "Un-United States" it just took getting caught on one tiny wee lie to end a president's career... "If Clitorion had said, "Yeah, the little bich gave me a couple of real good rockem sockem blowjobs, in the whitehouse blowjob room, so what's it to yah?".. then he probably wouldn't have had it stuck to him, and lost his job...

On the other side of the sea, If a British king were to run through the streets stark raving naked, all painted blue, green, and purple, waving a two litre mug of dark ale, screaming "god save the queens" at the top of his lungs, it still wouldn't be half enough to call for his abdication... The People would love it.. and suddenly there would be thousands of naked Brits running down streets throughout the land, screaming, "god save the queens", whist waving their mugs of dark ale...

[mogadishu]

I didn't know that Andrew Parker-Bowles was deceased. The last I heard he was still very much alive and kicking.

Yes, exactly. And Charles divorced Diana a year before she died. Her death therefore doesn't change his status as divorcee.

Edward abdicated because his desire to marry Mrs Wallace Simpson was incompatable with his role as head of the church.

....erm, what?

[Aqua]

Edward abdicated because his desire to marry Mrs Wallace Simpson was incompatable with his role as head of the church.

....erm, what?

The Church of England allows partners to divorce but strongly disapproves. It does not allow the Head of the Church to marry a divorcee. This is one more reason for the monarch not to be head of the Anglican Church. The monarch, whatever his/her beliefs, is head of the church. Edward decided his relationship was more important and abdicated, to the utter consternation of his shy brother George.

[myron myron]

Having read through all the posts, I note that some justify the monarchy in terms of symbolism, others in terms of tradition, others in terms of economics (i.e., tourist money), and yet others in personalized quasi-utilitarian terms (i.e., the Queen works hard, signs laws, meets with the PM, etc.).

Shorn of sophistry, the British monarchy, indeed any monarchy, is predicated on the notion that some people are inherently superior to everyone else and entitled to lead and to be accorded special treatment solely by accident of birth -- in the vernacular, the lucky sperm club -- which is inimical to democracy and meritocracy.

[Gibbous Moon]

Gibbous Moon wrote:

"As the Duchess of Cornwall is also a widow I don't there is any impediment to him becoming head of the CofE."

I didn't know that Andrew Parker-Bowles was deceased. The last I heard he was still very much alive and kicking.

I have been mis-informed, or mis-informed myself. Thanks.

GM

[Gibbous Moon]

Yes, exactly. And Charles divorced Diana a year before she died. Her death therefore doesn't change his status as divorcee.

quote]

Charles did divorce Diana, becoming a divorcee. As far as the CofE were concerned the marriage still had some spiritual substance. Diana then died, which, I think in terms of CofE rules and regulations now makes their marriage disolved due to the death of one partner and Charles marital status a widower, rather than a divorcee.

The fact that Andrew Parker-Bowles is still alive would probably explain the civil marriage that Charles and Camilla had.

GM

[Ady6970]

That is the correct explanation.

[Gibbous Moon]

Having read through all the posts, I note that some justify the monarchy in terms of symbolism, others in terms of tradition, others in terms of economics (i.e., tourist money), and yet others in personalized quasi-utilitarian terms (i.e., the Queen works hard, signs laws, meets with the PM, etc.).

Shorn of sophistry, the British monarchy, indeed any monarchy, is predicated on the notion that some people are inherently superior to everyone else and entitled to lead and to be accorded special treatment solely by accident of birth -- in the vernacular, the lucky sperm club -- which is inimical to democracy and meritocracy.

myron myron,

I tend to agree with your point about the notion of inherent superiority being inimical to democracy and meritocracy. Two things concern me though.

Firstly, on a practical note, I'm not sure I fancy the alternatives to our inherited monarch. To mis apply a quote of Winston Churchill, it's the worst system apart from all the others. For Britain, for the moment at least.

Secondly, I'm not sure that being inimical to democracy or meritocracy is fatal flaw. I'm broadly in favour of both system but I don't think that they are ends in themselves. My argument (which I'm not saying is right, merely that it might be) runs like this. We have democracy because it is an efficient and fair system of government and that makes people happy. However, democracies need a referee and sometimes fall victim to mob rule. An inherited monarchy with relatively few powers limited by the constitution (as we have in the UK or the Spartans had in the 5th Century BC) is a quick and efficient way of providing stability to a political system; ballast if you like. It's not fair that it's you and not me but the fact that we don't have to argue about makes it simple and easy to use. Something like that anyway.

GM

[cosmicB]

In topic "born into "royalty""... Strip them all naked, and line them up with any thousand commoners, also "naked as jaybirds".. and give each a sharp-knife, a spear, an animal skin, a needle and thread, a bit of forest, and a cozy little cave.. the only way the naked royals could survive, is if they somehow traded their tools for food and clothing, and somehow managed to con others into caring for their every needs...

Cut a royal open, slit right straight up from the crotch to the chest bone, and spread them all out on a board, to see their guts and blood are exactly the same as any commoner's, save for the gross inbred qualities in the genes of their so called "royal bloods".. "Royal piss be more like it!..
They aren't "royals", they are commoners who lucked out in seizing and holding the big house, now backed by their own vicious do what ever they command militaries... The monarchies could line up any thousand soldiers to have them kiss their bums, in the middle, at midnight, should they so choose.. just like in how Cleopatra lined up her best soldiers, washed and dressed dressed them clean, so she could, one at a time, blow X many men in one night, for the world's and race's archivical record books...

On the other hand look around at this human race, with an open mind, and open eyes, with "all thrusters firing", "with all marbles in the same pot".. you will eventually catch rare glimpses of the odd person who seems to radiate an ever so slight, soft purple glow from their skin.. the Indigo's.. Humanity's true royalty.. the actual Pure Bloods.. shunned by monarchies and commoners alike... invisible to the Numbs...