Does the monarchy make Britain look silly.

[Odin]

Originally posted by St Leo
I wouldn't mind if Elly was kept a queen but removed as the head of the Anglican church. We know that sooner or later England will get an atheist monarch and having them be the leader of the Anglicans is beyond silly.

They have to take the Anglican Church out of the government entirely. I would be insulted if I was there since I am an athiest.

[curtsibling]

Odin,
Well said!

Nothing against religions or anything, but they have no place in government.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

It's funny to see how different nations have varying levels of respect for their monarchies. On another forum I've just upset loads of Dutch posters by suggesting that their Royal family keeps marrying fascists (well, ex-members of the Hitler Youth, and Spanish Carlists). Even the Dutch republicans got cross and shouty.

Had I made the same sort of muck-raking comments about the House of Windsor (nee Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) I doubt any British posters would have batted an eyelid.

[Alexander's Horse]

you forum slut you

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Odin
The United REPUBLIC of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

NOOOO!!!! Britain as a Republic

If we elect a head of state, we have to give them some power. I'd rather have (effectively) no head of state than giving one person that much power. Blair has too much power as it is IMHO. If only the Queen revoked the royal privilage (I think she can still do that)

Surely getting rid of hereditary peers in the House of Lords is far more important. They have power by birthright.

Why does having a head of state that does virtually nothing make us look silly? Yes they do stupid things, but it's all just a PR exercise. At least we don't have to live with the rulings of silly heads of state.

[Imran Siddiqui]

From a brief survey of this thread, the Brits want to get rid of the monarchy and the Yanks want us to keep them. Solution - send them all to America!

And the idea for a new reality show presents itself .

[Myrddin]

Can we send our Prime Minister instead?

[Ozz]

Originally posted by curtsibling Nothing against religions or anything, but they have no place in government.

Ah , how can have you have a jihad, crusade or even a half-decent massacre without a theocratic government?
You'll be the laughing stock of the middle east.

Edit: Good to see one of yer posts again Ace

[curtsibling]

Likewise, old man!

Thought you had given up posting, you just vanished!

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
It's funny to see how different nations have varying levels of respect for their monarchies. On another forum I've just upset loads of Dutch posters by suggesting that their Royal family keeps marrying fascists (well, ex-members of the Hitler Youth, and Spanish Carlists). Even the Dutch republicans got cross and shouty.

Had I made the same sort of muck-raking comments about the House of Windsor (nee Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) I doubt any British posters would have batted an eyelid.

[curtsibling]

Unfashionable though it is,I am proud to be a Brit.
I love my country, but have no love for the royals.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Drogue

NOOOO!!!! Britain as a Republic

If we elect a head of state, we have to give them some power. I'd rather have (effectively) no head of state than giving one person that much power. Blair has too much power as it is IMHO. If only the Queen revoked the royal privilage (I think she can still do that)

Surely getting rid of hereditary peers in the House of Lords is far more important. They have power by birthright.

Why does having a head of state that does virtually nothing make us look silly? Yes they do stupid things, but it's all just a PR exercise. At least we don't have to live with the rulings of silly heads of state.

There are only 98 heriditaries left and they are going within the next few years. We will be having a mixed elected/appointed lords soon

[Alexander's Horse]

The reason the monarchy has survived so long in Britain is because of 2 great monarchs by any standard - Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II.

Put Charles and Camilla on the throne and all bets are off.

[TheStinger]

Vicky was very umpopular for large periods of her reign, and she also thought she was in charge, which Gladstone IIRC although it could have been Disraeli loved to point out was bollocks

[Alexander's Horse]

That's the point - Queen Victoria was very unpopular to start with, there was a strong republican movement in Britian the first half of 19th century, but she outlasted all her critics.