Monarchy or Republic?

[Adagio]

Why do you try to make it sound like a good thing, when all they do is making things worse?

[Winston]

Because it is a good thing. You don't discontinue a well-functioning practice unless you have something better to replace it.

[Odin]

TEH REPUBLIC:

Bush trying to making himself Emperor:

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Winston
Because it is a good thing. You don't discontinue a well-functioning practice unless you have something better to replace it.

Like a Republic

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Winston
You don't discontinue a well-functioning practice unless you have something better to replace it.

That's correct, but since monarchy isn't well-functioning, then we should replace it

[Winston]

According to 92% of the population here, it most certainly is.

[Adagio]

And according to 80% of the population the world is flat

[Winston]

To the population of Sønderborg maybe.

Anyway, people don't usually get to influence the geometrical shape of worlds, like they do their constitutional system of government.

[alva]

Monarchy

Republic (though the president should NOT have too much power and rise above party politics (well...some anyway).

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Winston
There are two practical differences.

1) In a Monarchy, you get a head of state for all of the populace, elevated beyond petty political divisions, to act - with the rest of the family - as an inspiration and a guidance to a significant number of people

2) You get consistency in the highest representative function of the state - unparalleled by any other system of governance. In our case, at present our Crown Prince has had 37 years of preparing for the job, taking clues from his mother, developing his own way of managing things, acquainting himself with the country's history, political life, sciences and industry - and forming relations and friendships with prominent people here and throughout the rest of the world. A Monarch is, in most cases, without comparison better schooled for the position of heading a nation, than an elected politician could ever be.

We've only had 3 different heads of state since 1912, each one under the natural influence of his or her predecessor, but at the same time forming and developing their position in their own personal way, to meet the demands and expectations of the changing society. I can't imagine anything more appropriate.

Monarchy

You grovelling serf. Personally speaking, I'd boil them all down for glue.

[Winston]

Yes, but then you're British, I'm led to understand. Makes sense then.

[Last Conformist]

Do I spot yet another royals thread?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Indeed it does. We stopped thinking that forelock-tugging obsequiousness was a satisfactory way to conduct oneself as a populace round about the time Wat Tyler started getting a bit pissed off.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Oh, here we go. "Forget about democratic representation! Look! Titties!".

[alva]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Indeed it does. We stopped thinking that forelock-tugging obsequiousness was a satisfactory way to conduct oneself as a populace round about the time Wat Tyler started getting a bit pissed off.

Isn't this an English forum?

forelock-tugging obsequiousness