Monarchy or Republic?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Winston
Even if a dispute or a matter of advanced age should arise afterwards, Monarchs have been known to step down of their own accord, you know. See Edward VIII, Juliana of the Netherlands etc., etc.

Fantastic choices, Winston.

What prompted constitutional crisis in the case of Edward VIII? The fact that his chosen bride was a bit common.

What didn't prompt a constitutional crisis? His avid support for Hitler, his anti-Semitism, his alcoholism, his supremely idle and wasteful lifestyle, and his being possibly the most arrogant man in the entire world. These were issues that could sink anyone in a democratic process, and reveal just what a ****ing mockery these supposed "constitutional" monarchies are. Had he been a good boy and stuck to sticking his plonker in some pig-ugly minor German princess, we'd have been stuck with the appalling little ****er.

And those Dutchies? Fantastically dull in comparison, but it was rather tasteless of Juliana's daughters to get their gussets moistened by fascists and Hitler Youth escapees.

[Thrawn05]

I'm still waiting for the return for the Holy Roman Empire, but that's just me.


"Prayers for the Emperor, 141, 142 and 143 omitted, the Holy Roman Empire being VACANT."

---From an old Missal I still have.


I get first dibs!

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by C0ckney
the problem that republicans have in this country is that they need to do two things.

firstly - to convince people that keeping the monarchy is bad for britain, and;

Funnily enough, I can't recall that particular referendum. When was it? Was it during the numerous assassination attempts on Queen Victoria, who (lest we forget) spent a lot of her reign being extremely unpopular?

secondly - to come up with something better.

so far they have failed miserably to do either.

Here's mine. Give Sir David Attenborough the job. After two years, allow open elections for who has-

1- Been a local councillor for at least 10 years.

and/or-

2- Can put up a non-refundable deposit of £50,000,000.


Democratic, and self-funding. Piece of piss, isn't it?

[Winston]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Fantastic choices, Winston.

Choices?

Come on, you're not that stupid. Try again, you can't very well miss such an obvious point twice in a row.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


Choose mine. You know full well I'll take that as a challenge and try annoying you even more just for the hell of it.

Surely, if I chose Winston, you'd be spurred to even greater efforts, so as to surpass him?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Yes, but Winston's got more than enough sadness in his life without adding any more in the form of your disapproval. He has the ongoing tragedy of being himself, for starters.

[Seeker]

We need a real Sovereign with all their own people in the Army so that someone can finally reign in these dirty Modern Brits.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Yes, but Winston's got more than enough sadness in his life without adding any more in the form of your disapproval. He has the ongoing tragedy of being himself, for starters.

I already loath him.

[Winston]

Hmm, maybe you two could take up squash or something, to actually derive some benefit from all that unhealthy frustration.

I know Lazarus and the Gimp already tried boxing a while back, which I understand has served him well down the pub on Friday nights, usually after about 45 minutes of trying to socialize with real people.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

You really, really, really need to get laid.

[Winston]

Wow. I'd say your longtime obsession with me is finally approaching the pathological state.

Either that, or your pathetic "black belt in English" claim earlier was just another display of megalomaniac posturing from you.

Maybe it's a bit of both.

[Last Conformist]

Tsk. You guys are gonna attract Ming if you keep up like that.

[Winston]

I don't think there'd really be a problem if the two of you would just cease being personal and let us get on with the topic.

[lord of the mark]

hmmmm

1. monarchs are good at cutting ribbons, so heads of govt dont have to.

Well most republics have a head of state for that - Like Germany, the President vs the Chancellor, or Israel, the President vs the PM.

Here in the US we USED to give chores like that to the Vice President. Before we decided to make the VP head of govt


2. Oddly the sense of entitlement to rule based on family connection survives in republics. Of course in a non-democratic fashion in a place like Syria, which is a monarchy in all but name. And even in democratic republics like Israel where the sons and daughters of prominent pols are elected to the Knesset. But of course its worst (AFAIK) here in the USA, where we often have family connections in the Presidency itself - the Adams', the Harrison, the Roosevelts, the Kennedy's(only one prez named Kennedy, but plenty of familial politics), the Bush's, and quite possibly the Clintons. As a republican (small r) this is of course troubling (though not so troubling that I wont consider voting for Hillary)

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Winston
I don't think there'd really be a problem if the two of you would just cease being personal and let us get on with the topic.

To be fair, the only thing I've slammed you for in this thread is your obnoxious attitude on the monarchism/republicanism issue, which'd seem quite on topic.