Posted on 11/17/2007 4:28:09 PM PST by fanfan
I do think it’s funny as all git out that you’re finding it tough to criticize the monarchy on a board full of knuckle-dragging right-wing Yanks, but I can be as sentimental as the next guy. They look like really sweet people. And my tax money is paying Hillary’s salary. Just shoot me. ;-)
However much I dislike Hillary - she is elected and as a believer in democracy she can rightfully claim some money
I never elected the royals.
As for criticism - I think most here would agree - they may ‘like’ them, but ask them if they want the same, the’ll laugh in your face.
Beside, as I’ve said, it’s nothing personal, most of them are decent people - I just disagree with the concept of a monarch. Orf with my head I guess....
She appeared bitter and spiteful towards Diana after she died. And Diana was the mother of her grandsons.....it was shameful.
..the Queen no doubt expected Diana to 'smile & press' on regardless of Charles infidelities....
..but when Diana didn't/wouldn't...
.. the Queen took umbrage.
My tax money - one of MANY reasons I am opposed to the royals.
You, my friend, are my kind of Englishmen. Windsor-Hanover-Saxe Coburg must go!
I have made several trips to England and Scotland, I would have paid to tour a royal residence but at the time it was not possible. Can you do that now?
William and Harry were her grandsons.........she should have cared about and respected their mother....the fact that she didn’t is disgusting.
Well personally speaking - I would avoid it like the plague.
I don’t think you can ‘get inside’ to my knowledge, all the more difficult since 9/11.
But at more ‘historic’ sites you can get tours, because they’re pretty much museums any way.
Most of the main palaces etc, I think you can visit, but it’s more on and around the grounds, rather than walking by the queens toilet if you catch my drift. But being as these sort of places are absolutely massive, you’ll still be able to make a day of it!
I have been to Hampton Court and Holy Rood House but places where they actually spend time don’t seem to be available. If I were Queen I might like a little smaller home, but that’s just me.
You remind me of Puerto Rican independence activists that decry Puerto Rico's Commonwealth as "undemocratic".
Regardless of how the U.S. acquired control of Puerto Rico in 1898, the fact remains that, in the 21st Century, Puerto Rico's Commonwealth status has been repeatedly validated by Puerto Rico's voters in free elections.
If the Puerto Rican independence activists want full independence, all they have to do is to get the majority of Puerto Rican voters to agree with them and the Republic of Puerto Rico with be born with the blessing of the U.S.
Puerto Rico's Commonwealth status may be many things but, as it is in existence by the free will of the Puerto Rican voters, it is not "undemocratic".
If you want a Republic of Great Britain, all you need to do is to get the majority of British voters to agree with you and vote themselves a Republic.
Until then, the British Monarchy may be many things but, as it is in existence by the free will of the British voter, it is not "undemocratic".
“You remind me of Puerto Rican independence activists that decry Puerto Rico’s Commonwealth as “undemocratic”
I wonder why that is because I haven’t declared any commonwealth to be ‘undemocratic’. A very strange comparison at best.
“If you want a Republic of Great Britain, all you need to do is to get the majority of British voters to agree with you and vote themselves a Republic.”
Well here’s to stating the obvious.
“Until then, the British Monarchy may be many things but, as it is in existence by the free will of the British voter, it is not “undemocratic”.
The fact is it was never voted into existence in the first place by any democratic standard.
My point was not specifically rhw ‘British Monarchy’ - which is why I didn’t refer to it like that in the first place, it was the the very institution of a ‘monarchy’.
So you’re onto a loser there as well I’m afriad.
I never elected the royals.
Actually, as a member of the British electorate and through representative democracy, you did elect the Royals, just as I, as a member of the American electorate, "elected" Bill Clinton, twice, even though I never cast a vote for him.
In 1991, the Commonwealth of Britain Bill was introduced in the House of Commons. The bill, if passed into law, would have abolished the Monarchy.
The freely elected representatives of the British people in the in the House of Commons could have started the process to end the Monarchy right then and there but the democratic sentiment of Great Britain was so opposed to the idea, your idea, that the bill could never get off the ground.
If you do not like the democratic decisions of Britain's freely elected representatives, convince the British electorate to elect representatives that support your political positions instead of whining that, just because your side lost the political battle, the process in "undemocratic".
The key words in your article being:
“but never achieved a second reading”
Firs reading don’t even get a DEBATE, and the goverment 99.9999999999% times will kill it off and it won’t even reach vote.
So no, but nice try.
I wonder why that is because I haven’t declared any commonwealth to be ‘undemocratic’. A very strange comparison at best.
That is very concrete thinking on your part.
The debate point is not whether "Commonwealths" are undemocratic but that Puerto Rican independence advocates actually claim that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is "undemocratic" while conveniently ignoring the fact the voters of Puerto Rico could vote themselves independent whenever they so please.
Can the voters of Great Britain, through their democratically elected representatives, vote themselves a Republic of Great Britain if they so choose?
Yes or no?
Only of the answer is "no" can you claim that the institution of monarchy in Great Britain is "undemocratic".
“Until then, the British Monarchy may be many things but, as it is in existence by the free will of the British voter, it is not “undemocratic”.
The fact is it was never voted into existence in the first place by any democratic standard.
The entire Anglo-Saxon tradition of common law, where the law is refined by judges and a decision in the case currently pending depends on decisions in previous cases and affects the law to be applied in future cases was never voted on democratically for each individual ruling. The system is there by tradition.
If any ruling violates the collective will of the people in a democracy, the people are free to elect representatives that will specifically legislate the point and will appoint Judges who support that particular point of view.
Although the British monarchy, as our American common law, has come down through tradition, as I pointed out in Post 55,the British people, through their democratically elected representatives had an opportunity to choose between the Queen and your position.
Your position did not muster the required democratic support.
Your position lost, democratically.
Who puts "the government" in place in Great Britain?
God Himself?
George Bush?
Vladimir Putin
Queen Elizabeth?
The Pope?
Little green men in flying saucers from Mars?
The British voters?
The elected representatives of Great Britain, put in power by British voters in free elections, wanted no part of a Republic of Great Britain.
If you do not like that, change the minds of the majority of British voters instead of whining that an institution of Great Britain is "undemocratic" simply because you do not like it but cannot convince the majority of British voters to see things your way.
“The debate point is not whether “Commonwealths” are undemocratic but that Puerto Rican independence advocates actually claim that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is “undemocratic” while conveniently ignoring the fact the voters of Puerto Rico could vote themselves independent whenever they so please.”
That is such a stupid arguement. Just because something has evolved, i.e as in a monarchy, or on occasions even a dictatorship, it does not mean it has a democratic mandate or credentials.
You don’t like in the UK, and you don’t live under a monarchy. If you think sending your tax money to unelected leaders/heads of state is democratic then you oppose the very principle of democracy and of in your own country conservatism of the fiscal variety which strongly opposes that sort of thing.
“Can the voters of Great Britain, through their democratically elected representatives, vote themselves a Republic of Great Britain if they so choose?
Yes or no?”
Yes they can - they could also choose to vote in a dictator who kills jews and starts wars with our neighbours.
It would have a democratic mandate - but in reality, would what we ‘elected’ be democracy? No.
Did British voters elect this in the first place? No.
“The entire Anglo-Saxon tradition of common law, where the law is refined by judges and a decision in the case currently pending depends on decisions in previous cases and affects the law to be applied in future cases was never voted on democratically for each individual ruling. The system is there by tradition.”
Our system depends on tens of thousands of laws, passed through our democratically elected parliament. I don’t quite see what point you are making here.
“If any ruling violates the collective will of the people in a democracy, the people are free to elect representatives that will specifically legislate the point and will appoint Judges who support that particular point of view.”
The judges have a duty to follow the law, even when it perhaps even disagrees with them. A good example of this conflict currently here is over setencing - judges are passing tougher sentences - they don’t seem to like it.
“Although the British monarchy, as our American common law, has come down through tradition, as I pointed out in Post 55,the British people, through their democratically elected representatives had an opportunity to choose between the Queen and your position.
Your position did not muster the required democratic support.
Your position lost, democratically.”
Wrong.
That was never put to a vote in the first place, so no it didn’t ‘lose’, because it was never given the chance to.
Once again, I have never claimed a majority wouldm oppose the monarchy, I accept the majority do according to every poll, HOWEVER if you have actually bothered to read my posts and pay a poster that single courtesy you would have gathered enough information to know that has never been my point which is strictly confined to ‘monarchy’ which is basically an UN ELECTED head of state - something every real democratic would oppose.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.