Posted on 11/21/2005 10:11:23 PM PST by WJHII
Thank God that, in America, we said "No More Kings!"
However the modern American sheeple have recreated the monarchy in the form of the Professional Political Class.
America will fall as it began: in revolution against its rulers.
The trouble is that Britain's checks and balances were in the form of Sovereign vs. Lords vs. Commons. So when the monarchy and nobility lost their power that one house, the House of Commons, took a great amount of governmental power. It would be, in America, as if the president lost all power and the Senate and judiciary lost most of their power and the whole government was effectively run by the House of Representatives alone. Maybe the UK doesn't need a powerful monarch or nobility, but it does need some kind of system of checks and balances.
The British Monarchy is Ghey.
Time to join the democratic age.
Establish a Republic with a Constitution enshrined with enumerated powers and rights.
Not much diffrent from the Canadian senate, which is useless and not even ornamental.
Actually, now, the only ones elected were born into the position, rather than appointed by the Prime Minister
Britain certainly has a problem. That old Johnny Cash song about something 'coming down the track' comes to mind. That would be Charles with a towel wrapped around his empty head.
If you think the inbreeding is a disgrace in say West Virginia, check out the worlds "royalty".
Some people still actually believe in a British Monarchy? Kind of like reading Flat Earth society stuff to me. I had no idea anyone still believed.
If I had "King" Charles IV in my future I'd be making other plans too. What a boob!
Long live the Queen (Elizabeth II) !!
I read somewhere in an interview of Prince Charles that he might take the name George since he admires George III so much.
Are you forgetting that Prince Charles attended Ronald Reagan's funeral? Or that he condemmed the 9/11 attacks unequivicoally?
He is a great ally to his American cousins. Even if he does have some personal foibles.
Pretty sure it's George VI that Charles is thinking of honouring, not George III.
As for the chances of a republic, they're pretty slim-to-non-existent. The royal family are more popular then they have been for ages, and nobody is seriously talking about getting rid of them, as they were a decade ago. Even if some horrible scandal came up I think most people in the country would rather retain our ancient traditions, and any referrendum would founder on the question of what to replace the monarchy with as it did in Australia.
As for the Lords, the author of the piece seems to have forgotten that the chamber has actually been one of the government's most effective opponents in recent years, repeatedly throwing bills back to the Commons and making a general nusciance of itself. Not what Blair intended, but long may it continue.
And just to correct an irritating point in the article- there is no throne of England, and there hasn't been since 1707. Our Queen is the monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (and Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc), not the Queen of England.
Thanks, I appreciate the info. Here's a question for you. Since the Stone of Scone was sent back to Scotland will it be brought back to Westminster Abbey for Charles' coronation? Or perhaps Charles/George might go to Scotland for a separate ceremony.
I lived in Vancover (of the People's Republic of Bristish Columbia) for a little over a year. The NDP (as close to Communist as you sill see without carrying party cards) was in charge at the province level then. The legislature would pass a bill and boom they were acting on it that afternoon--no waiting for the governor to sign it. The courts would rule something illegal and within days the legislature would redraft the law and it was back in effect.
Scary as hell. The Canadians around me just scoffed when I expressed my concerns that they were leaving the door open to totalitarian one party rule.
I have no love for the British monarchy and would not shed a tear to see it go. But the awesome power that one party can wield in a situation like that is pretty intimidating. Of course, in reality it is nearly that now.
The major oversight that I see with this article is that the author forgets that Tony Blair and New Labor (none of those Brit extra Us here) are ready to cede much more authority to the EU once they are in better control and can avoid a public referendum on the subject.
hmmm... interesting question. I expect the former. As I said, Charles wouldn't be the King of Scotland but rather the King of the UK , and any ceremony involving just the Scots would set an odd precedent.
Which isn't to say that Scots Nationalists wouldn't kick up a fuss about it... but then again they always do.
Whoops. Hit "post" before correcting typos. Pople= people. Sill = will.
"(none of those Brit extra Us here)"
Well the party is officially known as the Labour Party, so you should give into temptation and add one really- It is what it's called after all. Much as the Australian equivalent is called the Labor Party, just because I'm British doesn't mean I spell it the British way.
Sorry to be a pedant!
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.