Posted on 09/26/2011 4:51:47 PM PDT by naturalman1975
at least I’m a coherent non essential windbag. You will need two promotions to match me.
I’ll take your word for it that Charles has been portrayed unfairly, since that is what the media does. Some of it is self-inflicted, though, such as his foolish, hypocritical statements on the environment and his behavior during his first marriage. I’ll allow that Diana was not perfect, either. I did not know that he flew helicopters, too. I respect him for that, speaking as the wife of a former H-3 pilot in the U.S. Navy. It takes a lot of skill to fly a helo!
But the idea of a monarch is so tied up in the governments of the United Kingdom and many of the Commonwealth Realms as an essential control on the tyranny of government (it is the Monarch's role to step in if Parliament attempts to go too far) that it's not easy to get rid of at this point. Paine makes it quite clear why you shouldn't create a monarchy out of nowhere, but when it comes to the existence of one that has about a millenium of history behind it to create a system that actually works pretty well, I think it's a different matter.
America's own Declaration of Independence (which as you will well know, Paine had profound influence on) says it well, in my view:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes
You change a form of government only very carefully. 'Common Sense' was written at a time when the existing British government - the existing monarchy - had failed in the American colonies. In places where it hasn't failed in centuries - and indeed where it has actually served as a control on other arms of government, things are different.
I would never support the monarchy that existed in America in the 1770s. Nor that with existed in the UK at that time. But the monarchy that changed partly as a result of what happened in response to those events and became something different is another matter.
How could she not?! It’s nice to see a manned up man! And I’m a feminist................
I read Lord Mountbatten’s biography, utterly fascinating!
But would you have supported changing it? I doubt it.
* Of course, as a royal he is not allowed to deal with the real threats Britain faces. He cannot discuss oikophobia as the new state religion if he ever wishes to be the puppet head of the Church of England. He may not discuss the end of British sovereignty by the EU so long as he wishes to pretend sovereign some day. He must not discuss the planned importation of non-British by the left to destroy British nationalism and the Tories. Heaven forbid he utter the name Vortigern lest he be exiled. The truth is that William has no desire to defend his nation. The cost of his true duty would be too high. He merely wishes to play soldier and enjoy the comradeship lacking to any royal.
So you support what your monarchy’s been up to with Qaddafi’s stooges?
Actually it is.
I have spent years doing engagements and it not easy. You don't just, "show up and be yourself" when you are representing something and wish for people to see that something in the best light.
Every detail from your dress to your speech to your hand shake will be gone over and picked apart. You have no opinions, they are not allowed, you have no preferences, they are not allowed, you must be charming no matter how rude someone is to you, your manners must always be impeccable. And you smile and smile and smile until you think your face will get stuck and then you smile some more.
It is stressful and very tiring. I did it for 4 years in total. I would never do it again.
Conserve what? Have you read about his model Muslim communities?
Blair had secret meeting with Gaddafi aide at his home... a month before Lockerbie bomber’s release
Yes, at that time and place, I would have supported changing it. How active I would have been, I don’t know. A lot would have depended on who I was and what influence I had.
top 8 nations in order of GDP in 1960
USA
UK
france
china
japan
canada
italy
india
top 8 in order in 1990
USA
japan
germany
france
italy
UK
USSR
canada
top 8 in order currently
USA
china
japan
germany
france
UK
brazil
italy
top 8 in order projected by 2015
USA
china
japan
germany
brazil
france
UK
russia
My prediction for 2030
china
USA
brazil
japan
india
mexico
south korea
germany
UK is clearly in a death spiral, as are all european nations.
What do you claim the monarchy has been up to with Qadaffi’s stooges?
If you are talking about the Duke of York’s meetings with him, he was acting as a diplomatic envoy for the British government as he was at the time expected to do in cases where particular foreign heads of government may be more prepared to make concessions to a royal than to a politician.
He’s also met with representatives of a company linked to the Bin Laden family for the same reasons.
Diplomatic dealings with people you don’t necessarily like are part of the business of all governments on occasion.
“(it is the Monarch’s role to step in if Parliament attempts to go too far) “
Read again those words,,this is the precise description of the relationship of Saddam and his legislature, or Stalin and the Soviet Duma, or Hitler and the Reichstag.
How in all thats holy do THEY rate deciding if the Parliament “goes too far”?
Thats what elections are for.
A Channel 4 documentary concerning allegations about a member of the Royal family has about as much credibility and accuracy as a Michael Moore documentary about George W. Bush.
Media spin doesn’t always match reality.
Research the concept of the ‘reserve powers’ and how they operate under the British constitution and you’ll get some understanding of this.
To see how they have actually been used in practice, take a look at the Game/Lang crisis of 1931 in New South Wales, Australia, or the Dismissal Crisis in Australia in 1975 - two cases where the Monarch’s representative in Australia used the reserve powers to curtail governments that were attempting to act outside of the law and constitutional convention.
There are pretty clear guidelines as to when and where a Monarch or their representative can exercise the reserve powers. In simple terms, it’s when a government attempts to act outside of constitutional law. It’s not at the whim of the monarch, and if a monarch ever tried to use them in that way, they’d inspire revolution which is the ultimate control that ensures they only use them when they have to.
Read about them? I’ve talked with him about them. And I’m aware that dealing with the extremism that are leading to some Muslim youths becoming suicide bombers in Britain is actually fairly important and one way of addressing that is to ensure that other people besides radical imams have an influence on these young people. The idea is to make sure these communities become part of British life with British values, rather than enclaves whose ‘values’ come from the lies they are told by the radicals.
Prince Wiliam certainly brings about honor back to a royal family that lost some of it. Prince CHarles was without a doubt a royal trying to earn his place but he screwed the pooch by marrying that out of control brat Diana. William brings it back.
I am also envious of William; gets to play stud in the military, fly stuff, marry a good looking girl, live in a castle and has lots of bucks.
Violate the Constitution, written or unwritten. The last time the Reserve powers were used, in Australia in 1975, the Governor-General fired a Prime Minister and dissolved Parliament. This forced a new election. The reason? The Prime Minister ignored Constitutional convention and tried to keep a Government alive that had lost the support of Parliament. That is an absolute no no in a Westminster style Parliament.
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.