Posted on 06/27/2010 1:46:00 AM PDT by the scotsman
The Monarchy is quite complicated.
Personally I don't believe in an established religion either, but that's actually not directly relevant to the law of succession - Australia doesn't have an established Church (the language in the Australian Constitution prohibiting one is almost copied from the US Constitution), but the laws of succession still apply. Britain could disestablish without the prohibition on Catholics being removed, or can remove that without it affecting Establishment.
agreed but this royalty, Harry, fought on the front lines in iraq for a bit until the british press outed his whereabouts...
agreed but this royalty, Harry, fought on the front lines in iraq for a bit until the british press outed his whereabouts...
Afghanistan, not Iraq - and he’s currently training as a helicopter pilot in the hope he can go back there. He wants to fly the Apache.
Their mother’s influence is undeniable. And likely saved them from the stuffy influence of their sorry a$$ father. Harry is def. my favorite, and has been since he was a young boy when he stuck his tongue out at the paps.
“He has a much better arm than the messiah.”
That’s because the messiah used to be a woman.
“The difference between royalty and democracy is that with royalty you are supporting one family and democracy you are supporting a couple hundred million folks.”
That is an interesting take, but it opens the door to whether the purpose of governmental system should be “supporting” anyone. Of course, I realize the first time a chief came into power, someone had their hand in till.
In this case, my objection revolves around meritocracy. Being a prince is fine I suppose, but one doesn’t rise to that position through merit. In any event, I believe we made our decision on that particular issue some 200+ years ago.
The Brits can have their infatuation with royalty, as some of us appear to hold to as well. In truth they have much bigger problems to deal with (cultural survival), than worrying about an antiquated vestige of authority.
Of course, under the British sham monarchy they have the royal family plus millions of freeloaders and mooches.
You couldn’t be more wrong. British royalty has no power. It is a figurehead and a rallying point that has served Britain well.
No-one who knows anything about Britain would say otherwise.
Republics do not equate with meritocracy.
Many Monarchies are much freer than many republics. It all depends on other factors.
The British Royals could probably beat the Kansas City Royals in baseball.
Being an NFL fan, I take your world for it....lol
I get ESPN America HD, but rarely watch any baseball, usually only the city rivalries: Mets-Yankees, Yankees-Red Sox, Cubs-White Sox. And never ever a full game.
Actually it was an American website (the Drudge Report) which revealed the fact that Harry was serving in Afghanistan: not the British press. They’d all agreed to a secrecy clause until his tour of duty was over for the sake of his security and that of the men serving under him. Once the cat was out of the bag, however, it ceased to matter, and many of them then followed up on the story.
Hmm. I disagree re. republics not equating with meritocracy.
On a relative basis republics are far more likely to support merit in the individual. Monarchies (of the hereditary variety) are the very antithesis of a meritocracy, and this has been acknowledged for centuries (at least on the west side of the Atlantic).
Your geographic position may determine your opinion on this one.
For all I know, though, he may kick the fox hounds in the middle of the night, though.
I hope not.
I double 'though'ed.
LeBron is 25. I'm still trying to contemplate that kind of maturity coming out of him.
There is no evidence in the real world that Republics support meritocracy rather than Monarchies. None whatsoever.
In fact nearly all of the US enemies in the world are tyrannical Republics like North Korea, Syria, Iran, Russia (Iraq) and China and most of her greatest free allies are Monarchies like the UK, Canada, Japan, Australia, and The Netherlands.
North Korea a republic?!?! SNORK! What, besides the name of the country leads you to the conclusion that the first communist monarchy is a republic (other than a curiously chosen name for the country)? As I recall, the “Great Leader” served for 50+ years, and was followed by his son, “The Dear Leader”. I would not be surprised there is another family “Leader” in the wings of late.
Syria as a Republic? From the Syria Wikipedia, “Syria’s current president is Bashar al-Assad, who won a referendum on extending his presidency for second term, garnering 97.62 percent of votes in 2007 and is the son of Hafez al-Assad, who held office from 1970 until his death in 2000.”
Syria is hardly the image of a meritocracy, and I certainly wouldn’t call it a meritocracy, unless Hafez is the best the Syrian pols have to offer when Dad croaked after being President for 30 YEARS! No, if it walks and quacks like a monarchy it’s a monarchy. Syria is a republic in name only.
I could go on about the remaining countries you mentioned, but I won’t.
You rather missed my point in your post.
Hereditary monarchies are inately adverse to the concept of meritocracy. The King is not selected based on merit. He may be suited, or he may be a moron (and there have been a few crowned nutballs). Ability has nothing to do with the rise to power.
No, there is nothing in a hereditary monarchy that has much to do with merit. It is all about heredity. It is difficult for some, to admire one who has been born into high position without demonstrating exceptional merit. Of course, that applies to any position including the sons and daughters of pols (or corporate titans) on this side of the pond.
Yet many still buy into heredity as an indication of qualification. I work the other side of the street on this issue.
There is no point in further discussion if you are unable to understand what is and is not a Republic.
You seem to assume that because Syria and North Korea are not meritocracies that they are not republics. You are a priori assuming a republic must be good.
I would urge you to read more on the subject. There will be no responses from me until you do. Have a good day.
WELL!!!
I guess you told me. I shall no crawl back under my rock and lick my wounds. :-)
Oh, does this mean I won the discussion? Just curious, as it seems your comments indicate as such.
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.