Monarchy or Democracy?

[Christoff]

"Since there also seems a legal slant to this thread (barristers?) do you not feel sad to see the wig and gown go?"

In a word - no! Barristers wigs are uncomfortable to wear and and have little symbolism of any worth in my view. Now that solicitors are allowed to wear them they have no worth at all. LOL. The wearing of wigs in British society was a passing fashion in the 17th/early 18th Century - we don't need them today. However, I still believe in the wearing of robes and bands and wouldn't want to see these go.

Christoff

[KevinKeith]

The bit that I never manage to get my head round is how at each General Election, the country turns out, at great expence, to vote for 600 odd MPs. Once those elected MPs get to parliament - out comes the three line whip, and they all do as they are told. It seems to me that it would be a lot cheaper to just vote for say four party leaders and have done with it. After all no candidate or party ever carries out their election promises........

Also the expenses scandal has shown MPs to be what I have always suspected. That is that they are a bunch of money making bastards who are interested only in their own development. They are a bunch of liars and cheats.

Our constitutional monarchy works ok - the Queen would never dare to refuse to sign legislation - that would be the end of the royal family if she ever did.

Alan, replace MP with Member of Congress, constitutional monarchy with constitution and eliminate references to the Queen and you have described the USA to a tee!

[bob9039]

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/polit ... cracy.html


Interesting read ...

[kats]

Good stuff Bob... thanks! "... and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands..."

[ewlewis]

Actually Bob, when discussing politics with someone I use a question asking what form of government the US is as a qualifier.

[bob9039]

Actually Bob, when discussing politics with someone I use a question asking what form of government the US is as a qualifier.

I don't understand your point? My point was that we are not a Democracy as most assume. Even the news media uses the term when they refer to potential Democracy in the Middle East.

[Brett]

If the Queen was to use her power she would be doing it for good reason - she is exceptionally bright and current with the world. As for riots and revolution:

In theory, the Armed forces & Police Service, are 'Her Majesty's' Armed Forces & Constabulary.
(Also the government is in theory "Her Majesty's" government).
If the Monarch ever actually did veto & dissolve the government and fired the Prime Minister (for whatever 'good reason' - probably for the welfare of 'the people') who's side would the Army & Police actually be on?

[Dodger]

If the Queen was to use her power she would be doing it for good reason - she is exceptionally bright and current with the world. As for riots and revolution:

In theory, the Armed forces & Police Service, are 'Her Majesty's' Armed Forces & Constabulary.
(Also the government is in theory "Her Majesty's" government).
If the Monarch ever actually did veto & dissolve the government and fired the Prime Minister (for whatever 'good reason' - probably for the welfare of 'the people') who's side would the Army & Police actually be on?

Logically the Monarchy .I do not know about the Police ,but every serviceman or woman takes an oath to serve the Monarch .However how it would turn out is anyone's guess .

[Dodger]

The following opinion is coming from an American, so take it nd doesn't the Royal Family have expenses, and are any of these expenses being paid for with tax payer money? If they are, then the Royal Family is nothing but a bunch of well-dressed leeches. Sure, I suppose they have their symbolic importance and all, but really all they amount to in my mind are celebrities. To me it would be like us Americans having Paris Hilton have a say in the legislative processes, if she felt like it.

But then again, I don't really know what I'm talking about.

Last week it was revealed that the cost of the Monarchy to the British people is just 69p ($1) per head, per year. Strangely, the pomp associated with the Monarchy is what draws countless numbers of Americans over here, in addition to the tourists from most other countries.

Not everyone thinks they're useless, and I'm not just talking about us Brits.

Whatever the stance you take on the Monarchy ,we currently have a head of state with 60 years of experience .

Most of the Prime Ministers who have had their weekly meetings with her ,have said it is a relief to talk with someone who is above politics and has no axe to grind .

As for the expense it seems rather cheap compared with the cost of the security alone of ex Presidents and their families .

[StormCrow]

Monarchy if I'm in charge, democracy if I'm not.

Therefore, as I'm sure we can all agree, the world would be a better place in my monarchy, but in the real world, democracy is a practical and workable concession.

[Condoranian]

I am a citizen ..not a subject. I will never swear loyalty to someone who rules by divine right. I swear loyalty to the citizens of this country and I will fight enemies ..domestic or otherwise who threaten me or my family or others..nuff said!!

Dave

[englanddave]

I am a citizen ..not a subject. I will never swear loyalty to someone who rules by divine right. I swear loyalty to the citizens of this country and I will fight enemies ..domestic or otherwise who threaten me or my family or others..nuff said!!

Dave

I agree completely Dave Well said

[ChuckMac]

Now it begins. Now it really begins.

This is funny - I actually passed an "A" Level in "British Constitution" (this was in 1974) - which is quite an achievement as we Brits don't actually have a Constitution.

PS: An "A" Level is an exam that we Brits take at age 18.

Why?

[PseudoNim]

In theory, the Armed forces & Police Service, are 'Her Majesty's' Armed Forces & Constabulary.
(Also the government is in theory "Her Majesty's" government).
If the Monarch ever actually did veto & dissolve the government and fired the Prime Minister (for whatever 'good reason' - probably for the welfare of 'the people') who's side would the Army & Police actually be on?

As an ex serviceman, If I recall, we pledged alleigance to Her Majesty (first) and to Her Government (second).
Now I can only speak for the lads I served with, (but I doubt that much has changed) had the Queen orderd us to open fire on our politicians, we would have obeyed to the strains of "Ode to Joy"

[Dodger]

In theory, the Armed forces & Police Service, are 'Her Majesty's' Armed Forces & Constabulary.
(Also the government is in theory "Her Majesty's" government).
If the Monarch ever actually did veto & dissolve the government and fired the Prime Minister (for whatever 'good reason' - probably for the welfare of 'the people') who's side would the Army & Police actually be on?

As an ex serviceman, If I recall, we pledged alleigance to Her Majesty (first) and to Her Government (second).
Now I can only speak for the lads I served with, (but I doubt that much has changed) had the Queen orderd us to open fire on our politicians, we would have obeyed to the strains of "Ode to Joy"

I would prefer God Save The Queen as the EU has hijacked Ode to Joy

[Brett]

Monarchy if I'm in charge, democracy if I'm not..

I like your way of thinking.

[paellacooker]

No democracy and no monarchy.