Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Orlanth wrote:

whatwhat wrote:That is true, the majority of wealth she has is ultimately from our own pockets. Whether she supports her own self now or not.

Yours? So you were'nt around then.

Dont hang that on HM, or any monarch. On this level all wealth is stolen, for this to be fixed the USA needs to be dismantled and the land given back to the Natives.

Normans go home?
How about Saxons too?

Who owns what.

This is a typcial cry from the loony left, 'take back what is ours.' Was it ever yours? How would you evanuate it, and where would you stop. This is the politics of envy nothing more.

The monarchy literally has land titles stolen from the rest of the citizenry. At best it should be converted to public land for public use. better would be to to sell said land and paid down your debt, even if just a little bit. Death to Queen Elizabeth! Death to the Royals! Someone get me some heavy horse. To Warrrr!

Orlanth wrote:

whatwhat wrote:So we need autocrats to prevent autocrats? That's your point?

No because HM only has power over potential autocrats. What power has she over you or I? None, she cannot make laws.

That rebuts my point how?

Orlanth wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
Again, your faith in a monarch or other hereditary to make a better judge than an elected body or individual is based on your own royalist faith in them, nothing else.

Its based on realpolitic, a constitutional monarch has no direct authority over the people and is a figurehead. This keeps th role honest.
There is no safeguard over an elected politican who can lie and cheat to be elected, and lie and cheat more to stay elected.

You still haven't suggested why an elected body couldn't do the same thing in any logicail unbiased terms.

Orlanth wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
"Despotism may govern without faith, but Liberty cannot!"

When we lok at realpolitic, since when did man have what you see as 'Liberty'. Liberty on a national scale is an illusion, even if democracy is true, it gives us no control over a democratic official for the duration of their term. We have no guarantee of lasting freedom if they can hoodwink people to (re)elect them either.

If we see 'Liberty' as personal how is a free man living in a kingdom less free than one not living in a kingdom. We are no less free than any citizen of the US or any other republic on this planet, and we could run for office in our homelands as they can in theirs.

Again, your using the: 'he did it and got away with it therefore I should too' logic. An autocrat is not excused for beign such because you see elected government to be no working.

Orlanth wrote:For someone to confuse a constitutional monarchy for an autocratic form of government betrays a critical misunderstanding of the political process. whatwhat are you aware you even have a vote? If you are and if you are aware that the MP's you vote for control the government how can you claiim we live in an undemocratic state.
If on the other hand you see the futility of public opinion on our governments actions then you see the downside of all forms of government including modern democracy, a mandate to govern is a mandate given. If that is enough to count as Liberty then you might draw strength from the fact that a constitutional monarchy is a form of democracy that can have additional safeguards that a republic does not.

No come on. Don't twist the argument. I'm not painting the current ceremonial rubbish to be an autocracy. You put the idea out, in favour of monarchy, that they are there to safeguard against failure in government. I'm saying the right to judge over the government should not be given to the monarch because she is unelected. It is autocratic. It goes against the magna carta as well.

Frazzled wrote:
The monarchy literally has land titles stolen from the rest of the citizenry. At best it should be converted to public land for public use. better would be to to sell said land and paid down your debt, even if just a little bit. Death to Queen Elizabeth! Death to the Royals! Someone get me some heavy horse. To Warrrr!

I think asking for the head of state to be killed is just simply a bit insane and confrontational.

WarOne wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
The monarchy literally has land titles stolen from the rest of the citizenry. At best it should be converted to public land for public use. better would be to to sell said land and paid down your debt, even if just a little bit. Death to Queen Elizabeth! Death to the Royals! Someone get me some heavy horse. To Warrrr!

I think asking for the head of state to be killed is just simply a bit insane and confrontational.

lmao confrontational? do you think so?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would say the same but treason is still punishable by death penalty here.

WarOne wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
The monarchy literally has land titles stolen from the rest of the citizenry. At best it should be converted to public land for public use. better would be to to sell said land and paid down your debt, even if just a little bit. Death to Queen Elizabeth! Death to the Royals! Someone get me some heavy horse. To Warrrr!

I think asking for the head of state to be killed is just simply a bit insane and confrontational.

Not if its done by heavy horse. If its good enough for Cromwell, its good enough for me.

This Cromwell:



Not this Cromwell:


Not to be confused with this guy


And of course when I say Death to the Queen, I don't mean this Queen.

Frazzled wrote:

WarOne wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
The monarchy literally has land titles stolen from the rest of the citizenry. At best it should be converted to public land for public use. better would be to to sell said land and paid down your debt, even if just a little bit. Death to Queen Elizabeth! Death to the Royals! Someone get me some heavy horse. To Warrrr!

I think asking for the head of state to be killed is just simply a bit insane and confrontational.

Not if its done by heavy horse. If its good enough for Cromwell, its good enough for me.

This Cromwell:



Not this Cromwell:


Not to be confused with this guy


And of course when I say Death to the Queen, I don't mean this Queen.

Frazz...

what are we gonna do with you?

I know! Let's ship you to Australia, the penal colony. Or maybe Georgia, the penal state.

Heh..penal.

Orlanth wrote:The secnd power, which is not used, but can be is the power to dissolve parliament and demand a frsh election. technically this is the only way to call an election.

Is this an election where you vote for fish, or an election where fish vote for you?

TBone vetoes this plan, as it might interfere with his supply of steak and buttered popcorn on demand!

BearersOfSalvation wrote:

Orlanth wrote:The secnd power, which is not used, but can be is the power to dissolve parliament and demand a frsh election. technically this is the only way to call an election.

Is this an election where you vote for fish, or an election where fish vote for you?

No...it's a frsh election.

Only people wearing frsh may be elected.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:TBone vetoes this plan, as it might interfere with his supply of steak and buttered popcorn on demand!

But he can eat all the kangaroos/koalas/Georgia equivalent of outback critters he wants!

Whatwhat's argument against the Monarchy appears to be that he's very angry about it....

Frazzled wrote:The monarchy literally has land titles stolen from the rest of the citizenry. At best it should be converted to public land for public use. better would be to to sell said land and paid down your debt, even if just a little bit. Death to Queen Elizabeth! Death to the Royals! Someone get me some heavy horse. To Warrrr!

This is from the British settlers who stole and entire country from the natives who then decided to call themselves American. Who also came from Britain who were also overrun by the Romans then the Norse then. . . .

We have stolen each other lands for a millenia now, in a couple of thousand years you'll all be speaking French and we will be Spanish. Paella anyone?

Elmodiddly wrote:

Frazzled wrote:The monarchy literally has land titles stolen from the rest of the citizenry. At best it should be converted to public land for public use. better would be to to sell said land and paid down your debt, even if just a little bit. Death to Queen Elizabeth! Death to the Royals! Someone get me some heavy horse. To Warrrr!

This is from the British settlers who stole and entire country from the natives who then decided to call themselves American. Who also came from Britain who were also overrun by the Romans then the Norse then. . . .

We have stolen each other lands for a millenia now, in a couple of thousand years you'll all be speaking French and we will be Spanish. Paella anyone?

I'd love some Paella!

And, in a couple thousand years, I plan on being dead. But, if I'm not, I'll still be speaking English, as I've tried to learn other languages and failed miserably.

Don't forget it's only real Pealla if you're eating it suffering from sunburn and can hear some tart from Essex shouting her gob off about how her foof is itchy.

Frack me that was a really crappy holiday. Last time I ever go to a coastal resort in Spain.

Elmodiddly wrote:Don't forget it's only real Pealla if you're eating it suffering from sunburn and can hear some tart from Essex shouting her gob off about how her foof is itchy.

I'm sorry, but foof? Is that a typo for foot, or is that another weird Brit word?

I thought that "fanny" might have been censored by the website. Plus it was the word she used. It is a weird Brit word but, to explain, she was from Essex. Proper peasant stock!

Elmodiddly wrote:I thought that "fanny" might have been censored by the website. Plus it was the word she used. It is a weird Brit word but, to explain, she was from Essex. Proper peasant stock!

Hmmm... I think this is cleared up, but why would the website censor fanny? Ass is allowed, and that's way worse than fanny.

Unless... what does fanny mean? In America, it's a polite way to say butt.

No a fanny is a pussy in our language.

Frazzled wrote:The monarchy literally has land titles stolen from the rest of the citizenry.

Frazzled, I hate to quibble, but there are no citizens in the U.K., only subjects.

Elmodiddly wrote:No a fanny is a pussy in our language.

*sigh* I swear, we all think we're speaking the same language, but we're totally not.

Dakka should add these things to the list of mouseovers with British and American definitions.

That'd be a very long list.

There's another thread brewing. "American/English Dictionary"

whatwhat wrote:So we need autocrats to prevent autocrats? That's your point?

Again, your faith in a monarch or other hereditary to make a better judge than an elected body or individual is based on your own royalist faith in them, nothing else.

What's more your lack of faith in elected government is what makes you think that.


"Despotism may govern without faith, but Liberty cannot!"

Interesting sidenote: This is exactly the same debate between Shiite Muslims and Sunni Muslims, Shiites beleive their caliph must be a direct blood desecendent of Muhammed, whereas a Sunni believes that the caliph should be decided upon by the community. Same argument, different religion and region.

Stormrider wrote:

whatwhat wrote:So we need autocrats to prevent autocrats? That's your point?

Again, your faith in a monarch or other hereditary to make a better judge than an elected body or individual is based on your own royalist faith in them, nothing else.

What's more your lack of faith in elected government is what makes you think that.


"Despotism may govern without faith, but Liberty cannot!"

Interesting sidenote: This is exactly the same debate between Shiite Muslims and Sunni Muslims, Shiites beleive their caliph must be a direct blood desecendent of Muhammed, whereas a Sunni believes that the caliph should be decided upon by the community. Same argument, different religion and region.

Here in Britain when it's not Sunni it's Shiite.

Frazzled wrote:

WarOne wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
The monarchy literally has land titles stolen from the rest of the citizenry. At best it should be converted to public land for public use. better would be to to sell said land and paid down your debt, even if just a little bit. Death to Queen Elizabeth! Death to the Royals! Someone get me some heavy horse. To Warrrr!

I think asking for the head of state to be killed is just simply a bit insane and confrontational.

Not if its done by heavy horse. If its good enough for Cromwell, its good enough for me.

This Cromwell:



Not this Cromwell:


Not to be confused with this guy


And of course when I say Death to the Queen, I don't mean this Queen.

Ohh goodness. You're using Cromwell as a 'freedom fighter'...............................
That's the guy who despised Parliament, who established himself as a dictator and caused a massive wave of religious and cultural oppression. He believed in the 'strong man at the top' just like King Charles and the only real difference between their outlooks was that he believed the Head of state was still a man rather than an enhanced human chosen by God for rule. After the Civil War he basically proclaimed himself King in all but name. His son even took power after his death. He dissolved parliament on numerous occasions and led a brutal and oppressive campaign against the Irish Catholics.
/rant. Its incredibly humorous when I hear Americans proclaiming Cromwell and Guy Fawkes as 'freedom fighters' or defenders of the oppressed when in actual fact both would have seen the establishment of religiously oppressive system where the populaces right to free speech is severely curtailed.

Also LONG LIVE THE QUEEN (cos when she dies we're screwed)

We've had a bad run with previous King Charlies but I have high hopes for this one.

Dunno about that George. I mean Charles the 2nd and the Restoration was pretty awesome. A return to joyful and bawdy hedonism after a decade of repressive Puritan rule sounds jolly fun . I mean he wasn't called the 'Merrie Monarch for nothing'

whatwhat wrote:

Stormrider wrote:

whatwhat wrote:So we need autocrats to prevent autocrats? That's your point?

Again, your faith in a monarch or other hereditary to make a better judge than an elected body or individual is based on your own royalist faith in them, nothing else.

What's more your lack of faith in elected government is what makes you think that.


"Despotism may govern without faith, but Liberty cannot!"

Interesting sidenote: This is exactly the same debate between Shiite Muslims and Sunni Muslims, Shiites beleive their caliph must be a direct blood desecendent of Muhammed, whereas a Sunni believes that the caliph should be decided upon by the community. Same argument, different religion and region.

Here in Britain when it's not Sunni it's Shiite.

George Spiggott wrote:We've had a bad run with previous King Charlies but I have high hopes for this one.

I thought the royal 'buzz' from the people in the know, as it were, was that by all indications, Charles was prepared to abdicate as and when the time comes in favour of William. Apparently, public opinion will not accept Camilla as queen. Not only that, but by the time Liz pops off, Charles will be knocking on a bit himself.

George Spiggott wrote:We've had a bad run with previous King Charlies but I have high hopes for this one.

For the record I believe that Charles will actually be King George VIII, for reason best known to the people that make these decisions (but probably to do with bad PR and beheadings?).

Edit for getting the number wrpng, twice!