Happy Diamond Jubilee!

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.

**Palindrome**

Goliath wrote:
Palindrome wrote:
Lord Bingo wrote:

When you get down to it though, all laws are just words. Also that poll doesn't seem even remotely correct.

"Eight in ten (80%) British adults favour Britain remaining a monarchy compared to 13% that want to see it becoming a republic."

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/2973/Support-for-monarchy-is-at-all-time-high.aspx

Maybe its that poll which isn't remotely correct?

That would be why the republican protesters outnumbered the people showing their support then?

Or republicans are simply spending their time more wisely. I spent the day looking after my son and playing some TF2, much more useful than standing about in the rain.

**notprop**

Yeah way to stick it to the Ma'am!

**dæl**

Goliath wrote:
That would be why the republican protesters outnumbered the people showing their support then?

It's funny how people here are putting forward both sides of the argument, it's almost as if people who didn't attend have opinions on the subject.

**Palindrome**

What would you rather I do then notprop? After all the queen is effectively a nonentity; she has very, very little influence over my life or the country as a whole. I am against the monarcy is principle but I am hardly after her blood.

**AustonT**

George Spiggott wrote:
AustonT wrote:I love it when republicans hold up Cromwell as an example. It brings warmth and joy to the cockles of my heart. I don't think they get it though
Yes it was a bad choice of picture but I couldn't find a good instantly recognisable picture of the New

The point is that Republicans won a great victory in a series of civil wars, and created a another hereditary monarch. Then by popular demand the actual monarchy return. It's like saying Augustus restored the Republic. Cromwell was not a stunning victory for republicanism and democracy in British history.

**notprop**

If you gonna be a bear, be a grizzly!

Unless you just want to be seen as a bit of a whiner and a party pooper you should be doing a bit more than coming in to a happy joy joy thread and pissing on others fires. Courage of your convictions and all that.

**George Spiggott**

AustonT wrote:The point is that Republicans won a great victory in a series of civil wars, and created a another hereditary monarch. Then by popular demand the actual monarchy return. It's like saying Augustus restored the Republic. Cromwell was not a stunning victory for republicanism and democracy in British history.

So your point was only tangentially relevant to my point/picture then. Ok. Moving on...

**AustonT**

George Spiggott wrote:
AustonT wrote:The point is that Republicans won a great victory in a series of civil wars, and created a another hereditary monarch. Then by popular demand the actual monarchy return. It's like saying Augustus restored the Republic. Cromwell was not a stunning victory for republicanism and democracy in British history.
So your point was only tangentially relevant to my point/picture then. Ok. Moving on...

yeah you keep believing that.

**mattyrm**

dæl wrote:
Lord Bingo wrote:
You do realize mate that we are citizens, not subjects.

We have a monarchy, therefore are citizens in name alone.

Absolute bloody nonsense.

Its 2012 mate, if you want to sit when the national anthem is on, utterly ignore the Queen when she walks past you in the street, or make a big sign saying "I hate the Queen" then you can. You wont get dragged off to the stocks.

This is why I dont take Republicans seriously. Their tired old arguments have no grounding in fact. As I have proved, saying they cost the nation loads is utter nonsense, and as is your claim that we aren't free citizens. The Royals and the nation as a whole has moved on. The Queen doesnt have "absolute" power, she is just a really nice dignified old lady, and I find peoples genuine insults (you are mature enough not to have thrown any by the way, but plenty on here do) to be genuinelly offensive.

She is the head of State and some of the things people say about her, you would deserve a punch in the face if you levelled them at a random pensioner in the street, let alone the bloody Queen! Seriously what would you do if someone shouted at your granny she was a disgusting old nazi reptile?!

Love the Queen, hate the Queen, free to choose you are! Thus, rendering your point utterly obsolete surely?

And Tony Benn

....

I think I would rather have Jimmy Krankie!

**Palindrome**

notprop wrote:If you gonna be a bear, be a grizzly!

Unless you just want to be seen as a bit of a whiner and a party pooper you should be doing a bit more than coming in to a happy joy joy thread and pissing on others fires. Courage of your convictions and all that.

I'm sorry I wasn't aware that expressing an opinion made me seem like a 'bit of a whiner'. I do stand up for my convictions but I don't have to go all the way to London to do so.

The Queen doesnt have "absolute" power

As she signs off all our laws then she is the most powerful individual in the country, in theory at least. The monarchy has stayed apolitical for a long time now but that doesn't change the fact that the royal family does have a lot of power if they chose to excersize it. Of course if they tried they may find that their support would rapidly evaporate but its still there. If the roayl family was stripped of all legal power powers and became the ceremonial head of state and nothing more then I would have no problem with that. I would still avoid all the fawning that goes on over the royal family though.

TL : DR A monarchy is fundamentally incompatable with a democracy.

**dæl**

@ matty

I don't doubt that we are free subjects

but if we are to ever become the meritocracy we should then it's a bit of a joke that the head of state is put there through hereditary means.

I've said before I have little problem with the Queen, but Charles is an idiot, constantly talking about subjects he knows little about (GM crops, environmental issues).

My point about Tony Benn was that although you may not agree with his ideology, you certainly can't question his conviction toward it. He's the sort of old school politician that was never swayed by the promise of power and, at least seemed to, always stay true to what he believed. I would like a position just as Prime Minister is the head of the House of Commons, while then why not a head of the House of Lords, after all their role is to ratify and amend laws anyway.

**George Spiggott**

AustonT wrote:yeah you keep believing that.

Since I was making a point about Republican sympathies in the military then yes I will " keep believing".

**mattyrm**

dæl wrote:@ matty

I don't doubt that we are free subjects but if we are to ever become the meritocracy we should then it's a bit of a joke that the head of state is put there through hereditary means.

I've said before I have little problem with the Queen, but Charles is an idiot, constantly talking about subjects he knows little about (GM crops, environmental issues).

My point about Tony Benn was that although you may not agree with his ideology, you certainly can't question his conviction toward it. He's the sort of old school politician that was never swayed by the promise of power and, at least seemed to, always stay true to what he believed. I would like a position just as Prime Minister is the head of the House of Commons, while then why not a head of the House of Lords, after all their role is to ratify and amend laws anyway.

Fair enough regards Benn, I dislike socialist types and I really hate cringing self loathing white people who seem to be desperate for us al to feel guilty about what our forebears did, but regards his integrity and conviction, I can agree, so I merely dislike him as opposed to loathe the bloke.

And we can agree to disagree, regards the Royals, this is a democracy after all and we are free citizens.

On that note....

The Republic facebook group has 14,000 likes.

The Royal Family has 550,000.

And check this out, I'm sure the Guardian is the favourite paper of Republicans as well, so its a good source.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/24/queen-diamond-jubilee-record-support

As the Queen prepares to celebrate her diamond jubilee, the royal family is enjoying record popularity, but things could get a good deal more complicated after she leaves the scene, according to a new Guardian/ICM poll.

Britain would be worse off without the monarchy say 69% of respondents, while of 22% say the country would be better off. This 47-point royalist margin is the largest chalked up on any of the 12 occasions since 1997 on which ICM has previously asked the question.

Pro-royal feeling is spread remarkably equally among the social classes, and across the regions of England and Wales. It is less marked in Scotland – where 36% say the country would be better off without the Windsors – but even there a solid 50% feel the opposite way. Support is stronger among the older, and especially among Conservative voters, in whose ranks it reaches 82%. But across every age group and among Labour and Liberal Democrat supporters alike, the monarchy is enjoying solid support.

So.. looks like I win then.

I love democracy!

**dæl**

mattyrm wrote:
Support is stronger among the older
So.. looks like I win then.

For now.

I think things will look very different after the Queen goes, as royalists tear their consensus apart deciding between Charles and William.

**George Spiggott**

If you're not going to follow royal succession properly i.e. Charles then William. How do you justify calling yourself a monarchist?

**notprop**

Back to Tony Benn because I like dissing him, two facts;

Being a Viscount didn't seem to do him any harm in getting where he was in life, it seems hereditary privilege is all the rage even with the Lefties.

He's not even the first hit when you google him, how popular can he be. I'm with google, i would rather have Tony Bennet too, it's about time we jazzed things up a bit!

**dæl**

notprop wrote:Back to Tony Benn because I like dissing him, two facts;

Being a Viscount didn't seem to do him any harm in getting where he was in life, it seems hereditary privilege is all the rage even with the Lefties.

He's not even the first hit when you google him, how popular can he be. I'm with google, i would rather have Tony Bennet too, it's about time we jazzed things up a bit!

He was elected, you know, by constituents. Then brought in peerage reform.

His successful campaign to renounce his hereditary peerage was instrumental in the creation of the Peerage Act 1963

And seriously? you judge peoples worth on who comes up on google?

**George Spiggott**

notprop wrote:Back to Tony Benn because I like dissing him, two facts;

Being a Viscount didn't seem to do him any harm in getting where he was in life, it seems hereditary privilege is all the rage even with the Lefties.

You do know he turned down his hereditary position in the House of Lords to pursue an elected position in the House of Commons?

What the hell did you type into Google?

https://www.google.co.uk/search?rlz=1C1CHFX_en-gbGB475GB475&sugexp=chrome,mod=4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=tony+benn

Edit: Ninja'd

**Kovnik Obama**

All the while, I'd prefer to hear about heads on spike, fork tottin' mobs and title of kingslayer being handed out like candies...

**Kilkrazy**

Flypast cancelled due to the bad weather!

Sad face.

I really wanted to see a Stringbag flying.

**notprop**

dæl wrote:
notprop wrote:Back to Tony Benn because I like dissing him, two facts;

Being a Viscount didn't seem to do him any harm in getting where he was in life, it seems hereditary privilege is all the rage even with the Lefties.

He's not even the first hit when you google him, how popular can he be. I'm with google, i would rather have Tony Bennet too, it's about time we jazzed things up a bit!

He was elected, you know, by constituents. Then brought in peerage reform.

His successful campaign to renounce his hereditary peerage was instrumental in the creation of the Peerage Act 1963

And seriously? you judge peoples worth on who comes up on google?

Ah yes, Peerage reform, served us well has that. We no longer have a mixed body of learned mostly impartial men and women to discuss the important issues of the day and now have a collection of ex-politicos and their rewarded cronies recreating those self same political party structures in the upper house that most of us dislike so much. And now that MMatty has already mentioned nazis I can safely say that it's worth reminding that Hitler was also elected.

Secondly - T-O-N-Y B-E-N-N-E-T. When google's right it's right, doods got a sweet voice.:jazzfingerclickingorkicon:

**dæl**

comparing the President of the Stop The War coalition with Adolf Hitler.

Btw, do you realise that peers were still party affiliated before the 60s? Benn's father was made a Labour peer by Winston Churchhill.

**notprop**

Exactly, not quite the Queen replacement material you were suggesting.

Anyway we're British, who wants a Head of State that will stop Wars? We want one that will deliver the enemies head on a pike to the British people. Liz has a steely look in her eye that says just try it! Look at the way she dispatched that half dead bird a few years ago. Eye of the fething Tiger I tells ya!

**Kovnik Obama**

Less kings and queens, and more lord protectors, I say!

**dæl**

notprop wrote:Exactly, not quite the Queen replacement material you were suggesting.

Anyway we're British, who wants a Head of State that will stop Wars? We want one that will deliver the enemies head on a pike to the British people. Liz has a steely look in her eye that says just try it! Look at the way she dispatched that half dead bird a few years ago. Eye of the fething Tiger I tells ya!

I think someone who lived through and fought in the second world war has every right to ask us to stop fighting an unnecessary and unwinnable war. But that is beside the point and somewhat off topic, the question is not the Queen vs Tony Benn, it's monarchy vs republic. I think people get far too tied to the idea of Liz, would they feel the same if it was Charlie, or Will, or Harry, or even Andrew. I am trying to offer a system where absolute power doesn't reside in a single pair of hands, we don't want an American style President, but we don't necessarily have to have one.

**AustonT**

Kovnik Obama wrote:Less kings and queens, and more lord protectors, I say!

Down with the monarchy and up with the monarchy!

I can only guess that a large portion of sarcasm was included with this post

**Pacific**

What's wrong with Tony Benn? He's a top bloke, met him years ago in Bristol. Genuinely an intelligent man, and has spent his life trying to make other people's lives better. Contrast with the majority of the lying, thieving bastards we have in government at the moment who got caught with their hands in the till and then giggled 'Oh, naughty me!' before carrying on exactly as before.

Right, im sick of arguing with you unwashed Republican heathens, its time I dropped a logic bomb!

Even if you ignore the fact that millions of British citizens love the Queen, the woman is an integral part of out identity, history and culture, but even ignoring every single good act she has ever done, and ignoring all of the work she does on the nations behalf, even if all of that is put utterly aside and we simply look at it in a financial manner.. Its STILL a gak argument!

The Monarchy run on 0.004% of what we spend on foreign aid, and it currently stands at £32.1m annually.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14011631

What's that, about 50p per person a year?!

feth me.. the pubs in London alone will make more than £32 million TODAY!

I'm all for a proper debate, but anyone who says the Royals cost us "a fortune" has either a utterly biased political view, or flunked maths at school and knows absolutely feth all about economics. If you think that £32 million a year is loads of money then you need your head read. I bet she pays about 30 million a year in tax with the gate receipts from Buck Palace alone! I mean, what's it to get in there these days? About a tenner?

You dont become successful in politics unless your a lying sneaky gak bag. Thats how it works. Only the ambitious get to the top, and ambitious politicians will do anything to get the power. By removing amibiton from the Royals, (they are born into it) they dont NEED to lie and cheat and sneak, because they are always there. And I wasnt a massive monarchist until I got to about 26-27 years of age, and actually took an interest in politics and started to really understand how the world works, and then It slapped me in the chops just how fething horrible politicians are.. even the ones I vote for I dont particularly like! The fact is, anyone who should be doing that job doesnt want the job in the first place.

Harry served with me in Afghanistan.. what do you think Blairs kids did? Backdoored into top uni's and then live off Daddys ill gotten gains.

The Queen is worth 50 politicians, and I would support her if she cost us twenty times that amount.

Gawd bless er!

Great post and completely agree! People forget how much money the Monarchy makes the country, when I've lived and travelled abroad it's amazing how much other countries like the UK Monarchy or are the very least fascinated by it.

**Kovnik Obama**

Great post and completely agree! People forget how much money the Monarchy makes the country, when I've lived and travelled abroad. It's amazing how much other countries like the UK Monarchy or are the very least fascinated by it.

As in, it's a great excuse to practice your brick throwing skill?

**azazel the cat**

George Spiggott wrote:Cromwell was not a stunning victory for republicanism and democracy in British history.

I bet Charles I would disagree with you

Great post and completely agree! People forget how much money the Monarchy makes the country, when I've lived and travelled abroad. It's amazing how much other countries like the UK Monarchy or are the very least fascinated by it.

British monarchy has never made me any money. I think that all of Canada can probably make a similar claim.

**George Spiggott**

azazel the cat wrote:
George Spiggott wrote:Cromwell was not a stunning victory for republicanism and democracy in British history.

I bet Charles I would disagree with you

I didn't write that. The war merely redefined monarchy in England rather than removed it. AustinT seems to be saying that's a poor result for the war. He has a point.