So what are the views of Ron Manager??

[Bob Cratchitt]

Quote[/b] (Ron Manager @ Nov. 16 2004,14:59)]
Yes I agree many people are ignorant of it's more historic symbolism, in the Crusades for example. However a flag is just a symbol, nothing more nothing less. The St George Cross has come to represent the one aspect in our lives that the English seem to come together and show national pride - when our sporting teams go into action.

Also surely by opposing the Royal Family I am clearly objecting to a dictator, I wish to remove the unelected head of state!

And replace it with something that only approx 12% of the population vote for!!

Given that our turnout for an election is usually around the 30% mark and say 40% back the candidate that wins. Do you honestly believe invoking this change would save us anything.

Of course elected Head of States are always such shining pillars of society. Each system has it's issues but i say why fix something that is not broke.

What are your arguments against the Royal Family, please do not base any on the fact they were born into it and thus should not be given such a lifestyle. As I would therefore judge you on the fact you are not from an AIDS ridden family in Central Africa trying to scratch a living together and so should not be able to lead such a priviledged life.

 

[Ron Manager]

Quote[/b] (Bob Cratchitt @ Nov. 16 2004,15:41)]

Quote[/b] (Ron Manager @ Nov. 16 2004,14:59)]
Yes I agree many people are ignorant of it's more historic symbolism, in the Crusades for example. However a flag is just a symbol, nothing more nothing less. The St George Cross has come to represent the one aspect in our lives that the English seem to come together and show national pride - when our sporting teams go into action.

Also surely by opposing the Royal Family I am clearly objecting to a dictator, I wish to remove the unelected head of state!

And replace it with something that only approx 12% of the population vote for!!

Given that our turnout for an election is usually around the 30% mark and say 40% back the candidate that wins. Do you honestly believe invoking this change would save us anything.

Of course elected Head of States are always such shining pillars of society. Each system has it's issues but i say why fix something that is not broke.

What are your arguments against the Royal Family, please do not base any on the fact they were born into it and thus should not be given such a lifestyle. As I would therefore judge you on the fact you are not from an AIDS ridden family in Central Africa trying to scratch a living together and so should not be able to lead such a priviledged life.

My views on this are, I admit, largely based on a youthful idealism I haven't been able to shake despite leaving youth behind a good few years ago. That idealism is that we are not truly a democracy all the time our head of state is un-elected and hereditary.

There are a number of examples of states who did have a monarchy who now have an elected second chamber and head of state. I am not a student in democratic systems but am sure that these countries could provide a number of models on which to base our own system. I understand and acknowledge the counter arguments that support a monarchy and do not claim that my stance is flawless, however I do believe that principles are worth fighting for and this for me is a matter of principle. With the current political climate in the UK shifting towards devolution of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland there may well be a time in the future when we do have an independent English state and our political system will need to adapt to these changes - it is my belief that we should take that opportunity to begin afresh as a republic.

Believe me, my views have softened - ten years ago I would be advocating chopping off the Queen's head and sticking it on a pole outside the Tower of London!

However I refuse to accept that I am a subject of the Queen and do not stand for the national anthem (a stance that has lead to me being threatened with physical violence at more than one sporting event!). I could also never apply for citizenship of another Commonwealth country (a situation I could face if family circumstances mean a move to Oz or New Zealand) whilst it requires declaring any sort of allegiance to the Queen.

OK, youthful idealism and an argument that has a few flaws - however I strongly believe that monarchy is wrong and will not be waived from that belief.

PS - This discussion is aways more fun in a real pub over a few pints!  

 

[Bob Cratchitt]

Quote[/b] (Ron Manager @ Nov. 16 2004,19:00)]PS - This discussion is aways more fun in a real pub over a few pints!

I will drink to that!! As my treat I will get the first round in.

I take each circumstance on it's merit, for instance if I was born during the 17th Century I would have been a Round Head.

However since those days and the way the Monarchy has changed, I now feel that a Monarchy can be a good thing. There is still quite a few countries of Europe that have monarchies. Also I feel proud that this country of ours showed the rest of the world that you can have the two systems work alongside each other, a hereditary monarchy and an elected parliament.

Give me the Queen over President Blair anyday. At least the majority of the world still has respect for the Queen!!

 

[Guest]

Quote[/b] (Bob Cratchitt @ Nov. 16 2004,19:46)]At least the majority of the world still has respect for the Queen!!

I don't! Stupid old bat!

 

[footymad13]

Monarchy are generally a waste of time however the one reason we should keep them is for the tourism trade which generates millions a year, we all know how the yanks love the Royals, they also don't do bad for the econemy. I believe the national anthem should be changed simply because i don't see how we can have a NA that says 'god save the queen/king' i dont want to stand for my Queen but my country. I would have thought something like Jursulum would have been more 'national'

 

[* ORM *]

Quote[/b] (Bob Cratchitt @ Nov. 16 2004,19:46)]Also I feel proud that this country of ours showed the rest of the world that you can have the two systems work alongside each other, a hereditary monarchy and an elected parliment.

Give me the Queen over President Blair anyday. At least the majority of the world still has respect for the Queen!!  

I bet the Queen and Blair can spell correctly though.

Surely the simple facts are that if the Royal Family accepted that it's role is purely a representative and ambassadorial one we could sit back, let them get on with it and not worry about how much return we get for the contributions we make to their upkeep (notwithstanding the fact that they should still be accountable). This would also necessitate remove the symbolic Queen's ascent to Acts of Parliament.

The big problem with this is that until we have a fully elected second chamber that is not answerable to the Government and cannot be over-ruled, except in matters of national security, we're going no-where.

I refuse to stand and sing the National Anthem for different reasons: A) It's sh*t and says nothing about the pride I feel for my country. B) We should have an English Anthem as well as a National Anthem. Quite how we've let the Sweaties and Sheepshaggers get away with singing "theirs" at sporting events baffles me. Case in point: Did anyone here the Scottish/Welsh Anthems being played after a gold medal at the Olympic games ?

 

[BluePartridge]

On one hand the Queen is a good balance of power, but on the other hand the current Prince of Wales is a proper tw*t.

 

[Bob Cratchitt]

Quote[/b] (* ORM * @ Nov. 16 2004,20:29)]Did anyone here the Scottish/Welsh Anthems being played after a gold medal at the Olympic games ?

Shall we play tit for tat??

At least my mistake was to only miss out the 'A', a purely typographical error. Whereas your error was a complete **** up!!

 

[Perth Bambi]

If we are going to moan about people from differnt countries getting the British National Anthem played for them then i hope no1 ever cheered pm Linford Christie, Colin Jackson, Iwan Thomas etc, because they won medals under the British flag and accepted medals before listening to the British National Anthem but are not English. One rule for one circumstance one rule for another.

 

[Ron Manager]

Quote[/b] (footymad13 @ Nov. 16 2004,20:28)]Monarchy are generally a waste of time however the one reason we should keep them is for the tourism trade which generates millions a year, we all know how the yanks love the Royals,

I don't entirely agree with this argument. Foreign tourists, especially those from 'young' countries (such as the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) love the buildings and the history. These would still remain, in fact more of them could be opened up and seen by tourists rather than kept by our taxes for a fortunate few to live in!

 

[Mad Cyril]

We should have a national anthem that does not mention the monarchy, god or religion.

 

[Napster]

Quote[/b] (Mad Cyril @ Nov. 17 2004,08:05)]We should have a national anthem that does not mention the monarchy, god or religion.

How about Blame it on the Boogie by Big Fun?

 

[CANV]

listen to you bunch of cheese eating surrender monkeys.. GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!! born british by the grace of god english.. mind you me old dear is a mick we dont talk about that in public.. as for tourists from the colonies and that prison camp australia, they come here to look at castles as the oldest thing in any of those crap holes is probably a golf course from the 50's..

 

[footymad13]

Quote[/b] (Ron Manager @ Nov. 17 2004,07:03)]

Quote[/b] (footymad13 @ Nov. 16 2004,20:28)]Monarchy are generally a waste of time however the one reason we should keep them is for the tourism trade which generates millions a year, we all know how the yanks love the Royals,

I don't entirely agree with this argument. Foreign tourists, especially those from 'young' countries (such as the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) love the buildings and the history. These would still remain, in fact more of them could be opened up and seen by tourists rather than kept by our taxes for a fortunate few to live in!

Maybe your right, but i still think in terms of tourism we would be better with a queen than without one. Buckingham Palace IS the official residence of the Queen and thats why people visit it, not just for the building or the history.