PDA

View Full Version : How Long Will You Brits Continue to Put up With Your Royals?



Krevel
2005-Jan-26, 01:34 PM
After this latest flap about Prince Harry (I think that's the one) wearing a Nazi uniform to a party (What a moron!), I wonder why - and for how much longer - you Brits will continue to put up with those idiots? What do the British people get from them? I understand that they help to bring in the tourists, but don't most tourists come to see the sights and not the actual people? I just don't get it, please enlighten me.

Aside: We all seem to have a fascination with "royalty" in some form. Even on this side of the Atlantic we have our royal families: the Bushes and Kennedys, and Princess Di is still a sure-fire way to sell tabloids. I recognize that we're not immune to their allure, so this isn't American hubris.

kucharek
2005-Jan-26, 01:57 PM
This sounds pretty political. And watch your language.

Amadeus
2005-Jan-26, 01:59 PM
You'ld be surpised how little most people care about them one way or another. The general feeling is that they bring in the tourists.

hmmm maybe eBay....

Amadeus
2005-Jan-26, 02:05 PM
This sounds pretty political. And watch your language.

If you're talking abotu the M-world then I would havet otpoint out that most of the print media here used words to that or greater effect.

Don't know if this is political either. It's more of a social thing IMHO.

They lost most if their powers already and the ones that they do have are ceremonial only. If they tried to exercise them to overrule the democraticly elected parlament of the time there would be a serious backlash.

Bawheid
2005-Jan-26, 02:09 PM
We'll tolerate them until they try to do something. Most people don't care, other than their comedy value. I suspect the same was true of Diana, she always seemed more popular in the States than here. Same for Fergie, she has been out of sight here for years.

Richard of Chelmsford
2005-Jan-26, 02:36 PM
You'ld be surpised how little most people care about them one way or another. The general feeling is that they bring in the tourists.

hmmm maybe eBay....

'They bring the tourists' my foot.

How many of you non-British people on the sight would come to Britain to see 'Prince' Charles and 'Prince' Harry?

Well they'd find the former out shooting with 'plus fours' on, a a pair of trousers which are about 100 years out of date and look just totally embarrassing.

And the former would be in a pub, a nightclub, or a gutter.

People say such things as "if we didn't have the Royals, we would have Tony Blair, or John Major" for President, as if these Royals are in some way superior to Presidents around the world.

Well, if you saw 'Prince' Charles in those 'plus fours' you'd agree with me that someone like Scottish comedian Billy Connolly would probably make a better President, than Charles would make a king.

And how they got their wealth is open to debate too, in my opinion.

If any of you can think of any way we can get rid of them then please post it at once. But bear in mind (they say) there is an entire coterie of strong arm people and organisations keeping them in power..sometimes called 'The Establishment.'

For God's sake, get rid of them, I say. [-X [-X

kucharek
2005-Jan-26, 02:50 PM
You'ld be surpised how little most people care about them one way or another. The general feeling is that they bring in the tourists.

hmmm maybe eBay....

'They bring the tourists' my foot.

How many of you non-British people on the sight would come to Britain to see 'Prince' Charles and 'Prince' Harry?

Me not. But by chance, one time I went to a concert. Turned out it was also attended by Lady Di. Do you play the anthem before every concert or just if one of the royals attends?

ToSeek
2005-Jan-26, 02:54 PM
You'ld be surpised how little most people care about them one way or another. The general feeling is that they bring in the tourists.

hmmm maybe eBay....

'They bring the tourists' my foot.

How many of you non-British people on the sight would come to Britain to see 'Prince' Charles and 'Prince' Harry?


Tourists come to see places like Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace. If those were no longer royal residences but just historical sites, I doubt they would have the same appeal.

Fram
2005-Jan-26, 03:03 PM
You'ld be surpised how little most people care about them one way or another. The general feeling is that they bring in the tourists.

hmmm maybe eBay....

'They bring the tourists' my foot.

How many of you non-British people on the sight would come to Britain to see 'Prince' Charles and 'Prince' Harry?


Tourists come to see places like Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace. If those were no longer royal residences but just historical sites, I doubt they would have the same appeal.

I would be surprised if they didn't. In countries which used to have kings or queens, but don't any more, these castles and palaces still get a lot of attention and tourists, partly because they have been reused as musea or whatever. E.g. France, Austria, ... I don't think there is anyone in the world who doesn't come to Paris, only because there are no royals there, but perhaps I'm a bit too optimistic here. And I have never heard of anyone coming to Belgium to see the royal palace :D

captain swoop
2005-Jan-26, 03:16 PM
How long are you going to put up with your stupid presidents? :evil:

Our Queen is the head of state just as your president is.

I thought politics were supposed to be kept out of things?

Kristophe
2005-Jan-26, 03:21 PM
How long are you going to put up with your stupid presidents? :evil:

Hrmm....
You know, maybe it's not quite as obvious how political the OP is...


After this latest flap about President Bush (I think that's the one) threatening to invade Iran (What a moron!), I wonder why - and for how much longer - you Yanks will continue to put up with those idiots? What do the American people get from them? I understand that they help to bring in the tourists, but don't most tourists come to see the sights and not the actual people? I just don't get it, please enlighten me.

Aside: We all seem to have a fascination with "royalty" in some form. Even on this side of the 49 we have our royal families: the Gretzkeys and Sutters, and Gordie Howe is still a sure-fire way to sell tickets. I recognize that we're not immune to their allure, so this isn't Canadian hubris.


*cough*

jamestox
2005-Jan-26, 03:27 PM
captain swoop -

Note: Not attempting to flame, just curious on the British method of governing (what here we refer to as "civics.").....

What is the government hierarchy for the modern UK? What part in the active "running" of the government does the Supreme Royal (Queen/King) play verses the Prime Minister?


I thought politics were supposed to be kept out of things?

We are. However, we did have an interesting "allowed" (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=18487) discussion a short time ago regarding "American civics", where we talked about the "mechanics" of how the American governing system operated. All I am asking for is the same type of discussion, sans insults towards/about specific political figures/candidates (which I would term "political" argument). I'm more interested in how the UK system is set up to work.....

JT

Argos
2005-Jan-26, 03:58 PM
As for tourists, I think that if they were dethroned (not that I necessarily agree with such) the tourists would still come to see where the former royals used to live...

And there´s always Blackpool. :)

kucharek
2005-Jan-26, 04:01 PM
As for tourists, I think that if the family were dethroned (not that I necessarily agree with such) the tourists would still come to see where the formerroyals lived... And there´s always Blackpool. :)

The tourist would be happy if they could tour the whole Buckinham Palace or Windsor Castle all the time. Look at Neuschwanenstein. King long gone, but the tourists come in masses.

Fram
2005-Jan-26, 04:05 PM
As for tourists, I think that if the family were dethroned (not that I necessarily agree with such) the tourists would still come to see where the formerroyals lived... And there´s always Blackpool. :)

The tourist would be happy if they could tour the whole Buckinham Palace or Windsor Castle all the time. Look at Neuschwanenstein. King long gone, but the tourists come in masses.

Ah, Neuschwanstein... They don't make megalomaniac kings like that no more (well, perhaps in Swaziland, but that's another story!).

Kristophe
2005-Jan-26, 04:05 PM
Neuschwanenstein was built to look like it came out of a fairy tale, though. People flock to it because it's exactly the image they associate with castles from cartoons and childrens books. Buckingham palace... not so much.

Metricyard
2005-Jan-26, 04:18 PM
I think that MTV should start a show with the Royals and the Ozbornes(as in Ozzie). We could have the Ozbornes move into the palace for a month and follow the royalty around.

Anyone think that this has potential?

captain swoop
2005-Jan-26, 04:21 PM
Here is my understanding of it (unless someone knows better)

At the top is the Queen, her powers are limited by law evolved over the last thousand years or so. Effectively the Monarch gave up most power at the Restoration, it was further curtailed when William of Orange was invited in to be King.
Bills don't become law until signed by the Monarch, it is also the Monarch that invites the leader of the largest party to form a govt after an election and officialy opens new parliamentary sessions. In the House of Lords the Monarch is represented by the Lord Chancellor who presides over the sitting. In the House of Commons the Speaker presides and is chosen by the MPs, the Monarch is represented by a mace. Entry to the House of Commons is forbidden to the Monarch. In effect the Monarch delegates power to the Prime Minister.

Unlike the USA the Head of State isn't also the C in C, it's the Queen who is C in C but the Prime Minister can declare war on the Monarchs behalf. A lot of it is now only ceremonial and effectively the Monarch has no constitutional powers.

We are complicated by the fact that our Second House was until recently completely unelected. It was composed of Peers of the realm (Hereditary and Life appointed by the Monarch but the candidates put forward by a Parliamentary Committee) Bishops of the Church of England and the top teir of Judges known as the Law Lords.

Day to day business is done by Parliamentary Committees of Lords and MPs who help to draw up Bills and scrutinise Govt departments.

That's the situation as I know it.

To know how it evolved and what arcane powers belong to who would require a study of the last thousand years of British history.

You must also bear in mind we don't have a written constitution.

Doodler
2005-Jan-26, 04:34 PM
How long are you going to put up with your stupid presidents? :evil:

4-8 years a pop. 10 years worst case scenario.

Bawheid
2005-Jan-26, 04:35 PM
I think Captain Swoop summed it up well.

In addition; there is a major difference between the way our PM and the US president is elected. The PM is the leader of the party which wins the most seats in an election, the electorate does not directly vote for him or her. The PM is a constituency MP (Member of Parliament) who is elected leader by the party. (Different parties have different ways of doing this).

Elections in the UK are by constituencies of roughly equal size of population, except Northern Ireland which uses proportional representation.

SeanF
2005-Jan-26, 04:36 PM
How long are you going to put up with your stupid presidents? :evil:
4-8 years a pop. 10 years worst case scenario.
Worst case scenario could be worse than that, I'm afraid. That amendment isn't very well-written . . . :)

Bawheid
2005-Jan-26, 04:37 PM
President for Life Arnold Schwartzenegger? :D

Doodler
2005-Jan-26, 04:43 PM
How long are you going to put up with your stupid presidents? :evil:
4-8 years a pop. 10 years worst case scenario.
Worst case scenario could be worse than that, I'm afraid. That amendment isn't very well-written . . . :)

I thought it was clear enough. A Veep who succeeds a Pres through death, impeachment or resignation less than halfway through their term had that succession term count towards the two.

If they're a Veep for <2 years, it counts, if they're Veep for >2 years, it doesn't.

Now, there is a hinky little loophole that no one has pulled off. Elected for two, sit a term out, then come back for another pair. Now, if someone pulls THAT off...

I don't see anyone in the current political landscape who'd be deserving of filling FDR's shoes.

ToSeek
2005-Jan-26, 04:47 PM
How long are you going to put up with your stupid presidents? :evil:
4-8 years a pop. 10 years worst case scenario.
Worst case scenario could be worse than that, I'm afraid. That amendment isn't very well-written . . . :)

I was in a discussion about this someplace. It turns out that Bill Clinton (say) could be president for just about another four years with just the right scenario. For example, say that Hilary runs for president with Bill as her vice-president. As soon as they take office, she dies mysteriously, and Bill becomes president. He can hold office for the remainder of the term - all the amendment says is that he can't be elected president again. For that matter, this scenario could be repeated any number of times. (Heck, maybe the Democrats should try it - it can't be any worse than their last two results.)

SeanF
2005-Jan-26, 04:59 PM
The Amendment reads that no person may be elected president more than twice, and anybody who served more than two years of somebody else's term can not be elected more than once.

But, as Gerald Ford, et al, have shown, it's possible to be president without getting elected. Someone can be president for sixty years, so long as that person gains the presidency each time in a manner other than via election . . .

:)

Oh, Doodler, there is no loophole in the question of successive terms. Bill Clinton cannot be elected again, no matter how long he waits.

Doodler
2005-Jan-26, 05:03 PM
How long are you going to put up with your stupid presidents? :evil:
4-8 years a pop. 10 years worst case scenario.
Worst case scenario could be worse than that, I'm afraid. That amendment isn't very well-written . . . :)

I was in a discussion about this someplace. It turns out that Bill Clinton (say) could be president for just about another four years with just the right scenario. For example, say that Hilary runs for president with Bill as her vice-president. As soon as they take office, she dies mysteriously, and Bill becomes president. He can hold office for the remainder of the term - all the amendment says is that he can't be elected president again. For that matter, this scenario could be repeated any number of times. (Heck, maybe the Democrats should try it - it can't be any worse than their last two results.)

Just a sidebar, but I thought the amendment was worded so that it couldn't be more than two consecutive terms?

In your scenario, Hillary wouldn't even need to die, Bill goes for two, she takes one, Bill comes back and has the option for two more. I'll look up the amendment again, maybe I missed a line, but I don't recall it limiting a president to two terms altogether.

Honestly, I think the possibility of another 3+ term President is EXTREMELY unlikely. Looking over the last bunch since I've been politically aware (Reagan 1980 to current), that job ages them bad. Bill Clinton came out of 8 years looking 20 years older. Bush the First probably wouldn't have lived through a second term, by the look of him going from Veep to President. Some of it may be subjective on my part, but the guys who've sat in the Big Chair look like they have paid a steep price for it.

Doodler
2005-Jan-26, 05:07 PM
Just googled the amendment, I misread it. I honestly did think it was two consecutive, but then, I went to public schools. :)

Amadeus
2005-Jan-26, 05:30 PM
Sorry I think I've walking into the wrong thread here...
Thought this was about the British Monarchy not how to elect a us president over 2 terms...... :wink:

Sorry to be rude but a Brit thread is a rare thing around here! :D

Doodler
2005-Jan-26, 05:31 PM
Sorry I think I've walking into the wrong thread here...
Thought this was about the British Monarchy not how to elect a us president over 2 terms...... :wink:

Sorry to be rude but a Brit thread is a rare thing around here! :D

My fault, I grabbed hold of a tangent and staged another revolution. Its an American thing, I'm sure the British understand by now. :)

Makgraf
2005-Jan-26, 05:41 PM
Unlike the USA the Head of State isn't also the C in C, it's the Queen who is C in C but the Prime Minister can declare war on the Monarchs behalf.
I thought the Queen was Colonel-In-Chief of the army (and Lord High Admiral of the Navy). So aren't the head of states in both cases C in Cs?


Just googled the amendment, I misread it. I honestly did think it was two consecutive, but then, I went to public schools. :)
You're thinking of the SNL skit :).
Clinton: Foreign leaders call me up and ask if why I can't be President right now. And I say, well Jacques or Gerhardt or Jean the constitution says I can only serve two consecutive terms. [pause] Or at least it should.

Now I'm no constiutional scholar but I do keep a copy of the US constitution by my computer at all times (I use it to rest my wrists on while I'm typing :oops:). Now the 12th Amendment says "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States". That seems to me to mean that under the 22nd amendment a twice elected president is constitutionally ineligible to become president and therefore vice-president

I personally think that the monarchy is nice to have just because of tradition. I live in Canada so our Head of State is also the Queen, but she's represented over her by a Governor-General. I think we should invite over one of the minor royals and make them King of Canada. Renovate Rideau Hall (The GG's resident) into a castle and watch all those tourist dollars flow in.

jamestox
2005-Jan-26, 06:13 PM
At the top is the Queen, her powers are limited by law evolved over the last thousand years or so. Effectively the Monarch gave up most power at the Restoration, it was further curtailed when William of Orange was invited in to be King.
Bills don't become law until signed by the Monarch, it is also the Monarch that invites the leader of the largest party to form a govt after an election and officialy opens new parliamentary sessions. In the House of Lords the Monarch is represented by the Lord Chancellor who presides over the sitting. In the House of Commons the Speaker presides and is chosen by the MPs, the Monarch is represented by a mace. Entry to the House of Commons is forbidden to the Monarch. In effect the Monarch delegates power to the Prime Minister.

So, in essense, the Monarch is the figurative leader - the "'Symbol' of Leadership and Country" - and, as such, is responsible for all under His/Her leadership. However, the Monarch has very little interaction with the actual "running" of the government, which is delegated to the Governmental Houses (similar in concept to our Congress and Senate), with the Prime Minister as de facto head of governing the Country, with Prime Minister equating to our Senate Majority Leader (party-appointed leader of the "majority" party in the Senate). Am I correct? Close, even?


Unlike the USA the Head of State isn't also the C in C, it's the Queen who is C in C but the Prime Minister can declare war on the Monarchs behalf. A lot of it is now only ceremonial and effectively the Monarch has no constitutional powers.

I can follow that. But wouldn't the Sovereign by necessity have to "sign off" on something as far-reaching in consequences for the Kingdom as a declaration of war, being Head of State?


We are complicated by the fact that our Second House was until recently completely unelected. It was composed of Peers of the realm (Hereditary and Life appointed by the Monarch but the candidates put forward by a Parliamentary Committee) Bishops of the Church of England and the top teir of Judges known as the Law Lords.

"House of Lords", right? And the "House of Commons" are representatives chosen by the populace, as in the "popular elections" we have here for our own Houses...? Whichever political party has the majority is responsible for voting on -and appointing- the Prime Minister from that particular political party...?


Day to day business is done by Parliamentary Committees of Lords and MPs who help to draw up Bills and scrutinise Govt departments.

Much in the way our own Houses operate.


That's the situation as I know it.

To know how it evolved and what arcane powers belong to who would require a study of the last thousand years of British history.

You must also bear in mind we don't have a written constitution.

:D I follow you. I think. But...I never knew you didn't have a written constitution.... :-k

Captain Kidd
2005-Jan-26, 06:36 PM
Just googled the amendment, I misread it. I honestly did think it was two consecutive, but then, I went to public schools. :) :o Huh? Ah crap #-o So, how much more of my great public education is wrong?
:x That does it! My kid is either being home schooled or going to a private school.

The Bad Astronomer
2005-Jan-26, 06:39 PM
How the OP of this thread cannot be construed as either political or an ad hominem is beyond me. Krevel, consider yourself extremely sternly warned.

Locked. Sheesh.