PDA

View Full Version : Monarchy is useless



Gab
March 22nd, 2006, 08:53 PM
The monarchy is useless, the royal Canadian mint should take off the queen of England on coins or 20$ bill. Noble just need to sit around and get much more money than people on welfare. The general governor is paid to act as a brown noser for the queen of England. Monarchy doesn't do anything for the society around the commonwealth country. It make me angry to see the Queen of England who like to sit down on her fat ass and get a lot of money when they don't do anything. The place where the Queen of England is unwelcome is in Quebec of course and that's the reason why she goes straight when she gets a ride on the highway.

lofter1
March 22nd, 2006, 09:07 PM
How can you call this useless????

lofter1
March 22nd, 2006, 09:08 PM
(Although I think we'd all agree that this would be an improvement ...)

Gab
March 22nd, 2006, 09:11 PM
How can you call this useless???? Yes sir, she is. Every commonwealth country should take her fortune away. If the British government seize her fortune that would be a good thing too.

nick-taylor
March 23rd, 2006, 08:07 AM
If I recall, she isn't actually the Queen of England in Canada but the Queen of Canada, just like she is the Queen of Australia, etc...

Also the Queen doesn't actually get any money from any of the Commonwealth countries and the little she does (her vast estates and interests are a large money generator) get is from the British Government.

Its actually quite a sad story - being forced to marry a limited selection of people from other monarchies which is increasing genetic problems. I'm thankful that I aint a royal! It could be worse - you could have someone like Bush or Chirac. :eek:

Gregory Tenenbaum
April 26th, 2006, 06:57 AM
The present UK Government has tried to tax the royals, reform the House of Lords (the UK Senate) where people of royal birth are automatically appointed) and generally otherwise ensure that the royal family spending is reigned in.

But at the same time. titles for cash (you can buy a title there like baron, baronet (a simple knight), marquis etc etc but probably not duke (a higher noble), are more popular than ever.

cyppok
May 1st, 2006, 10:33 AM
I kinda think a decent monarchy is cheaper than having a full blown branch of gov't with beuracrats breeding out like rabbits.

nick-taylor I kinda noticed that the danish and other monarchs marry whomever precisely for that reason.

BrooklynRider
May 1st, 2006, 12:52 PM
From an economic standpoint, you are all failing to take into consideration the impact this will have on crown makers worldwide.

As for the Queen, of course she is useful. Why, just the other day she...uh...well just a week ago...she was doing....um....why just last year she....ahem....well, without her, Elton John would be Queen of England and if you think Elizabeth dresses poorly...

stache
May 1st, 2006, 01:18 PM
Crown makers are having a hard enough time with the waning popularity of beauty pageants!

MidtownGuy
May 1st, 2006, 01:23 PM
That cracked me up, BrooklynRider.

Heck yeah, they should abolish the ridiculous idea of monarchy! Makes my skin bristle to think that we still entertain the notion of some blood being "royal". Is this the 21st century or the 15th? The tabloid press would be disappointed, of course.

nick-taylor
May 1st, 2006, 03:11 PM
A common misconception is that countries that have monarchies are backward, eg Japan and Britain. Fact is the Queen has little to no political power as this has been amalgamted into Parliament. The only reason I'd keep her is due to her appeal as a tourist attraction which is a massive industry. Afterall, there are as many bad presidential-led countries as there are monarch-led countries.

Infact the correct term of a royal in todays context is as a servant to us Brits, moreso than Bush is for you Americans. To assume a 15th century monarch is the same as the present monarch is pretty much false.

A bonus is that Queen Lizzy doesn't act like an arrogant snob like Chirac or a brain dead moron like Bush.

Ninjahedge
May 1st, 2006, 03:31 PM
Bush isn't brain dead.

Fabrizio
May 1st, 2006, 03:32 PM
Nick: The Queen appeared on Italian television for her 80th birthday a week or so ago. She looked great. The papers say sheīs had a face lift and botox treatments. I must say that her mouth did look fuller and there seemed to be less lines around her eyes. That hint of a moustache was gone too. Do you know anything about this?

Gab
May 1st, 2006, 04:13 PM
Why Canada has a general governor? She doesn't do anything, the government pay her transportation, hotel room, her house, her clothing. Her name is MichaŽlle Jean, she was a news annoucer before and now she's paid to brown nose the Queen Elizabeth. That costs 19 millions$ for the Canadian government for that useless thing.

BrooklynRider
May 1st, 2006, 05:44 PM
Nick: The Queen appeared on Italian television for her 80th birthday a week or so ago. She looked great. The papers say she´s had a face lift and botox treatments. I must say that her mouth did look fuller and there seemed to be less lines around her eyes. That hint of a moustache was gone too. Do you know anything about this?

I hear she's going in next for breast enhancements and a brow lift. She'ss follow that with a trip to Kenya for natural hair extensions. As for the fuller lips, my sources tell me she's sucking exhaust pipes on diesal cars for a high - eases the arthritic pain. Hopefully, once she starts the estrogen and stabilizes, she'll just go for the whole sex change operation. You all know she's a man, right?

BrooklynRider
May 1st, 2006, 05:52 PM
...Fact is the Queen has little to no political power as this has been amalgamted into Parliament....

She's one of the richest women in the world. Believe me she has a lot of political power. Ecpecially because every President in this country has somehow been able to trace his lineage back to the royals in Britain.


...The only reason I'd keep her is due to her appeal as a tourist attraction which is a massive industry...

You know, I see the appeal. I do wish you Brits would just set her down on a pedestal somewhere and build a staircase around her. I'd like to climb to the top of her head, like we do with the Statue of Liberty.

MidtownGuy
May 1st, 2006, 06:33 PM
To assume a 15th century monarch is the same as the present monarch is pretty much false.

My point was NOT that the duties of those monarchs are the same, but that the idea of anyone's BLOOD being better, or at the least a justification for living in castles, is ridiculous and outdated. No, more than that, its odious.

Royal blood. Give me a break! Genetically, inbreeding actually produces inferior, weaker specimens in any population.

ZippyTheChimp
May 1st, 2006, 06:43 PM
The House of Windsor - DNA Challenged.

Fabrizio
May 1st, 2006, 07:00 PM
She did look good though.

nick-taylor
May 2nd, 2006, 10:19 AM
She's one of the richest women in the world. Believe me she has a lot of political power. Ecpecially because every President in this country has somehow been able to trace his lineage back to the royals in Britain.

You know, I see the appeal. I do wish you Brits would just set her down on a pedestal somewhere and build a staircase around her. I'd like to climb to the top of her head, like we do with the Statue of Liberty.She is indeed one of the richest women in the world...infact she owns pretty much all the land in the UK probably making her the richest person to have ever lived, but she doesn't have the power to use her 'money' and her finances are kept in check by Parliament. Over the years her expenditure has gone down as shown by the axing or downsizing of Royal Train, Royal Yacht, Royal Plane, etc while her actual income has risen. She can't go on holidays without approval from Parliament and she doesn't go around the world on trips to Canada, etc... because she want to: she has to.

And no I don't believe you that she has political power, because from my studies and actually living here its blatantly obvious that over the centuries the monarchs' powers have been eroded awat. Today she has a few ceremonial powers, while the Royal Prerogative has been hacked away.




My point was NOT that the duties of those monarchs are the same, but that the idea of anyone's BLOOD being better, or at the least a justification for living in castles, is ridiculous and outdated. No, more than that, its odious.

Royal blood. Give me a break! Genetically, inbreeding actually produces inferior, weaker specimens in any population.Where did I or anyone state that anyone believed in the monarchy being above every other person in the UK? As it stands, the queen is less of a person as I am simply because she has far more limiting freedoms and her and her children are is bound to (as I previously mentioned) a line that is increasingly seeing genetic defects.

It might be outdated and ridiculous for you, but the system has worked in this country for hundreds of years and unless Charles acts like a moron I don't see a need to change anything which is benefiting the British economy and retains an identity which makes us unique. The added bonus is that I could eventually find myself with a title depending how well I do in life....Nicholas Taylor, 1st Marquess of Bishop's Stortford has a nice ring to it! :D

Norman Foster afterall is Baron Foster of Thames Bank and Richard Rogers is Baron Rogers of Riverside.

BrooklynRider
May 2nd, 2006, 10:28 AM
....And no I don't believe you that she has political power, because from my studies and actually living here its blatantly obvious that over the centuries the monarchs' powers have been eroded awat. Today she has a few ceremonial powers, while the Royal Prerogative has been hacked away...

Perhaps it is just an American thing, but in this country "the government" and "government powers" were oncederived from the people. Not the case anymore. The elected officials here are nothing more than lobbyists for billionaires and corporate causes. Also, the Queen is also the head of the Church of England. In New York alone, Trinity Church (head of the Anglican Church in the NYC) owns nearly all of lower Manhattan and buildings exist on land leases. That is power. That is politics. That is not just some old lady riding around in a pumpkin with foolishly dressed courtiers at her feet. I think it is very naive to think she and her GERMAN family are not powerful. Hey, they killed Diana, didn't they? If only her sister had been Queen.

nick-taylor
May 2nd, 2006, 11:45 AM
I don't think you quite understand the situation Britain is in....the Queen might technically own every cm2 of the UK...but she doesn't have the power to actually take it for herself: the only people that take away this lease are the banks chasing up debt (ie taking back the home due to failure of mortgage repayments), those who inherit or are sold the land and the government making compulsory purchase orders for new railway lines (eg Channel Tunnel Rail Link). There is no way that the Queen or anyone can take your land without legal disputes and everyone in the country finding out.

And no she isn't powerful, if she was she wouldn't have the restrictions on her movements, activities and assets like she has. She's a servant to the UK and not the other way around as you presume.

BrooklynRider
May 2nd, 2006, 12:30 PM
Well, that's a relief to hear. As a servant, maybe you can get her to come around once a month to vacuum and scrub the toilet, like my Consuelo.

MidtownGuy
May 2nd, 2006, 02:25 PM
Ok Nick, your points are all well taken.

I wouldn't presume to tell you Brits how to run your affairs. Still, I can't help my aversion to the whole thing. I recently saw a program on public television about the Queen's day to day life, and it was quite a sight to behold a squad of servants pack the Royal Luggage, all perfectly pressed and secured in tissue to avoid Royal Wrinkles.:rolleyes:

Marksix
May 2nd, 2006, 02:54 PM
it was quite a sight to behold a squad of servants pack the Royal Luggage, all perfectly pressed and secured in tissue to avoid Royal Wrinkles.:rolleyes:


NO THEY AREN'T - they would make good compost :)

there's a saying in royal circles - "there's no better lovin than marryin your cousin" (even the royal kit-kats have six fingers - heh heh)

and what's wrong with having your servants press your clothing with tissue paper? why I have mine do that daily! well not the 76 servant big ears has, but times are hard :(

BrooklynRider
May 2nd, 2006, 03:06 PM
I just can't picture that woman giving birth, let alone having sex. These are the things that preoccupy my my mind and the life of the man who makes these house dresses she is so fond of wearing in public.

Gregory Tenenbaum
May 3rd, 2006, 04:55 AM
A common misconception is that countries that have monarchies are backward, eg Japan and Britain. Fact is the Queen has little to no political power as this has been amalgamted (spelling Nick! - Tenenbaum) into Parliament.

Isn't the Japanese monarch a god? Well up until 60 years ago last August he was.

And the British monarch was practically a god until the late 17th Century, when your people chopped his head off. Ouchies.

No, the monarch's power was not amalgamated into parliament, it was smashed. The monarch can summon and dismiss parliament, that's all. There are emergency powers to remove the PM, ministers, but these have not been exercised for over 2 centuries.

BTW, its the Ministry, not the Parliament that now wields executive power, that is, the power that once belonged exclusively to the monarch. Everything is still done in the Queen's name. The fiction now is that the Queen acts on the advice of the ministers and the pm. The reality is that the ministers do what they want, then rubber stamp it with the crown seal - the Queen has always "accepted" their advice.

And England has no written constitution - its all convention!

Good point about the tourism though Nick. I wouldn't travel to London to see that goddamn ugly skyline.

Tenenbaum

nick-taylor
May 3rd, 2006, 09:52 AM
Gregory Tenenbaum - I wish I had the time to go over insignificant spelling errors, but alas my points still hold ground, and like most others, I have a life!

And guess what umbrella that ministries come under - exactly.

There is nothing wrong with an uncodified constitution.

Nor would I want you to come here - you'd be taking up valuable space, what with the Olympics (naturally something else New York lost out to London) around the corner and London now the hottest destination (overtook Paris in early 2004)! Anyway, with this skyline fetish, why aren't you in Sao Paulo? Its not as tall as Hong Kong, but its skyline is far more extensive than New York's.

Gregory Tenenbaum
May 3rd, 2006, 10:24 AM
...

And guess what umbrella that ministries come under - exactly.

There is nothing wrong with an uncodified constitution.

...

What umbrella?

Parliament is not an umbrella for the executive. Nick, English Constitutional law is not that simple.

Yes, you are right, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with an unwritten constitution. I was making a point that unlike the US and Australia, the UK has an unwritten constitution.

Fabrizio
May 3rd, 2006, 10:43 AM
"....and London now the hottest destination (overtook Paris in early 2004)!"

I´d like to see statistics on that.

As far as countries go, The World Tourism Organization ranks the UK in 6th place as an international tourist destination (2005).

(1-France; 2-Spain; 3-USA; 4th-China; 5th-Italy)

Even at it´s rather poor 6th place ranking...I´m surprised it ranks so high.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Tourism_Rankings

nick-taylor
May 4th, 2006, 07:00 AM
Gregory Tenenbaum The umbrella....




Fabrizio - Unfortunately I couldn't find the Mercer report that showed in 2004, that London has overtaken Paris. I do however have a backup - provided by our Catalan friends...

Also I'm unsure how stats for entire countries are meant to be illustrative of individual cities. ;)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v484/aquariusbcn/Estadisticas/turbcn3.jpg

Fabrizio
May 4th, 2006, 08:51 AM
^^^^^what´s that? Who published it? And what is it trying to say?

If the World Tourism Organization....who should know these things.... ranks France far ahead of Britain for number of tourists visiting ...the above sounds not very logical.

And even if the above were true, it means the Mercer Report you continualy site is WRONG because the above would show that London was outdoing Paris (by 3 times) already in 2002. Ridiculous.

Furthermore: The above "source un-known" table shows just the city of London with an incredible 114,800,000 tourists visiting in 2003.

Yet the World Tourism Organization table shows the ENTIRE UK with only 24.8 million tourists in 2003.

Figure that one out.

----------------------------------------------------

BTW Nick.....still waiting for some hard fact on your other claims:

"Also more Australians are coming to Britain than Brits are going to Australia. Britain is an immigration destination, hence why the likes of London is absorbing more than 2x the amount of immigrants that New York is and more than Los Angeles."

Thank you.

-------------------------

nick-taylor
May 4th, 2006, 12:19 PM
Where did we begin to discuss France and Britain? We were talking about London and Paris and not everyone that goes to France goes to Paris, just like not everyone that goes to the US goes to New York City.

The stat by the Barcelona Tourism Board (or equivalent) identifies overnight hotel stays; note how its not a British tourism board that published the figures (ie they could have been massaged).

I did mention however that I was unable to find the report which measured by international tourist arrivals.

Well the table is obvious - its not 114.8mn tourists visiting London, but 114.8mn overnight stays. This could mean two things:
a) There is a minority that spends maybe an entire month in London
b) There are hordes of people coming to Britain staying for only a night or two
I'd suspect that the result is somewhere inbetween and the same for other cities.