|
Post by michele cryer on Jul 24, 2004 2:01:17 GMT
A nice controversial subject to get us all into the swing of debating...
Personally I don't think that our country needs the monarchy, I know that lots of others will argue about the revenue they bring into the country via tourists, however they do use plenty of money as well, to fund their overseas visits etc.
What do you think?
Michele
|
|
|
Post by Darkness on Jul 24, 2004 14:18:17 GMT
Hmm... I'd tend to agree with you here. I mean, they don't seem to do much really do they? Aside from th Princes Trust of course. But other than that.... hmmm they just seem to wave funny at people and shake their hands and hold garden parties...
I mean they are a part of our heritage so maybe they should stay just for the sake of it, not that that's a very good argument. I mean, so's tea a part of our heritage, and Big Ben, so we wouldn't really lose out on a whole lot. If people are asked, "What is the biggest British trademark?" not many people would say "The Monarchy" would they? They'd be more likely to say "Tea" "Fish And Chips" "Bad Weather" Or "Appalling public transport, but nice shiny red buses."
So what would we lose if we got rid of them?
Loz xXx
|
|
|
Post by michele cryer on Jul 24, 2004 16:19:19 GMT
Nice comments Loz...perhaps if they stay they should get 'real' jobs like the monarchy in some other countries do...or used to do...
I don't mind the charity work that some of the royals do, however there does seem to be too many 'hangers-on' and I just don't like the 'us and them' situation...poor people and the rich...royal houses being used some of the time and going to waste the rest of the time...how about using them to lower the homelessness problem.
|
|
|
Post by Darkness on Jul 24, 2004 16:40:06 GMT
Exactly, instead of spending your money on elaborate unnecessary riches why don't you put it to good use? That's exactly what I feel like saying. I quite agree, I mean: what do they DO other than wear crowns and wave at the crowd and continue tradition? They're jobs just aren't worthy of the title of 'Queen', you'd think they'd have to prove themselves worthy a little more. Exactly. The separating the ridiculously rich Monarchy from us 'poor peasants' is just utter rubbish. Why should they be so 'above' us when they do so little? All those riches could go to such good use in this country, in the whole world infact! Why not pay off some third world debts? Lol, well you know what I mean... Loz xXx
|
|
|
Post by michele cryer on Jul 25, 2004 3:26:41 GMT
. All those riches could go to such good use in this country, in the whole world infact! Why not pay off some third world debts? Lol, well you know what I mean... Loz xXx Yes Lozzy, I know exactly what you mean, and I fee that there are quite a few people out there who would agree...
|
|
~*~steos fruit pastil~*~
Junior Member
so many people told me i couldn't win, look at me now.....i believe.....and all because of stephen!
Posts: 71
|
Post by ~*~steos fruit pastil~*~ on Jul 27, 2004 10:58:59 GMT
i feel it should stay just to get one over on blair tho LOL!! but, i too feel that they shouldnt have the luxuries they do have, infact niether should the PM i mean he wont even give the emergency services a rise - which is the least they deserve (they are saving lives unlike murdering people blair ) yet he is on an income of when i last read £40,000 a month!! if we cant afford to pay for emergency services with our tax money then why doesnt blair pay for it from his wages!! anyway back to the subject in hand... i feel it should stay but, i think they should work for what they have and i dont mean a few waves here and there your majesty stef
|
|
|
Post by michele cryer on Jul 27, 2004 11:20:05 GMT
Some good points made there Stef, regarding the health service funding etc...I agree that all politicians should either take a wage reduction or pool their 'spare' cash and put it into good causes...not the war..lol.
Michele
|
|
~*~steos fruit pastil~*~
Junior Member
so many people told me i couldn't win, look at me now.....i believe.....and all because of stephen!
Posts: 71
|
Post by ~*~steos fruit pastil~*~ on Jul 27, 2004 16:49:17 GMT
ya and i can just see that happenineg - the government doing good for the people, esp...the poor!!
stef
|
|
|
Post by michele cryer on Jul 28, 2004 23:20:45 GMT
ya and i can just see that happenineg - the government doing good for the people, esp...the poor!! stef Well said, Stef....
|
|
Embla
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by Embla on Jul 29, 2004 9:36:09 GMT
I think monarchy is quite...pointless these days...and you were very right about the heritage and British trademark Loz!And it's the same thing with Sweden,I mean when people think of Sweden they associate with...well I don't know...mooses and big,blonde,stupid people?that say things like:I am Inga fråm Sviiiiden,najs tooo be heeere,excuse me have you seen my plånbok? The problem is that the royals are usually very popular,and I guess it gives people a..."safe" feeling or something...so I don't see it happening for quite some time(in any Euoropean country)...
Love Embla
|
|
|
Post by michele cryer on Jul 29, 2004 14:46:31 GMT
when people think of Sweden they associate with...well I don't know...mooses and big,blonde,stupid people?that say things like:I am Inga fråm Sviiiiden,najs tooo be heeere,excuse me have you seen my plånbok? (posted by Embla, 29th July 2004)
Awww Embla...to be able to laugh at your own country like that is soo good...lol. Like you and Loz said, people don't automatically think 'Royal Family' when they think of visiting other countries (Unless they're from the USA and think the Royals belong to them...lol.) so, yes, they are pretty pointless.
Michele
|
|
|
Post by octoberlost on Aug 3, 2004 16:03:25 GMT
The Monarchy is a buttress of our entire 'democracy', they are part and parcel of an elite which is parasitic, as many powers which people overlook and as no legitimacy whatsoever. The right and most reactionaries eye the royal family with much glamour because they have a series of executive powers which can over-ride those weve elected. So in a potential political struggle the Royals will be used to enforce politics, much in the same way Hitler used executive procedures to attain power. We should get rid of the tax burden www.throneout.com/www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1793/Index.html
|
|
|
Post by michele cryer on Aug 3, 2004 23:41:44 GMT
I agree with you wholeheartedly Octoberlost...the Queen still has to sign Acts of Parliament doesn't she? before they are allowed to become law...as you said, why should this be...the government we elected should be enforcing laws, not the Monarchy, and should be answerable to the people they are there to serve.
Michele
|
|
|
Post by thismachinebleeds on Aug 13, 2004 18:43:27 GMT
the Queen is there, meaning in her held position, because of the incompitence of her conservative ancestors. the acts of barbarism that these people have unleashed upon their 'subjects', namely sending them to war in the name of the queen/king, or keeping them in servitude with the help of numerous governments, is unexcusable. i think we should give them the right to stand down from their positions, but if not expropriate them by force. One situation springs to mind, namely the DORA act. a bill that was passed in the 30s (i think), because of rising tensions between workers and government, the DORA, or the DEFENCE OF THE REALM ACT, which basically stated that the government could use excessive force upon strikers by sending out the police to break up the demo. they were using the capitalist state intrests mixed with a ruling elites name and permission and interests, to make the workers, who had every natural right to demo over conditions and hours, in to servile tools to be used and discarded!!! Also, thatcher in the 80s updated this act to include the army to dispell any undesirables. so then to the monarchy: bunch of green welly wearing toffs that i wouldnt like to meet in a dark alley!!!!
|
|
|
Post by michele cryer on Aug 14, 2004 0:37:03 GMT
Well said thismachinebleeds...I agree with every word you say.
that 'dora' bill sounds very suspect to me, but would be great to use against the most 'undesirable'goup in the country...ie, the monarchy...lol.
Michele
|
|
|
Post by nonjuror2003 on Aug 19, 2004 19:08:16 GMT
Burns the Scots poet said about the so called Royal House of Hanover, i.e. this lot.
The ancient Stewart line is gone, a race outlandish fills their place, an idiot race, who knows them best despise them most.
It couldn't be put better.
|
|
|
Post by francis on Aug 20, 2004 8:38:53 GMT
The ancient Stuart line is gone, a race outlandish fills their place, an idiot race, to honour lost, who knows them best, despise them most.
|
|
|
Post by Mitch on Aug 25, 2004 15:25:07 GMT
DOWN WITH THE CROWN
It is interesting that there has never been a coherent Republican challenge in Britain - despite many moments of challenge notably during the Chartist uprising, and then later in the 1870s. In 1887 during Queen Victoria's golden jubilee - the Social Democratic Federation and Socialist clubs protested against 'fifty years of royal flunkey-dom', and they pulled on a history of long and well established hostility to monarchy. A Radical Press has been more of a challenge in the past in the form of caricature and cartoons particularly.
Perhaps more tinkerings, than true Republican alternatives, or too much time these days spent highlighting the 'fallibility of our betters - the joke here is that you assume they are your betters when you do this. Personally I am nobody's "SUBJECT", and am more intested in envisaging alternatives. The strongest challenges recently to the British Monarchy have come from Austrailia, not Britain - Queenie Liz was removed from her role as head of state before the 2000 Sydney Olympics!!
Does anyone have any ideas on how a coherent and effective opposition to monarchy might develop in Britain??
I remember particularly 1977 (showin me age!) the challenge within punk - most strongly expressed in the well known 'Anarchy in the UK'/Sex Pistols - "God save the Queen / A fascist regime / made you a moron / A potential H bomb", but also the brilliant challenge to monarchy in Derek Jarman's "Jubilee" (we should show this film!!) 'Jubilee' came out at the beginning of all the 1977 Jubilee pomp, and painted a picture of an anarchic punk future with the image of queen Elizabeth's corpse and her crown appropriated by a punkette.
Queen Liz was due to make a right royal trip down the Thames on Jubilee Day. Two days before this the Sex Pistols made their own Thames trip playing 'Anarchy in the UK - cruising past the Houses of Parliament.
There is much disquiet about monarchy at the moment - but how can this build into a coherent alternative??
(see 'Down with the Crown'. British Anti-monarchism and Debates about Royalty since 1790" by Antony Taylor, (1999), Reaktion Books Ltd)
|
|
|
Post by michele cryer on Aug 25, 2004 20:35:59 GMT
What a wonderful post Mitch...I too remember all the fuss about 1977 and the Queen's Jubilee...even went to a party..lol..only cos my mum wanted to take me to one... I, too, remember the great revolt made by Punks and their music..absolutely fantastic... Well, I can only suggest that the community schemes, such as Lets and others you have introduced me to, where money is the least important issue, are the only way forward...and the only 'viable' alternative... Michele
|
|
|
Post by aimee on Aug 31, 2004 8:51:05 GMT
In the 1970s Burnley Anarchist Group held a series of meetings on aspects of Republicanism. For several years [including the Jubilee] we held Anarchist /Republican Picnics in Burnley Centre with attendance between 70 or 100. On one or two occasions we suffered hassle from drunken royalists [.and even on occasions the police] some of whom on one famous occasion were told to go home before the police came, otherwise they would be pleading drunkeness before the magistrates. The woman who cleared them off stood in peril, but didn't back off. Why do we not resurrect them. They attracted a wide measure of support from socialists and liberals.
aimee
|
|
|
Post by Mitch on Aug 31, 2004 12:23:56 GMT
Hey Aimee,
Do you think socialists and liberals have failed to build an anti-monarchy campaign? I reckon also the Labour party when it was formed definitely failed to include an anti-monarchy stance in it's constitution. Big failure.
Some socialists I think have also been wishy washy on an anti-monarchy campaign in the past.
I love to hear about anarchist activity in the past in Burnley. Tell me more, and lets have another picnic
|
|
|
Post by Sircliff on Sept 1, 2004 12:26:41 GMT
Can I ask a question Michelle. If the monarchy go do I lose my knighthood?
Also I feel I've got to comment that you must remember that George V1 played tennis at Wimbledon when he was the Duke of York, I mean surely that is as good an argument as there can be for keeping the monarchy.
|
|
|
Post by Mitch on Sept 1, 2004 12:52:54 GMT
Talking of tennis Sir Cliff, I never fell for that Sue Barker lark!!!!! Also, do you remember when it was pissing down at Wimbledon - and you rallied the troops with your croaking rendition of 'Congratulations'. eee, ya never miss a trick. What larks hey! Ever since your Red Coat days you've been climbing that aristocratic ladder sweetie. For goodness sake, pull yourself together, lose the 'Sir' and claim the 'Queen'.
|
|
|
Post by michele cryer on Sept 1, 2004 21:34:27 GMT
LOL @ Sircliff and Mitch...
I think the resurrection of those Burnley anarchists picnics would be a good idea too...and yes!!! more history of the Burnley Anarchists please!!!!
Michele
|
|
|
Post by Francis on Sept 3, 2004 8:56:35 GMT
On the Queen.
Most Gracious Queen, we thee implore to go away and sin no more, but if that effort be too great to go away at anyrate.
Anon.
|
|
|
Post by michele cryer on Sept 3, 2004 10:11:13 GMT
Hahaha...sheer Brilliance Francis..thank you... ;D
Michele
|
|
|
Post by Sircliff on Sept 4, 2004 14:16:09 GMT
Michelle: Who we are getting bitchy aren't we dear. Actually I think I'd look lovely in some of queenies dresses and wearing her crown. I mean i used to borrow some of Sue's and she always liked me in them.
I thought it was appropriate to sing in the rain I was imagining I was Gene (or should that be Jean? ) Kelly at the time.
Also I really fancy opening parliament. Don't you think that would be lovely?
|
|
|
Post by Anti Monarchist on Sept 6, 2004 11:37:17 GMT
One reason why the Trots have never initiated any action against the Monarchy is their lack of political balls.
They probably feel that they would have to insert someone else as head of state. This is a problem for two reasons.
Would the person simply be a figure head or would they have executive power as in the US?
Stalin and people like him loom large in their histories. Rightly so.
They cannot tolerate a society where no one holds power over the working classes. Power must be held at the centre, preferbly by their representatives. That is the nature of their politics see the SWP/Respect fondness for slates within the new party.
|
|
|
Post by michele cryer on Sept 6, 2004 17:03:37 GMT
Well said, Anti Monarchist...
I remember well the debates that I used to have regarding what the royals would be replaced with...like you said, nobody thought about 'a society where no one holds power over the working class'.
Michele
|
|
|
Post by Sircliff on Sept 8, 2004 13:52:54 GMT
Excuse me has a long standing Trotskyist I have never met anyone who agreed with his views who does not believe that the working class should run their own lives and organise society for themselves and the good of everyone. But the word organise is a problem for Anarchists because they appear to believe that everyone canjust go off and do things themselves and society will be fine. I'm afraid that this is cloud cuckoo land, the reason being that whatever one person does in society affects the lives of other people. Are we denying that what big buisiness does, does not affect people the world over.
Finally of course the monarchy should go and it certainly does not replacing with anyone except working people. That actually means much more than the monarchy going, it means overthrowing the system we live in.
|
|