The Royal Family, Believer Or Not

[GIZMOHOTEL]

How Do The Royal Have The Rights To Stick There Nose In Everything, They Don't Work They Have More Money Than Most And For What How Did They Do This, How Can They Say They Own A Country When They Are Jus Humans Like Us.

 

It Jus Doesn't Make Any Sense So What If There Great Great Great Great Sons Managed To Gather Enough Backing Of The People In There Days To Become King, But How Can They Become Royal And Have The Right To Claim The Land Of England When It Is Ours Jus As Much As There's!

 

How Do They Have The Right To Put A Parliment In Control Of The Country, As If It's Theres And They Are Jus Having People Manage It For Them And Reaping All The Benifits When There Are People Who Have Achieved Much Much More Than Them And Ended Up With Nothing.

 

Its Just Stupid!!!!

[John Cuthber]

"How Do They Have The Right To Put A Parliment In Control Of The Country"

 

I wasn't aware that they did, in fact I thought I voted in elections to determine who controls the government. I might not be happy with the outcome, but I don't blame the queen for it.

 

The royal family are pretty much a (slightly overpriced) tourist atraction; as a power base they are simply irrelevant. Big business has a lot more power and probably fewer morals.

[insane_alien]

dude, it is called a monarchy. the royal family is a remenent of the time when britain was a feudal state. the parliament is elected and they are the ones that run the country.

[Sayonara]

They Don't Work

 

This is actually not true.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Royal_Family#Civil_List_and_Parliamentary_Annuities

[Royston]

The royal family are pretty much a (slightly overpriced) tourist atraction.

 

Absolutely.

 

Not really tourism related, but a recent trip by the Queen to Romsey Town in Hampshire cost the local tax payers £ 58,000. Where £ 5,000 was spent on a toilet of all things...

 

http://www.thisishampshire.net/mostpopular.var.1763235.mostviewed.royal_visit_wipes_out_council_reserves.php

[Dak]

the queen has to invite the govournment to govourn, etc. it seems largely cerimonial, but the military and police swear alegance to 'crown and country' still, so i guess if it came down to it, the queen might be able to actually excersize real power. but i'd not imagine that'd happen under any normal circumstances.

[JohnB]

But How Can They Become Royal And Have The Right To Claim The Land Of England When It Is Ours Jus As Much As There's!

Pay close attention and I'll explain.

 

The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering Samite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the waters, signifying that by Devine Providence, He, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why he was your King.

 

Haven't you studied your History?

 

Might I suggest that remedial classes in spelling and grammar might not go astray either.

[the tree]

How Do They Have The Right To Put A [Parliament] In Control Of The Country

I wasn't aware that they did, in fact I thought I voted in elections to determine who controls the government. I might not be happy with the outcome, but I don't blame the queen for it.

Like with legislation, I think the monarch still technically has the right to veto new ministers, but it's extremely unlikely that they would as it'd threaten their position and they would loose their powers pretty quickly if they started using them too much.

I'm sure even criminal inbred cheating obsolete press-whore aristocrats have more communication skills that demonstrated in the OP.

[ydoaPs]

His Posting Style Reminds Me Of Someone. Anyone Else Remember?

[John Cuthber]

Hmmm, I see. "I think the monarch still technically has the right to veto new ministers, but it's extremely unlikely that they would as it'd threaten their position and they would loose their powers pretty quickly if they started using them too much."

Now can someone please explain to me the difference between not having power and having power but not being allowed to use it?

[insane_alien]

they are allowed to use their power but only when everyone else agrees with it

[John Cuthber]

If that's a valid definition of power then I rule the world.

[Dak]

Britain is bound by its laws, so if the queen tried to excersize power in a legal way, then one of two things would happen:

 

1/ the queen would succeed

 

2/ the gouvvournment would quickly change the law to stop her.

 

in that case, i'd assume that it would come down to who has the public support. if the queen went mental, then the govournment would probably be allowed to change the law. if the govournment was corrupt and the queen was trying to 'rescue us' from them, then i assume lots of people (esp. military and police) would get all royalistic and support the queen against the govournment.

[Pangloss]

The Lady of the Lake' date=' her arm clad in the purest shimmering Samite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the waters, signifying that by Devine Providence, He, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why he was your King.

[/quote']Strange women lying in ponds is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. I mean, if i went around, claiming I was emporer, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me they'd put me away!

[Glider]

He must be a King! He ain't got sh*t all over him.

[CDarwin]

in that case, i'd assume that it would come down to who has the public support. if the queen went mental, then the govournment would probably be allowed to change the law. if the govournment was corrupt and the queen was trying to 'rescue us' from them, then i assume lots of people (esp. military and police) would get all royalistic and support the queen against the govournment.

 

Like in Thailand.

[JHAQ]

A medieval anachronism perhaps but separation of a largely ceremonial head of state from the executive head does have its advantages -- both in terms of the basic character & motivations of those seeking office and in terms of historical continuity & oversight . Somebody ( reported in Greenspans book--- maybe Churdhill ) said only candidates who did NOT seek the office of the US Presidency should be elected to it . ( Gore any one ?)

[gcol]

A medieval anachronism perhaps but separation of a largely ceremonial head of state from the executive head does have its advantages -- both in terms of the basic character & motivations of those seeking office and in terms of historical continuity & oversight . Somebody ( reported in Greenspans book--- maybe Churdhill ) said only candidates who did NOT seek the office of the US Presidency should be elected to it . ( Gore any one ?)

 

Yes indeed. Separation is the keyword. Separation of state,church, monarchy, police and judiciary; and for America, include separation of the president (and I don't necessarily mean his head from his body. When properly separated, their different areas of expertise act as checks and balances.

 

Checks and balances are necessary in true democracies to prevent stupidities of political and social excess. Does not always work, unfortunately. It seems the Democratic system is still a work in progress.

 

BTW: JohnB's mention of the lady of the lake, Arthur and excalibur was nicely tongue in cheek, and from an Ozzie, too. Shame it was lost on Pangloss, but then he is from Florida, not exactly a hotbed of classical education:-)

[Sisyphus]

BTW: JohnB's mention of the lady of the lake, Arthur and excalibur was nicely tongue in cheek, and from an Ozzie, too. Shame it was lost on Pangloss, but then he is from Florida, not exactly a hotbed of classical education:-)

 

Obviously your own classical education has a gaping hole if you didn't catch Pangloss' reference.

[Dak]

Obviously your own classical education has a gaping hole if you didn't catch Pangloss' reference.

 

Sysiphus, stop talking about sex!