Message boards :
Politics :
The British Royal Family
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3
Author | Message |
---|---|
bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3 |
@Bobby, expected much better from you. Blair as president was an example & in my book, a fitting one. Really. As I said, it doesn't seem to me that Blair would win an election, which is why I'm unsure of the reasons for your choice of him as President. Note, when I answered your question I stated "I'd prefer an elected President Blair over an inherited QE2", I didn't say I'd prefer an elected President Blair over an elected President Elizabeth Windsor. Perhaps it might be better to say I'm a republican by principle, the particular incumbent of Head of State at any point time is of less interest to me, it's the office and what it means that counts. I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... |
Sirius B Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24879 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7 |
Perhaps it might be better to say I'm a republican by principle, the particular incumbent of Head of State at any point time is of less interest to me, it's the office and what it means that counts. In other words "A figurehead", so as I thought, not much difference then. |
bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3 |
Note I said "would stand a chance of becoming" not "would become". While there's an institutional class, there cannot, by definition, be a classless society. I think you're saying that there are additional hurdles for the UK to become a classless society than the removal of the Monarchy, and I'd be a fool to disagree with that (and while I don't believe you are technically correct in saying "Capitalism has institutionalized class just as much as the monarchy does", the details of that technicality are off topic for this thread). However, it's my contention that, even if those other hurdles were navigated, the UK would still be no closer to being classless than it is today. Thus on removal of the Monarchy the UK would stand some chance (as opposed to no chance at all). I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... |
Sirius B Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24879 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7 |
I didn't move here, I was brought here :-) Sorry Chris, just had to answer this :-) We've met 3 times, so pray tell "how does a mature adult from Ireland end up with a cockney accent?" |
bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3 |
Perhaps it might be better to say I'm a republican by principle, the particular incumbent of Head of State at any point time is of less interest to me, it's the office and what it means that counts. Not necessarily a figurehead, and a huge difference. To say "the particular incumbent is of less interest" does not mean "of no interest". Given your comments about the succession, it seems to me that for you the particular incumbent is more important than the office. I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... |
bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3 |
I think you're saying that there are additional hurdles for the UK to become a classless society than the removal of the Monarchy, and I'd be a fool to disagree with that (and while I don't believe you are technically correct in saying "Capitalism has institutionalized class just as much as the monarchy does", the details of that technicality are off topic for this thread). However, it's my contention that, even if those other hurdles were navigated, the UK would still be no closer to being classless than it is today. Thus on removal of the Monarchy the UK would stand some chance (as opposed to no chance at all). I'll try to simplify for you. It means I disagree with Мишель on an off topic technical point, though I agree in general that the removal of the monarchy would not in and of itself transform the UK into a classless society. Still waiting for your source (for "the most respected Head of State in the world"), apology (for baseless accusation) and retraction (of ad hominem attack). My apologies if all the parentheses make things a little difficult for you. I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... |
bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3 |
Usually too many jellied eels dahn the Old Kent Road, me 'ol china, cor luv a duck. What's your excuse? Small off topic diversion, given the Old Kent Road is entirely south of the river, it's an unlikely place to pick up a cockney accent. I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... |
Sirius B Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24879 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7 |
As a Londoner myself, you will find that you will come across the cockney accent as far away as about a 5 mile radius south from Bow. It doesn't seem to have travelled north, as far as I know. Well you know wrong then, unless I'm living south of you in Calais. @Bobby, that's the way of the world - real life conversations tend to wander sometimes, also, Chris is the OP so his decision. This is not a classroom in some "strict" university. As for your head of state & most respected argument, Really? You picked up on me quickly as a Johnny Foreigner with you being a Brit, so no respect whatsoever from you regarding the Queen? |
bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3 |
As a Londoner myself, you will find that you will come across the cockney accent as far away as about a 5 mile radius south from Bow. It doesn't seem to have travelled north, as far as I know. Chris said QE2 was "the most respected Head of State in the world", twice in one post, I asked for his source for the assertion. While I may have some respect for HRH, I have none for jingoistic nationalism. I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... |
Sirius B Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24879 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7 |
Chris said QE2 was "the most respected Head of State in the world", twice in one post, I asked for his source for the assertion. While I may have some respect for HRH, I have none for jingoistic nationalism. For one who wants sources & facts, here's a good one for you: HM the Queen is never referred to as HRH :) |
Es99 Send message Joined: 23 Aug 05 Posts: 10874 Credit: 350,402 RAC: 0 |
If all you are going to do is play the personal insult card every time somebody says something that you don't happen to agree with, or you just don't like, then there is no basis for continuing adult conversation. I consider something a personal insult when you use information about me to make a point rather than using the facts. Some examples might be, using my background, my history, my way of thinking, my education, my family etc etc Every time you make your argument about me rather than the subject you are making it personal. I am sure you are quite able to argue about the topic without making it about me, but for some reason you chose time and time again not to. As to your claim that you wouldn't post personal information about me, as you have not exactly been yourself lately and you have in the past posted things about me that were not in the public domain, I am not altogether sure about what you will do any more. If you do not want to be considered as attacking the person, rather than the message, I suggest you review your posts to make sure that you are actually not attacking the person. If you post something that relies on personal (relating to the person, not necessarily private) information that they have not bought up in that discussion, then you are making the argument personal. If for example, we are discussing the royal family and I mention that I am (for example) a member of the royal family, then its probably ok to then discuss my membership of the royal family. If for example we are discussing teaching, and I have mentioned that I know about this subject because I am a teacher, then fair enough. As long as you don't say things like "you shouldn't be a teacher because you don't agree with me" etc. Then that is ok. To bring up my history and background out of the blue in this discussion is a personal attack rather than an discussion about the topic. To ask personal questions about my background is a personal attack and not about the subject. I will clarify for you. I am not a member of the royal family, although I do have a close friend who is (there, I bought that up, you can now bring that up in future arguments on this topic as long as you are respectful about them, although I may chose not to answer), so other than that there is absolutely no reason to mention my background at all. None. The minute you do you are making it about me, and not about the royal family. I really hope that clears it up for you. Reality Internet Personality |
bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3 |
Chris said QE2 was "the most respected Head of State in the world", twice in one post, I asked for his source for the assertion. While I may have some respect for HRH, I have none for jingoistic nationalism. Thanks for the correction, you're right she ceased being HRH in 1952 and I should not have been so careless with the title of Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... |
Sirius B Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24879 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7 |
That's twice you referred to God on this thread. The US of A is a republic yet on it's money is this: - "In God We Trust" Don't they trust themselves to head the state? |
janneseti Send message Joined: 14 Oct 09 Posts: 14106 Credit: 655,366 RAC: 0 |
The British Royal Family? Shouldn't it be called something like: The Europe Monarchs Family. They are almost all relatives to one another. I know that our crownprincess Victoria is a relative of Queen Victoria:) |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30651 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
That's twice you referred to God on this thread. The US of A is a republic yet on it's money is this: - Only dolts we have to worry about are the ones who throw sheets over the bronze statues in their office lobbies because a bare tit in bronze might offend in a news conference. |
bobby Send message Joined: 22 Mar 02 Posts: 2866 Credit: 17,789,109 RAC: 3 |
That's twice you referred to God on this thread. The US of A is a republic yet on it's money is this: - Ignoring the non sequitur for now, I can't help it if the word is in HM's official title in the UK, and I suspect you are thinking of 4) the Church of England could separate from the state (no unifying head of both) as the other reference. There's nothing to say that a republic has to separate church and state, though it's a choice that can be made (unlike the UK where the head of state is also defender of the faith). As for the wording on US currency, to the best of my knowledge that's a artefact of late 19th century history for coins and mid 20th century history for notes. And no, citizens of the US do not "trust themselves to the head of state", we pledge our allegiance to our flag and the republic for which it stands, not to any individual. Our politicians (including the President) should understand that their power comes from "We the people", as in: We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ... |
Angela Send message Joined: 16 Oct 07 Posts: 13130 Credit: 39,854,104 RAC: 31 |
Whew!!! When you're hot, you're hot!!! Several mod-list requests have come in to move posts from this thread to the related one, and vice-versa. Additional mod-list requests have come in to hide threads in this post and the related one. After careful consideration, your moderating staff has agreed that moving posts cannot be done easily or with any semblance of fairness. We have also come to the conclusion that this topic is hot-hot-hot and that it needs a little cooling off period. I am locking this thread and the related one. If anyone wishes to further discuss the Royal Family, we ask you to do so in a single new thread, started no earlier than Monday 8/24. To ensure that a cooling-off period is achieved, any new threads started on this topic before 8/24 will be hidden. Thank you for understanding. |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.