Not so crabbit now!

Eldorion wrote:

Norc wrote:well that would mean we'de have a penguin as the king, so no

I don't know about anyone else, but I'd rather have a penguin as a king than just the luckiest twig of the incestuous family tree of European royalty. It's not like modern kings have that many responsibilities. I'm sure you could train a penguin to preside over ceremonies and wave at people.

we have the cooles king so just shut up.
i know he doesn't have any real power, but this might be hard to explain to an american, the royal family is like... like..their important for the feeling of being a land. remember we've only had a king for three generations (or is that correct?) i can at least list them up on one hand!

another happy story

Eldorion wrote:I don't know about anyone else, but I'd rather have a penguin as a king than just the luckiest twig of the incestuous family tree of European royalty. It's not like modern kings have that many responsibilities. I'm sure you could train a penguin to preside over ceremonies and wave at people.

You have no Class, Eldo... none! A King is a King is a King, and even a King Penguin must be obeyed.

Norc wrote:we have the cooles king so just shut up.
i know he doesn't have any real power, but this might be hard to explain to an american, the royal family is like... like..their important for the feeling of being a land. remember we've only had a king for three generations (or is that correct?) i can at least list them up on one hand!

Penguins have families too. Why are you so speciesist?

Spoiler:

well, not the norwegian royal family, it's true, the danes have close relatives in all the royal families, but not the norwegian. (why? because, and this is controversial, the old king, the father of the one we have now, is born outside marriage..)

I want Harry to be king. Gingers make the best monarchs fact. think about Queen Liz 1, she was quite a gal.

Norc wrote:well, not the norwegian royal family, it's true, the danes have close relatives in all the royal families, but not the norwegian. (why? because, and this is controversial, the old king, the father of the one we have now, is born outside marriage..)

I hate to break it to you Norc, but the modern Norwegian monarchy was formed from a branch of the Danish royal family.

i knooow, didn't i say the danes have relatives in all european roayl-families?

You also said the Norwegians don't, but they do ... through the Danes.

no eldo that was born out of marriage obviously

LONG LIVE

Uh... you mean king Olav? Even if queen Maud had a thing with that... doctor, was it? She was still a British princess and her mother was a Danish princess.
It's a mess.

Olav married his cousin Märtha, also a Danish princess. The less we think about it the better.

Eldorion wrote:You also said the Norwegians don't, but they do ... through the Danes.

no i didn't. i said they weren't so inbred.

Amarië wrote:Uh... you mean king Olav? Even if queen Maud had a thing with that... doctor, was it? She was still a British princess and her mother was a Danish princess.
It's a mess.

Olav married his cousin Märtha, also a Danish princess. The less we think about it the better.

yepp.. sshh.. (i take it back) but at least the doctor (possibly) contributed some new bloodlines also, now they don't have to marry royal people. Look at Harald and Håkon

you don't even have to be a princsess *cough* angels *cough*

Its no use these uppity excolonies rarely get monarchy- some however have suprising wisdom, like the Aussies and Kiwis and quite a view African states to keep the monarch when they kick the rest out.
Monarch is a great thing for a country- they are the living embodiement of the people, their shared history and their presnt being and they can pysically represent the country wherever they go.
And most importantly to be that symbol they are free of politics.
Thats why a monarch- for all the ridiculousness of 'being born to rule' is still miles better than a politician as Head of State.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Monarch is a great thing for a country- they are the living embodiement of the people, their shared history and their presnt being and they can pysically represent the country wherever they go.

Prince Charles: living embodiment of the British people.

And most importantly to be that symbol they are free of politics.

LOLOLOLOL

How are things in make-believe land?

Talking of royal families.

What political party does the Queen support?
What her views on nuclear weapons? On the wars Britain has engaged in during her reign? What are thoughts on immigration? Of Scotland being independent and the break up of her Union?

If you know these things then you are better informed than anyone in this country. Monarchs cannot be monrachs in a modern democracy and hold political poitions. The Queen is not even allowed to vote.

If you have a look at British history, particualrly around the period of King Charles you can see that Parliament was in a very real struggle to take power from the monarch and make the position a Head of State, a figure head only.
Whilst some things are still allowed, the monarch advises the PM in a weekly meeting, and the PM tells the Queen whatever they want, the content of those are never divulged.
A great bonus for a PM who can never really trust political opponents or dare not risk sensitve information leaking through rivals or political opponents.


"Prince Charles: living embodiment of the British people."- Eldo

He is only Prince. We dont know what sort of monarch he will be till he is one- as Henry V says when his French opponents mock him with the actions of his youth, that they should perhaps consider what uses he now puts them to.

I remember the UK press and media slaughtering Charles every day all through my childhood and teenage years; the mad Prince who talked to plants, the Prince who believed in power from the wind and the sea, the Prince who thought people were destroying the world and wanted everyone to grow their own vegetables, how we laughed- and then over the course of my life the rest of us caught up with the page he was on twenty years before us.
Dont be too quick to write of ole Charlie.


And good ole Ricky Tomlinson too.

The royal family has no influence on politics, you say?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/31/prince-charles-public-duty-private-power

Let me pre-empt your response by saying that I'm absolutely positive that Charles will cease to do anything like this once he becomes monarch. Oh wait, what's that you just said? He gets even more direct access to the PM after he's crowned. Oh.

Also, I'm not really sure on why the British or any other people need a "national embodiment". Heads of state are useful to have around for ceremonies and there is certainly room for a meaningful symbolic role at times, but I see no reason to raise people from birth to be a symbol for people who have absolutely no say in who is becoming the representative head of their nation. Besides, heads of state in republican systems are not representing their nation every day of their life, which reduces the risk of embarrassing scandals or cover-ups.

The mechanics of it are outweighed by the benefits to the national psyche.
Americans have to rally around flags, and chanting USA over and over. Americans have to take an Oath of Allegiance to a flag just to feel homogenous.
It lacks a certain emotional resonance.

With a monarch you have someone who the nation can pour their focus into- look at Dianas death and the reaction to it.
Now I never liked her but the reaction was real enough from others, you just cant invest that way in a flag or a declaration.

By the same token a monarch can be a centre for stability- the world chages, governments come and go, but the monarch remains, it reassures at a national level in a way a trancitory political head never can.
And Monarch represents our country in its dealings with other countries- you are a big Mid East company looking to invest in Europe- the French and the Germans take you to museums, art galleries, finest world renowned restraunts- but you come to the UK and you get an honour guard and a real life Monarch and a banquet in a Hall thats older than many other peoples countries. In short, it sells the uk.
And thats before you factor in tourism.
Monarchy is cheap at the price. They cost each British tax payer less than a pound a year.

I dont have a problem with the next in line having, and being expected to have involvement with the political class, its a necessary function of his position.
If he is to be King and act in the role as advisor and ear to Prime Ministers of different political persuasions over his time then he must have firm grasp of the mechanics of politics and how it works.
Its on the job training part of the expected duties of an heir.
Id be more worried if he didnt have interest or knowledge at all in politics.

I didn't intend for this conversation to get too serious since this isn't an issue that affects me and the tangent only started because I made a joke about a penguin. I'm not sure what your basis for saying that republics lack emotional resonance is other than purely subjective personal preference, though. Personally I think that patriotism needs to be reined in because it leads to a lot of ugly side-effects, so I'm not too keen on anything that focuses or amplifies that. (Yes, this includes flag worship and the Pledge of Allegiance.)

I'm not sure where the financial discussion came from because I wasn't criticizing the monarchy on the basis of money, but whatever. Personally if I was a prospective investor visiting a country I'd want to see the achievements of the nation's finest minds rather than meet the scion of a long-dead medieval nobleman who, in most cases, wasn't even from the same country that his descendant now rules. BTW, if you want to "sell the UK", you might want to take a lesson from the French and the Germans seeing as they both have larger economies than you lot.

i think patrioism can be a good thing. escpessially when the country was under swedish/danish rule since after the plague and unil 1904 (i think)

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Its no use these uppity excolonies rarely get monarchy- some however have suprising wisdom, like the Aussies and Kiwis and quite a view African states to keep the monarch when they kick the rest out.
Monarch is a great thing for a country- they are the living embodiement of the people, their shared history and their presnt being and they can pysically represent the country wherever they go.
And most importantly to be that symbol they are free of politics.
Thats why a monarch- for all the ridiculousness of 'being born to rule' is still miles better than a politician as Head of State.

i agree

Eldorion wrote:The royal family has no influence on politics, you say?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/aug/31/prince-charles-public-duty-private-power

the king has power, he just doesn't use it, what ever the politicians comes up with it has to go through the king. also they can promote cases and views. it helps show what is the accepted thinking. not in a communistic way, but they are kind of teh guideline of ethics . more or less.

Eldorion wrote:

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Monarch is a great thing for a country- they are the living embodiement of the people, their shared history and their presnt being and they can pysically represent the country wherever they go.

Prince Charles: living embodiment of the British people.

And most importantly to be that symbol they are free of politics.

LOLOLOLOL

How are things in make-believe land?

Here, have a snickers, you turn into a right diva when you're hungry.