Let's discuss the Monarchy


Would you trust that fucker to ensure the constitution was followed?

its interesting that you unconditionally trust a man whos character we know very little about, who was born into a life of extreme wealth and privilege, who has happened upon the position through fortune of birth and whos hereditary lineage we currently have no choice but to follow for the next king, and the next, and the next... regardless of skills, competence, character etc...

...but you wouldn't trust someone who has been voted in (obvs not rishi) by the general public and must perform well or face being kicked out..

as with all pro-monarchy rhetoric, it makes absolutely no logical sense
 
its interesting that you unconditionally trust a man whos character we know very little about, who was born into a life of extreme wealth and privilege, who has happened upon the position through fortune of birth and whos hereditary lineage we currently have no choice but to follow for the next king, and the next, and the next... regardless of skills, competence, character etc...

...but you wouldn't trust someone who has been voted in (obvs not rishi) by the general public and must perform well or face being kicked out..

as with all pro-monarchy rhetoric, it makes absolutely no logical sense
Mate, I don't unconditionally trust him. If you read my discussion with Market you will see that.
But I genuinely don't think that an elected HOS would be any more trustworthy, and certainly wouldn't be apolitical.
All people in positions of authority will sometimes use it to their own advantage. It's not right, but it is a fact of life marra.
 
Mate, I don't unconditionally trust him. If you read my discussion with Market you will see that.
But I genuinely don't think that an elected HOS would be any more trustworthy, and certainly wouldn't be apolitical.
All people in positions of authority will sometimes use it to their own advantage. It's not right, but it is a fact of life marra.

exactly why we should be given the opportunity, once every 4 years as a population to decide who is in these positions of authority

charles has done fuck all to earn it, no one knows what he character is, what his intentions are, if he is intelligent or trustworthy or has the nations bests interests at heart.. no one knows any of this and no one ever will.

his role is utterly pointless when you apply a modicum of logic to your thought process
 
exactly why we should be given the opportunity, once every 4 years as a population to decide who is in these positions of authority

charles has done fuck all to earn it, no one knows what he character is, what his intentions are, if he is intelligent or trustworthy or has the nations bests interests at heart.. no one knows any of this and no one ever will.

his role is utterly pointless when you apply a modicum of logic to your thought process
I take your point.
But the points you make about character, intentions etc are equally true of political leaders to the average man in the street. We don't know their character or intelligence, or intentions.
We can read between the lines, but we don't actually know, but we vote for them. We have elections, and put these fuckers in charge, and look what happens.
Why would that be any different for an elected HOS marra?
 
I take your point.
But the points you make about character, intentions etc are equally true of political leaders to the average man in the street. We don't know their character or intelligence, or intentions.
We can read between the lines, but we don't actually know, but we vote for them. We have elections, and put these fuckers in charge, and look what happens.
Why would that be any different for an elected HOS marra?

its not though is it, we follow the careers of politicians for years, with hours and hours of interviews, footage of debates, footage of them at ease, we can meet them, can talk to them, can see what they have written, can see how they have voted, can listen to them and judge their characteristics and body language, we see what they have promised and what they have delivered... millions of influencing factors that can shape how and why we vote the way we do... and the country gets the person that the majority vote for. and if they don't perform, they get voted out.

with the monarchy, we know fuck all. theres examples throughout history of children being put on the throne, or people with learning difficulties, or pure evil bastards. with no way of stopping them and no way of getting them out

i'm amazed you are trying to say the two things are equal
 
Idealistic goals need to be tempered with a touch of reality mate.
Idealistically, we would go up as Champions this year, and the Mags would get relegated.
You also didn't say where the cascade stops marra, because at the moment apparently, the monarchy is responsible, directly or indirectly, for every abuse of power in this country according to you.
And it would hold political power, and you would need to be ultra idealistic to believe otherwise mate.
Ok. Let’s just remove the monarch as head of state and all the powers the role retains and any public funding it gets. The state can fund the pomp and ceremony stuff on the back of tourism it attracts. There’s a reasonable compromise.
Again your are mixing up the person with the monarchist system. It is the opposite of a meritocracy. Do you object to a meritocracy?
 
Last edited:
its not though is it, we follow the careers of politicians for years, with hours and hours of interviews, footage of debates, footage of them at ease, we can meet them, can talk to them, can see what they have written, can see how they have voted, can listen to them and judge their characteristics and body language, we see what they have promised and what they have delivered... millions of influencing factors that can shape how and why we vote the way we do... and the country gets the person that the majority vote for. and if they don't perform, they get voted out.

with the monarchy, we know fuck all. theres examples throughout history of children being put on the throne, or people with learning difficulties, or pure evil bastards. with no way of stopping them and no way of getting them out

i'm amazed you are trying to say the two things are equal
Mate.
Your first paragraph is very detailed, and you are to be applauded if you do all of those things.
Most people in this country vote the way they have always voted, the way their Dad voted, the way their immediate environment votes, and you know that.
You may be a political animal, but most of the population aren't marra.
Most people turn over when Question Time comes on, never listen to or watch Parliament.
They take soundbites, read the papers they buy, follow or listen to people on line.
That's how we ended up with f***ing Trump and Boris in charge of 2 of the G7 for fuck sake.
That is not a good model to follow man.
And I'm not saying they are equal. Show me where I have.
I'm saying your idealistic model will not necessarily end up with the outcome that you desire.
Ok. Let’s just remove the monarch as head of state and all the powers the role retains and any public funding it gets. The state can fund the pomp and ceremony stuff on the back of tourism it attracts. There’s a reasonable compromise.
Again your are mixing up the person with the monarchist system. It is the opposite of a meritocracy. Do you object to a meritocracy?
I am not mixing up the person with the institution. You said Charlie, so I followed your lead.
So you now want the pomp and ceremony to remain, but remove the monarchy?
What you actually want is to have your cake, and eat it.
You want all the benefits, without the institution.
 
Last edited:
Mate.
Your first paragraph is very detailed, and you are to be applauded if you do all of those things.
Most people in this country vote the way they have always voted, the way their Dad voted, the way their immediate environment votes, and you know that.
You may be a political animal, but most of the population aren't marra.
Most people turn over when Question Time comes on, never listen to or watch Parliament.
They take soundbites, read the papers they buy, follow or listen to people on line.
That's how we ended up with f***ing Trump and Boris in charge of 2 of the G7 for fuck sake.
That is not a good model to follow man.
And I'm not saying they are equal. Show me where I have.
I'm saying your idealistic model will not necessarily end up with the outcome that you desire.

I am not mixing up the person with the institution. You said Charlie, so I followed your lead.
So you now want the pomp and ceremony to remain, but remove the monarchy?
What you actually want is to have your cake, and eat it.
You want all the benefits, without the institution.
Yes I mentioned Charles as he has interfered with our laws to his own benefit. That demonstrates that they have unfair powers.
The bit about hierarchy is related to the monarchist system not necessarily the actual monarch.
I’m quite happy to get rid of the whole thing. However I am suggesting compromises so the forelock tuggers can retain their position of inferiority should they wish. That way we aren’t depriving anyone of their king.
I do like the tourism argument and we should make even more out of it - exactly like the French do!
 
Yes I mentioned Charles as he has interfered with our laws to his own benefit. That demonstrates that they have unfair powers.
The bit about hierarchy is related to the monarchist system not necessarily the actual monarch.
I’m quite happy to get rid of the whole thing. However I am suggesting compromises so the forelock tuggers can retain their position of inferiority should they wish. That way we aren’t depriving anyone of their king.
I do like the tourism argument and we should make even more out of it - exactly like the French do!
Mate, you have made a very eloquent case, and raised some very interesting points, but you then decend in to calling monarchists "forelock tuggers". Why would you do that?
I am not a forelock tugger to anyone, but I would prefer the status quo to any alternatives offered.
Why the insults against people whos character you don't know?
You are making assumptions, and if someone made assumptions about you that resulted in an unfair insult, how would you feel?
I honestly thought you were better than that after our discussion this afternoon marra.
 
Last edited:
Mate, you have made a very eloquent case, and raised some very interesting points, but you then decend in to calling monarchists "forelock tuggers". Why would you do that?
I am not a forelock tugger to anyone, but I would prefer the status quo to any alternatives offered.
Why the insults against people whos character you don't know?
You are making assumptions, and if someone made assumptions about you that resulted in an unfair insult, how would you feel?
I honestly thought you were better than that after our discussion this afternoon marra.
I didn’t call you a forelock tugged - not in that post anyway. I may have mentioned it for a bit of badinage because I knew it would trigger you however you’ll have to take my word for it that it wasn’t malicious.
And fair play you do debate in good faith the vast majority of the time.
And let’s be honest there are lots of monarchists who are sycophantic forelock tuggers.
 
Last edited:
I didn’t call you a forelock tugged - not in that post anyway. I may have mentioned it for a bit of badinage because I knew it would trigger you however you’ll have to take my word for it that it wasn’t malicious.
And fair play you do debate in good faith the vast majority of the time.
And let’s be honest there are lots of monarchists who are sycophantic forelock tuggers.
And lots of antimonarchists that are so far to the left that even Putin or China would question their beliefs marra. At no point have I resorted to insults based on what your character may be.
I 100% believe it wasn't malicious mate. Thank you.
I'd like to think, that when there is someone who genuinely wants to debate, I do it in good faith every time mate.
And ending this post as you did, lets be honest, there are alot of Republicans who are just simply sycophantic to the minority crowd, because they really haven't got a clue, and all their mates do it.
 
And lots of antimonarchists that are so far to the left that even Putin or China would question their beliefs marra. At no point have I resorted to insults based on what your character may be.
I 100% believe it wasn't malicious mate. Thank you.
I'd like to think, that when there is someone who genuinely wants to debate, I do it in good faith every time mate.
And ending this post as you did, lets be honest, there are alot of Republicans who are just simply sycophantic to the minority crowd, because they really haven't got a clue, and all their mates do it.
I don’t think anyone thinks Putin is on the left! Unless you mean he is so far right that he is meeting with the extreme left. Good analogy though as both his regime and Chinas are effectively analogous to a monarchist system with one unelected leader.
 
I don’t think anyone thinks Putin is on the left! Unless you mean he is so far right that he is meeting with the extreme left. Good analogy though as both his regime and Chinas are effectively analogous to a monarchist system with one unelected leader.
Officially both of those have got elected leaders marra, so a very good analagy for your new system. 😉
And Mr P still has his communist party membership card mate.
But elected leaders will pick and choose when the whim takes them mate.
It's a bugger, isn't it?
 
Last edited:

Back
Top