The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Another Royal Options
tunaafi
Posted: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 3:48:38 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/3/2014
Posts: 4,453
Neurons: 53,498
Location: Karlín, Praha, Czech Republic
Millions of British people received some wonderful news this morning:

In a statement, Kensington Palace said: “Their royal highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are very pleased to announce that the Duchess of Cambridge is expecting their third child. The Queen and members of both families are delighted with the news.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/04/duchess-cambridge-pregnant-third-child-kate-middleton-prince-william

The knowledge that there will soon yet another royal baby to adore sent a thrill of excitement through the hearts of patriotic subjects throughout the British Isles. The prospect of pages of newspaper photographs of royal bumps, of daily bulletins on the progress of the royal foetus, and the eager anticipation of learning about the genitalia of the new prince/princess are almost too much to bear.

These happy thoughts are tinged with concern about the hyperemesis gravidarum of our future queen. We ardently pray the She will not suffer too much discomfort in the coming months, but are fortified by the thought that her strong sense of duty has already enabled her to get through the royal process that brought her to this stage.

How republicans all over the world must envy us British, so fortunate to have a royal family to be our daily inspiration.

IMcRout
Posted: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 4:41:08 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/27/2011
Posts: 34,379
Neurons: 493,361
Location: Lübeck, Schleswig-Holstein, Germany
Thank you so much for your deeply-felt remarks, tunaafi. I am sooo jealous. Boo hoo!

I totally take back all those times I didn't want to nap when I was younger. (Anon)
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1
Posted: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 5:14:59 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/13/2015
Posts: 1,162
Neurons: 366,727
Location: Dzerzhinskiy, Moskovskaya, Russia
tunaafi wrote:
How republicans all over the world must envy us British, so fortunate to have a royal family to be our daily inspiration.

You can afford a little sarcasm. I can not - we eliminated our Royals in 1918.



აბა ყვავებს ვინ დაიჭერს, კარგო? გალიაში ბულბულები ზიან.
tunaafi
Posted: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 6:12:38 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/3/2014
Posts: 4,453
Neurons: 53,498
Location: Karlín, Praha, Czech Republic
We tried that in 1649, but some got away and put en end to our republic eleven years later. I think we are overdue for another attempt.
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1
Posted: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 6:22:41 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/13/2015
Posts: 1,162
Neurons: 366,727
Location: Dzerzhinskiy, Moskovskaya, Russia
tunaafi wrote:
I think we are overdue for another attempt.

I hope Brits and Canadians are wise enough not to do that. God save the Queen!



აბა ყვავებს ვინ დაიჭერს, კარგო? გალიაში ბულბულები ზიან.
towan52
Posted: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 9:16:22 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 8/28/2012
Posts: 1,676
Neurons: 159,573
Location: Midland, Texas, United States
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1 wrote:

You can afford a little sarcasm. I can not - we eliminated our Royals in 1918.


And you did it so nicely! Whistle

"Today I was a hero. I rescued some beer that was trapped in a bottle"
Parpar1836
Posted: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 12:39:30 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/30/2014
Posts: 134
Neurons: 8,206
Location: Rochester, New York, United States
Charlotte of Mecklenberg-Strelitz, Queen Consort of George III, had 15 children, including King George IV and Edward, Duke of Kent, who became Queen Victoria's father, although he didn't live long enough to enjoy the honor it might have afforded him. Victoria herself had nine children, of whom eight were healthy and one a hemophiliac.

There was some grumbling in the press about the size of Victoria and Albert's family, since the children were supported by Parliamentary grants. From our perspective, we see them as a pretty good investment, as most of those children married into various European royal families. (But that's a story in itself.)

We Yanks wish Kate and William the very best.
Hope123
Posted: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 3:34:36 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,279
Neurons: 42,042
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
It is just awful, Tuna. Whistle It costs members of the the Commonwealth even more than the UK public to support the Royals.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/stephen-punwasi/royal-family-cost_b_12155954.html

So expensive - a whole cup of Timmy’s a year!


And one third of the world’s population lives in the Commonwealth bound by the Monarchy. Why should we all have to pay for security when they come to visit? We need a Governor General and a Lieutenant GG and all their offices as well.

All those Royals do is sit on their butts. Whistle They never do any charity work or work in the military. They don’t even have their own investments for their personal wealth. The Queen has not been a wise counsel all these years either. And the Prince waited till he was in his nineties to retire and in her twenties the Queen vowed she would never retire. Don’t they understand about unemployment and the young needing the jobs?

Instead of pomp and circumstance of weddings and funerals and birthdays of the Royals, it is much better to waste money on fireworks and concerts to give people a break from their boring ho hum lives.

The UK tourist industry brings in peanuts annually because of them. Only 535 million pounds in 2015.

But hey. Those babies are cute so don’t you dare say anything against them!



Seriously - I had hyperemesis gravidarum and in hospital not able to even keep down water before I knew I was pregnant. I would have preferred not to learn it, but that was when I first heard the word "hyperemesis". I was sick throughout the whole pregnancy - even in the delivery room. But it was so worth it!

So my hat is definitely off to this trooper of a woman who is willing to do it THREE times.

We wish you the best, Kate and William. You and your whole family.


A smile is a curve that sets everything straight. Phyllis Diller
Romany
Posted: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 4:03:03 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 13,347
Neurons: 40,674
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
Hey there, Parpar,

I was wondering if you could do me a favour, perhaps? Although I work in a Georgian museum, parts of the house are Victorian too, so I write about both. Your information about press reports on V & A's family of course intrigued me! The poster-parents for the cult of the family being niggled at for the size of their family? It's absolutely too delicious to let go. And it adds another, ironic, layer to the picture we build up of another time.

So would you guide me to where I can get some more information? Or a text-book citation? We have the actual hardcover, bound copies of most of the major newspapers of the day, and data-bases for others, so it's not a problem to access it. It's just something that could be worked into tours - people love to learn quirky little things like that. Did it originate in The House? That would make it even better!

I did try to find it by myself, I promise. But Google is being stupid. (It's always Google - never me).

Edited to add: And thank you for your comments regarding the latest heir to the throne.
tunaafi
Posted: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 4:29:26 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/3/2014
Posts: 4,453
Neurons: 53,498
Location: Karlín, Praha, Czech Republic
Hope123 wrote:
So expensive - a whole cup of Timmy’s a year!


The cost of the monarchy is irrelevant to me, Hope, as is the fact that the monarchy may be good for tourism.

What I loathe is that, in a so-called democracy, the head of state/government/legislature/judiciary/army/navy/air force/established church/etc is a person who happens to be the most senior legitimate protestant descendant of Sophia of Hanover (granddaughter of James ! of England and VI of Scotland, d. 1625) who is in communion with the Church of England.

Nobody who does not take an oath of allegiance to the sovereign (not the the state, constitution, rule of law, democracy, etc) can, in England, become:

a member of parliament
a judge or magistrate
a police officer
a priest in the church of England
a member of the army and air force or a non-commissioned member of the navy (the loyalty of officers of the Royal Navy is taken for granted!)
a person acquiring British citizenship
a scout or guide.

Are you surprised that I am not happy with this?


Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 1:19:31 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,279
Neurons: 42,042
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
No, I am not surprised, Tuna, because we have the same oath and same objections in Canada which is organized as a constitutional monarchy, but is considered a democracy.

You have two objections, correct? My answer is through Canadian eyes. I am not that familiar with UK laws.

First objection - She got the job through inheritance and not democratic election and you think allegiance should be made to some democratic symbol or ideology such as the flag or your words "state, constitution, rule of law, democracy..."

Not too long ago Ontario’s Court of Appeal ruled that the “Queen is a symbolic apexTaking the oath is a promise to obey Canada’s laws and democratic traditions…”

The sovereign is bound by our constitution.

The oath is not giving allegiance to the individual alone but to the Crown, a powerful and historic symbol. The monarch represents those institutions of the Crown and -in turn - has to swear to uphold the laws and customs of every country she/he governs. Rights have been protected.

Former Premier of Ontario Mike Harris said in 1993: "The oath to the Queen is fundamental to the administration of the law in this country. It signifies that, here in Canada, justice is done—not in the name of the Prime Minister, or the Mayor, or the Police Chief, as in totalitarian nations—but by the people, in the name of the Queen.”

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/a-distinctly-canadian-oath-ill-swear-to-that/article20075956/?arc404=true

As well, when the secular allegiance was made to the Crown, it was a Canadian compromise so that the French Catholics who lost the war would be able to accept the oath and set the stages for Canada to be one of the countries that is truly a mix of cultures and religions.

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/editorial-dont-like-the-oath-seek-comfort-elsewhere/




A smile is a curve that sets everything straight. Phyllis Diller
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 1:21:06 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,279
Neurons: 42,042
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
The other objection I think you have and I agree with is that she has to uphold the Protestant Church of England. We agree, I think, not because it is Protestant, but because it is religion at all. Perhaps this part of the monarch’s oath should be removed.

But is this not all part of UK law that would have to be changed in many areas since when - the Magna Carta? In other words, to take away the monarchy is to completely change the system of government. Yet freedom of religion is enshrined in both Canada and the UK in their human rights laws and the religious declaration in the oath may be circumvented if desired. Religions are not going away any time soon.

Symbols are just ways humans have made up to show it is serious business and the laws of the land are to be upheld. I personally like the stability and advantages of being in the Commonwealth of Nations and I can’t see the necessity for changing complete methods of government that have worked well for thousands of years (hundreds in Canada) - just to change the symbol.




Edited later - if it is the oath that is the reason some want rid of the monarchy, it is not necessary to get rid of the monarchy and change to another system of government to do that. Just make the oath more comprehensive to spell out the allegiance to the country, democracy etc as well as to the Crown. A compromise.

A smile is a curve that sets everything straight. Phyllis Diller
tunaafi
Posted: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 3:48:33 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/3/2014
Posts: 4,453
Neurons: 53,498
Location: Karlín, Praha, Czech Republic
The British oath of allegiance varies depending on who is taking i, but the basic version is: I, (Insert full name), do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.


If the words have any meaning, they are an affront to democracy and the rule of law. If they are supposed to be 'symbolic', then they should be thrown out and replaced with words that mean what they say.

If the monarch is a symbol, then make him/her a symbol, as they have largely done in Sweden.
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 4:33:41 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,279
Neurons: 42,042
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
tunaafi wrote:
The British oath of allegiance varies depending on who is taking i, but the basic version is: I, (Insert full name), do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.


If the words have any meaning, they are an affront to democracy and the rule of law. If they are supposed to be 'symbolic', then they should be thrown out and replaced with words that mean what they say.

If the monarch is a symbol, then make him/her a symbol, as they have largely done in Sweden.


Exact same oath we have, except they can get around the God part if they want.

The British monarch is just a figurehead. I don't know what Sweden did other than this online and it appears to me to be the same as the UK? You'd have to explain the difference to me.

"As head of state, the King is Sweden’s foremost unifying symbol. According to the 1974 constitution, the monarch has no political affinity and no formal powers. The King’s duties are mainly of a ceremonial and representative nature."

https://sweden.se/society/the-swedish-monarchy/



A smile is a curve that sets everything straight. Phyllis Diller
Hope123
Posted: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 5:47:10 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,279
Neurons: 42,042
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Tuna, It would work for me if they could say "loyalty to all the people of Canada whom you represent". Apparently Australia got rid of the oath to the Queen 20 years ago.

But here is what it would take to change the oath in Canada. It would be political suicide to open the Constitution and probably have to fight the Separatists in Quebec as well. Don't know what it would involve in the UK. Maybe that is why nothing has been done.

"Before 1982, to amend the portion of the Canadian constitution dealing with the British monarchy, required a resolution to be passed by the House, the Senate and seven provinces representing at least 50 percent of the Canadian population. Curiously, after the patriation of the Constitution in 1982, the amending formula was changed.

Now the unanimous consent of the House, the Senate – an unelected body – and all provincial legislatures is required to remove the British monarchy as head of state of Canada."



(They can't even agree on how to work together against an adversary such as Trump in NAFTA as the Conservatives, instead of helping, are dissing the Liberals who are in charge of negotiations, even though they have taken the negotiating group from several past and present parties. The new Conservative leader is taking us down the US path to divisiveness. Arrgghhh.)

A smile is a curve that sets everything straight. Phyllis Diller
tunaafi
Posted: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 7:25:09 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/3/2014
Posts: 4,453
Neurons: 53,498
Location: Karlín, Praha, Czech Republic
Hope123 wrote:
.

The British monarch is just a figurehead. I don't know what Sweden did other than this online and it appears to me to be the same as the UK? You'd have to explain the difference to me.



In terms of constitutional law, the Swedish monarch really is just a figurehead, S/he has no role in the government of the country.

The British monarch, on the other hand is still legally the head of government, the armed forces etc. Two of the more important consequences of this are:

1. The British prime minister, as the monarch's first minister, can (and does!) have an enormous amount of unchecked and uncheckable power. The PM is in some ways more vulnerable than POTUS (a British PM can be thrown out by simply losing a vote of confidence in the House of Commons) but, so long as British PMs can cajole/bribe/threaten enough MPs to support them, they have enormous freedom
of action, free of the checks and balances of the American system.

2. The British armed forces (and the English police) have sworn an oath of allegiance to the monarch, and many of them take this oath seriously. If a monarch decided that a properly elected government was not doing what s/he liked, s/he could command the armed forces to overthrow that government. This may seem unlikely, though there have been rumours that military leaders have considered using the name of the monarch to remove left-wing leaders in the past.

Given the battiness of the future king (His Royal Highness Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales, KG, KT, GCB, OM, AK, CC, QSO, PC, ADC, Earl of Chester, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland, Field Marshal (Army), Admiral of the Fleet (Royal Nay), Marshal of the Royal Air Force, etc), it is not impossible that a military coup could overthrow a future left-wing (Corbynist?) government for the sake of 'King and Country'.

An American president can legally be ousted only due process of law - and his successor is legally designated. In the UK, the PM holds office because s/he has been invited by the monarch to form a government (the monarch's government!). If the monarch wishes to invite somebody else to form a government, s/he is free to do so. With dissenting MPs locked up by the military (legally, at the monarch's command), the monarch's choice would be approved by a rump parliament, and we would have a dictatorship, quite legally.

A not too far-fetched fictional version of how this could come about was portrayed in the novel and TV serial versions of A Very British Coup.
Hope123
Posted: Thursday, September 07, 2017 12:10:51 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 7,279
Neurons: 42,042
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Our parliament is modeled after Britain's as in your point number one. The set-up certainly makes it easier to accomplish agendas and not get hung up like the American republic - and yes, it is also much easier with a vote of non confidence to dump a government (and its leader) that is not doing the job. And we often have minority governments where coalitions are formed if one party does not have a majority. Often that is when the best legislation gets done because they have to compromise or a vote of non confidence will dissolve parliament and an election called. They know the public hates elections and hates this type the most.

But according to the next point Britain is either not a constitutional monarchy like Canada then or has different laws because in a Constitutional Monarchy the queen can reign but not rule. Everything I read says Britiain is a CM.

The following ruling was forced by a dispute by a CDN military man of Irish heritage who resented the trappings of the British monarchy.

"He" in the quote refers to the Attorney General.

"The Queen “cannot issue orders within the military establishment,” he wrote. “All that she is empowered to do is to parrot the decisions of our democratically elected officials. The power lies with the people, as it must if we are to claim the status of a democracy.”

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/queen-cannot-send-canadian-troops-to-war-attorney-general-says-in-letter-aimed-at-settling-longstanding-dispute



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada

The Crown is there is make sure democracy is carried out for the Canadian people.


A smile is a curve that sets everything straight. Phyllis Diller
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines. Copyright © 2008-2017 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.