Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: My 2 cents | |
Author: Brent (Canada) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 13:37:49 01/11/05 Tue In reply to: Steph (U.S.) 's message, "Blood" on 02:05:22 01/11/05 Tue Steph: I understand your point. My own ancestry includes a great number of the same individuals, including those Plantagenet heirs who had that little family feud called the Wars of the Roses. Despite that, I would maintain that she is emminently qualified and justified by more than just simple birth order. She has, from her formative years, been trained and groomed for her duties. One could only hope that the quality of leadership in the White House could improve with that kind of "Orientation." [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: You might not be far wrong. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:52:40 01/11/05 Tue After all, the American political leadership, especially the presidency, is pretty dynastic, these days. The Roosevelts, the Kennedys, the Bushes, all that mob. Funny how even the most free political systems gradually degenerate (or perhaps regenerate) into powerless but symbolic hereditary leaders and a powerful but banal legislature, isn't it? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Well I wasn't dissing her | |
|
Author: Steph (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:35:17 01/12/05 Wed I was not putting Her Majesty down. I have been defending the British Monarchy, but the reason is not because of "pure blood." Training is one of many arguements in favor of retaining the monarchy. Steph [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Hm. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 01:37:50 01/12/05 Wed I don't think that anyone was suggesting that you were belittling Her Majesty. We were just agreeing that Her position does not extend from her ancestry. I have friends who disagree, but they are Sith Ifrican and can therefore be safely ignored. After all, on the British side of my family I am descended from Charles II, but that does not make me superior to anyone else. HM's legitimacy arises from, firstly, the fact that, from birth (or at least from an early age), she was trained to be our figurehead, and, secondly, the fact that she never asked for the job and so is above partisan politics. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: My Liege | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:50:42 01/12/05 Wed A bastard of Charles II? Because that certainly wouldn't make you better than anyone else, you young scallywag. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Exactly! | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:38:00 01/12/05 Wed That's just the point. The Queen could be descended from Alfred the Great or Bob the Builder for all it matters. Ancestry is not what counts. My argument was meant to show that there are thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of people who can claim descent from some monarch who couldn't keep his trousers on or be trusted with the scullery maids, but that does not give them a claim to the throne nor entitle them to put on airs and graces. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Monarchy ensures the Separation of Government and State | |
|
Author: Michael J. Smith (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:31:27 01/12/05 Wed People talk a great deal in my country and in the United States about the separation of Church and State. While this may be true in reality, we should remember that Her Majesty still officially heads up the Church. We should also remember that very few people in the Commonwealth object to the popular sentiment God Save the Queen. The real issue in my mind is to preserve and defend the idea that in our shared political system the Government is not the State, that Government could never and should never serve as the constitutional embodiment of the People. Unfortunately, that is only nominally the case now. Diefenbaker was our last true monarchist prime minister; since 1963 we've had a long string of monarchical PMs, who more and more think of themselves as the State, who themselves appoint our "Head of State" and "Commander-in-Chief", someone we call the Governor General. The only deference paid by our Head of Government now is to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who I'm sure sees herself (that's right, she's a she) as the consitutional protector of the people. Believe me, Her Majesty has fallen a long way down the list. That is because our Sovereign, our constitutional Head of State has been easy prey over the years to a long line of usurpers (PMs), pretenders (GGs) and Lord Protectors (Justices). At least Tony Blair is upfront about what he wants to do with the remaining constitutional powers of the Queen: Send them to Europe. The rest of us live in a world of pretend. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |