Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Hope on November 21, 2016, 07:10:28 PM
-
Could have sworn there was a thread already on this, but can't find one.
This article makes interesting points
http://www.unilad.co.uk/pics/heres-how-much-money-the-queen-has-given-the-government/
-
iTmatters not one bean how much cash the unelected monarchy brings in - though I'd dispute the figures. No-one has actually given me a reasonable answer as to why I should defer to a person whose rank, role, style and title were not earned or conferred, who has not been elected or chosen, but who holds her title because of an accident of birth.
-
You don't have to defer to the Queen, Anchorman, if you feel that way, but I don't see this thread has much to do with that. It's about who pays for the renovation of Buckingham Palace which doesn't belong to the Queen anyway though she does live in part of it.
That is a very interesting article, Hope, thanks.
-
With respect, Brownie, the fact of an unelected head of state has EVERYTHING to do with it. The present monarch has numerous places to plant herself - one less makes not a jot of difference. If the place falls to bits, then, let it. I understand tourists go wild for picturesque ruins.
-
I suggest you work out what amount of your tax goes towards the upkeep of Buckingham Palace and refuse to pay it. Joan Baez refused to pay the proportion of tax that went towards funding the Vietnam war and was prepared to go to prison for that. She was much admired and many would admire you for taking a similar stance on this issue.
-
We already have an official residence here - Holyroodhouse. We don't need to pay for one in London. Besides that, The monarchy is an irrelvence, anachronistic and no more than a tourist magnet for the gullible which serves no useful purpose.
-
We already have an official residence here - Holyroodhouse. We don't need to pay for one in London. Besides that, The monarchy is an irrelvence, anachronistic and no more than a tourist magnet for the gullible which serves no useful purpose.
Some might say that a tourist magnet is a useful purpose. Some might also say 'Christianity is an irrelevance, anachronistic and no more than a magnet for the gullible which serves no useful purpose.'
-
Some might say that a tourist magnet is a useful purpose. Some might also say 'Christianity is an irrelevance, anachronistic and no more than a magnet for the gullible which serves no useful purpose.'
I would say that.
-
I would say that.
How would such a thing arise in an evolutionary way then?
-
How would such a thing arise in an evolutionary way then?
NS
Half the population are stupid the other half don't know they are. Could that be a hypothesis? (see what I did there?)
-
NS: How would such a thing arise in an evolutionary way then?
Half the population are stupid the other half don't know they are. Could that be a hypothesis? (see what I did there?)
Think so, you used two question marks when one would do and it should be after the brackets?
Unless you were starting a new sentence, as an 'aside', hence the brackets, in which case, "See", would have a capital 'S'.
(A credible theory?)
-
iTmatters not one bean how much cash the unelected monarchy brings in - though I'd dispute the figures. No-one has actually given me a reasonable answer as to why I should defer to a person whose rank, role, style and title were not earned or conferred, who has not been elected or chosen, but who holds her title because of an accident of birth.
That is a very different discussion to that of the cost of renovating Buck House, Jim. Remember that Buck House actually belongs to the nation, not the monarch.
-
With respect, Brownie, the fact of an unelected head of state has EVERYTHING to do with it. The present monarch has numerous places to plant herself - one less makes not a jot of difference. If the place falls to bits, then, let it. I understand tourists go wild for picturesque ruins.
Unfortunately, Jim, whether or not the head of state is a monarch or president, (s)he will need a building that will serve as an official residence, as a focus for state events (such as visits from other heads of state) and as a focus for the British people (or whoever is left after any independence votes). As things stand, that needs to be in London (or in any independent nation Edinburgh or Cardiff). Even if they were to find an alternative, is allowing a place such as Buck House to go to ruin good strategy when it could be converted - in time - into accommodation for the homeless or the 'just managing'?
-
We already have an official residence here - Holyroodhouse. We don't need to pay for one in London. Besides that, The monarchy is an irrelvence, anachronistic and no more than a tourist magnet for the gullible which serves no useful purpose.
And what relevance does a president or some other sort of head of state have? Perhaps the Prime Minister (be that of the UK, or Scotland/England/Wales) should be the head of state.
-
There are plenty of historic piles which can serve as backdrops for chocolate box touristy flummery, Hope. The place on the Mall is one too many. As far as the debate over monarchy versus republic goes? Yes, a figurehead rubber stamp is needed for state rigmarole. However a figurehead rubber stamp elected by, and responsible to, the people is worthy of respect. A figurehead rubber stamp by accident of genetics is not.
-
It will cost an estimated £369 million to refurbish Buckingham Palace (Mail), but the final bill will probably top £400 million. What a scandalous waste.
The Queen and her entourage should be moved into a five-star London hotel while the crumbling edifice is razed.
A modern 20-bed palace could be built with sufficient grounds to ensure privacy. The rest of the site should then be turned into gardens, open to the public free of charge.
A slimmed-down palace should be home to a slimmed-down Royal Family, with the rest of the toadies and hangers-on shunted onto the labour market to stack shelves at Tesco. This is the 21st century, not the 18th.
The days-of-Empire excess and pomp are long gone.
Prince Charles won’t like it, but he is free to go anywhere else and build his own pad — using his own money. The Outer Hebrides should suit him nicely.... ;D ;D
-
I agree with many of those sentiments, there are too many non-essential Royals, but it could be argued that Buckingham Palace is more than just a home for the Queen. It's also a tourist attraction and venue for entertaining foreign dignitaries (but not a particularly comfortable place to live by all accounts)
-
I agree with many of those sentiments, there are too many non-essential Royals, but it could be argued that Buckingham Palace is more than just a home for the Queen. It's also a tourist attraction and venue for entertaining foreign dignitaries (but not a particularly comfortable place to live by all accounts)
I suppose that Buckingham Palace could also be seen as a (very comfortable) prison for a 90-year old woman who due to the circumstances of her birth enjoys few of the personal freedoms the rest of us enjoy. Roll on the Republic. Discuss.
-
It will cost an estimated £369 million to refurbish Buckingham Palace (Mail), but the final bill will probably top £400 million. What a scandalous waste.
The Queen and her entourage should be moved into a five-star London hotel while the crumbling edifice is razed.
A modern 20-bed palace could be built with sufficient grounds to ensure privacy. The rest of the site should then be turned into gardens, open to the public free of charge.
A slimmed-down palace should be home to a slimmed-down Royal Family, with the rest of the toadies and hangers-on shunted onto the labour market to stack shelves at Tesco. This is the 21st century, not the 18th.
The days-of-Empire excess and pomp are long gone.
Prince Charles won’t like it, but he is free to go anywhere else and build his own pad — using his own money. The Outer Hebrides should suit him nicely.... ;D ;D
[/quote
OY!
What have the Hebridies done to deserve Chairlie Windsor?
Living less than three miles from his pet project of Dunfries House, we see enough of the twit here!
Can I respectfully suggest that he be redirected to Rockall?
-
iTmatters not one bean how much cash the unelected monarchy brings in - though I'd dispute the figures. No-one has actually given me a reasonable answer as to why I should defer to a person whose rank, role, style and title were not earned or conferred, who has not been elected or chosen, but who holds her title because of an accident of birth.
GOD a good enough reason for you?
King James Bible
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Our Queen also believes and serves our God as King David and Christ the King of the eternal Kingdom did.
May be sometimes you should know the powers that be are ordained of God.
But how can people who allow children and their families to be thrown on he street really understand how the world works?
-
I suppose that Buckingham Palace could also be seen as a (very comfortable) prison for a 90-year old woman who due to the circumstances of her birth enjoys few of the personal freedoms the rest of us enjoy. Roll on the Republic. Discuss.
I thinks lot of people (myself included) have a lot of respect for the present monarch. I think when she shuffles off this mortal coil a republic will become a very real possibility.
-
GOD a good enough reason for you?
King James Bible
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Our Queen also believes and serves our God as King David and Christ the King of the eternal Kingdom did.
May be sometimes you should know the powers that be are ordained of God.
But how can people who allow children and their families to be thrown on he street really understand how the world works?
Sass: Brenda Windsor is a cypgher, a rubber stamp.
The monarchs of this so-called UK have had no real authority since Brandy Nan - who was the last to try and gainsay the will of the people.
The last twit who tried to asssert James VI's 'divine right of Kings' - Charles I - had his head chopped off for his troubles.
By the way, you DO know that James VI skewed his translation of Scripture - your beloved KJV - to suit his idea of kingship, don't you?
Why do you think it took an Act of Parliament to force the Church of Scotland to abandon the Geneva Bible and use James' adulterated effort?
-
I think, Sass, that you are under the misapprehension that the attitude toward the monarch is the same throughout the so-called UK - you are wrong, for all sorts of historical reasons. For starters, when the king was king of Scots alone, even then he was little more than first among equals with his court. The line of child monarchs ensured a semi-independent attitude persisted in Scotland, rather than the centralised monarchical power in England. At the Reformation, the monarch was never head or governor of the church in Scotland - When Charles I tried to be so, the war of the three kingdoms - sometimes called the English civil war - was the result. With monarchs reigning from London and abandoning Scotland, the populous became even less inclined to defer to an authority which was increasingly remote - and the cynical attitude remains. It might be worth noting that when the monarch opens Westminster's parliament, she sits on a throne on a dais above her' subjects'. In Scotland, when the monarch attends the 'riding of parliament', she sits on a chair beside the presiding officer as the MSPs gaze down on her.
-
May be sometimes you should know the powers that be
Just who are 'the powers that be'??
-
Sass: Brenda Windsor is a cypgher, a rubber stamp.
The monarchs of this so-called UK have had no real authority since Brandy Nan - who was the last to try and gainsay the will of the people.
The last twit who tried to asssert James VI's 'divine right of Kings' - Charles I - had his head chopped off for his troubles.
UK PARLIAMENT (CC)
The Royal Prerogative are a set number of powers and privileges held by The Queen as part of the British constitution. Nowadays, a lot of these powers are exercised on Her Majesty’s behalf by ministers – things such as issuing or withdrawing passports that, without the Royal Prerogative, would require an act of parliament each time.
Over time, the prerogative powers have been used less and less though the important thing in our Constitutional Monarchy is that they still exist, they remain a means of protecting democracy in this country ensuring that no one can simply seize power.
Victorian constitutionalist Walter Bagehot defined The Queen’s rights as, the right ‘to be consulted, to encourage and to warn’ – but these rights are not the same as her powers, as we will now see.
The Queen’s prerogative powers vary and fall into different categories…
POLITICAL POWERS
The Queen’s political powers nowadays are largely ceremonial, though some are actively used by The Queen such as at General Elections or are available in times of crisis and some are used by Ministers for expediency when needed.
Summoning/Proroguing Parliament – The Queen has the power to prorogue (suspend) and to summon (call back) Parliament – prorogation typically happens at the end of a parliamentary session, and the summoning occurs shortly after, when The Queen attends the State Opening of Parliament.
Royal Assent – It is The Queen’s right and responsibility to grant assent to bills from Parliament, signing them into law. Whilst, in theory, she could decide to refuse assent, the last Monarch to do this was Queen Anne in 1708.
Secondary Legislation – The Queen can create Orders-in-Council and Letters Patent, that regulate parts to do with the Crown, such as precedence, titles. Orders in Council are often used by Ministers nowadays to bring Acts of Parliament into law.
Appoint/Remove Ministers – Her Majesty also has the power to appoint and remove Ministers of the Crown.
Appointing the Prime Minister – The Queen is responsible for appointing the Prime Minister after a general election or a resignation, in a General Election The Queen will appoint the candidate who is likely to have the most support of the House of Commons. In the event of a resignation, The Queen listens to advice on who should be appointed as their successor.
Declaration of War – The Sovereign retains the power to declare war against other nations, though in practice this is done by the Prime Minister and Parliament of the day.
Freedom From Prosecution – Under British law, The Queen is above the law and cannot be prosecuted – she is also free from civil action.
JUDICIAL POWERS
The Queen’s judicial powers are now very minimal, and there is only really one which is used on a regular basis, with others having been delegated to judges and parliament through time.
Royal Pardon – The Royal Pardon was originally used to retract death sentences against those wrongly convicted. It is now used to correct errors in sentencing and was recently used to give a posthumous pardon to WW2 codebreaker, Alan Turing.
ARMED FORCES
The Queen’s powers in the Armed Forces are usually used on the advice of Generals and Parliament though some functions are retained by The Queen herself nowadays.
Commander-in-Chief – The Queen is commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces and all members swear an oath of allegiance to The Queen when they join; they are Her Majesty’s Armed Forces.
Commissioning of Officers – The Queen’s powers include the commissioning of officers into the Armed Forces and also removing commissions (when members of the Armed Forces salute and officers, they are saluting The Queen’s commission).
Disposition of the Forces – The organisation and disposition of the Armed Forces are part of the Royal Prerogative; the crown technically controls how the Armed Forces are used.
HONOURS
One of the main prerogative powers that are still used personally by The Queen these days is the power to grant honours. As all honours derive from the Crown, The Queen has the final say on knighthoods, peerages and the like.
Creation of Peerages – The Queen may create a peerage for any person – whether a life peerage or hereditary one, though hereditary peerages haven’t been issued for decades outside of the Royal Family.
Font of Honour – It is The Queen’s prerogative power to create orders of knighthood and to grant any citizen honours. From the Royal Victorian Order to the Order of the Garter.
MISCELLANEOUS POWERS
Other powers Her Majesty holds include:
Control of Passports – The issuing and withdrawal of passports are within the Royal Prerogative – this is often used by ministers on behalf of The Queen. All British passports are issued in The Queen’s name.
Requisitioning of Ships – This power allows a ship to be commandeered in Her Majesty’s name for service to the realm. This power was used on the QE2 to take troops to the Falklands after the Argentine invasion in 1982.
By the way, you DO know that James VI skewed his translation of Scripture - your beloved KJV - to suit his idea of kingship, don't you?
Why do you think it took an Act of Parliament to force the Church of Scotland to abandon the Geneva Bible and use James' adulterated effort?
Do you know that the Holy Spirit gives people the truth in the Kingdom of God.
John 16:13
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
If they are not born of Spirit and Truth no version can save or help you.
Do you see how far off the track of truth you are?
-
I think, Sass, that you are under the misapprehension that the attitude toward the monarch is the same throughout the so-called UK - you are wrong, for all sorts of historical reasons. For starters, when the king was king of Scots alone, even then he was little more than first among equals with his court. The line of child monarchs ensured a semi-independent attitude persisted in Scotland, rather than the centralised monarchical power in England. At the Reformation, the monarch was never head or governor of the church in Scotland - When Charles I tried to be so, the war of the three kingdoms - sometimes called the English civil war - was the result. With monarchs reigning from London and abandoning Scotland, the populous became even less inclined to defer to an authority which was increasingly remote - and the cynical attitude remains. It might be worth noting that when the monarch opens Westminster's parliament, she sits on a throne on a dais above her' subjects'. In Scotland, when the monarch attends the 'riding of parliament', she sits on a chair beside the presiding officer as the MSPs gaze down on her.
It means nothing regarding the truth that she is on the throne because God put her there.
You waffle far too much and what you say adds nothing and takes away nothing from that truth. It has been God who has used our country to bring his words to pass in the past.
But in Christ, there is no East or West, in him, no South or North, just one great fellowship of love throughout the whole wide world.
People fear Christians as they feared the Jews and we see that people hated them being prosperous and feared they might over take them. Jesus loves us and he cares a great deal about us. Why is it you cannot see beyond your own human reasoning?
-
You waffle far too much
where is Shaker with his patented irony meter when you need him?
-
God put her there, Sass? Did the God - who is without error - have an off day when he planted Edward (not the) VII on the throne....the same llethario who had had more mistresses than I've had hot dinners....and invited them for a front row seat when the bishop put the bling on his bonce in the Abbey? The same king who was head of a church yet maintained a mistress till the day he snuffed it (That mistress being Camilla Parker wotsit's great great granny, by the way)? The God who is without error who put a coward like George V on the throne, who in an un-Christ like act refused the Soviet governments offer to have his own cousin, his wife and children as refugees, thus condemning them to death? And don't even start me on Edward VIII Either these were men put on an unelected position by men, or God had an off day. There is nothing of God in an unelected powerless rubber stamp of an anachronistic throwback.
-
There are plenty of historic piles which can serve as backdrops for chocolate box touristy flummery, Hope. The place on the Mall is one too many. As far as the debate over monarchy versus republic goes? Yes, a figurehead rubber stamp is needed for state rigmarole. However a figurehead rubber stamp elected by, and responsible to, the people is worthy of respect. A figurehead rubber stamp by accident of genetics is not.
But Buck House actually belongs to the nation, not to the monarchy. Shouldn't it therefore be the one that is done up and improved rather than any other? As you say, you have a place up in Edinburgh - Holyroodhouse - which I assume belongs to the people of the UK (or at least Scotland); are you saying you'd happily see that fall into ruin?
edit: I see from wikipedia, that HRH is owned by the Crown, not the people. but my point stands.
-
#24 Thanks for the cut-and- paste synopsis of the bilge that passes for a constitution in this disunited kingdom, Sass. As God gives me strength, I'll continue to treat it with the disrespect it deserves.
-
But Buck House actually belongs to the nation, not to the monarchy. Shouldn't it therefore be the one that is done up and improved rather than any other? As you say, you have a place up in Edinburgh - Holyrood - which I assume belongs to the people of the UK (or at least Scotland); are you saying you'd happily see that fall into ruin?
If it belongs to the English nation, give it to the English National trust - they look after redundant ancestral piles for tourists, don't they? (The reference to 'English national trust' was not meant to be Anglophobic - the National trust for Scotland has always operated seperately)
-
God put her there, Sass? Did the God - who is without error - have an off day when he planted Edward (not the) VII on the throne....the same llethario who had had more mistresses than I've had hot dinners....and invited them for a front row seat when the bishop put the bling on his bonce in the Abbey? The same king who was head of a church yet maintained a mistress till the day he snuffed it (That mistress being Camilla Parker wotsit's great great granny, by the way)? The God who is without error who put a coward like George V on the throne, who in an un-Christ like act refused the Soviet governments offer to have his own cousin, his wife and children as refugees, thus condemning them to death? And don't even start me on Edward VIII Either these were men put on an unelected position by men, or God had an off day. There is nothing of God in an unelected powerless rubber stamp of an anachronistic throwback.
;D ;D
Ah, a mighty fine thing to see Jim flow
-
You aint seen nuffin yet, Torridon! By the way, I've just watched Tory sycophant Michael Forsyth congratulating himself on returning stolen property to Scotland....the lump of stone Longshanks nicked and planted in Westminster... Now it's with the Honours in the crown room in Edinburgh Castle, it doesn't seem so important....a bit like the Windsor shower, really.
-
20 years on since the return of stolen property.... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-38131633
-
Sotrry, I won't comment on individuals (Though, having met Chairlie a few times, I might.....) I reserve the right to pour scorn, ridicule and disdain on the unearned, unelected roles they claim, though.
-
There are plenty of historic piles which can serve as backdrops for chocolate box touristy flummery, Hope. The place on the Mall is one too many. As far as the debate over monarchy versus republic goes? Yes, a figurehead rubber stamp is needed for state rigmarole. However a figurehead rubber stamp elected by, and responsible to, the people is worthy of respect. A figurehead rubber stamp by accident of genetics is not.
If it's just a " rubber stamp", what does it matter? It makesnot one jot of difference. Either way, it's a pretty pricey rubber stamp.
-
I'm a republican and think we were no more than lucky to have Betty 2 as head of state, she's made a really good job of it, not perfect, but pretty near.
I wonder if we'll manage to have much more luck with whoever the next one happens to be, big ears no doubt.
Why should we have to suffer this continual indignity? It's a really good system being reliant on luck in preference to merit.
ippy
-
I'm a republican and think we were no more than lucky to have Betty 2 as head of state, she's made a really good job of it, not perfect, but pretty near.
I wonder if we'll manage to have much more luck with whoever the next one happens to be, big ears no doubt.
Why should we have to suffer this continual indignity? It's a really good system being reliant on luck in preference to merit.
ippy
Long live Good Queen Beth I say. but King Big Ears does not inspire confidence.
Possibly marginally better than President Blair?
-
Long live Good Queen Beth I say. but King Big Ears does not inspire confidence.
Possibly marginally better than President Blair?
I'm no monarchist - far from it - but are we really being fair to Charles?
He is clearly a man of some intelligence but he has been forced to spend decades doing nothing. His constitutional role is to hang around until his mother's heart stops. He will then step from a position of having nothing to do to a position where he can have no opinion about anything. The general perception of him has been largely manufactured by "newspapers" (like the Mail and the Express) who see their appointed mission as disguising scurrilous nonsense as news. He was encouraged (almost an arranged marriage) to marry an upper-class bimbo for dynastic reasons. His own choice was not virgo intacta and thus ineligible for consideration.
He should have been given a real job somewhere (not just in the armed services) so that he could see how the real world works. It would have kept him focussed, he could have developed, used and tested skills and kept him out of the limelight which enabled the world to observe him engaged for decades in complex thumb twiddling. But who knows, for the relatively short period he will occupy the throne, he may well be as "exemplary" as has been his mother.
He may well surprise us all by announcing the termination of the monarchy. If so - with luck - he will be followed by a non-executive president who will be the choice of the populace.
Step forward President Farage.
-
Step forward President Farage.
I was having quite a good day.
Thank you for putting a thought in my head that spoiled that feeling >:(
-
I'm a republican and think we were no more than lucky to have Betty 2 as head of state, she's made a really good job of it, not perfect, but pretty near.
I wonder if we'll manage to have much more luck with whoever the next one happens to be, big ears no doubt.
Why should we have to suffer this continual indignity? It's a really good system being reliant on luck in preference to merit.
ippy
[/quote
Betty 2?
Of what, Ippy?
-
I'm no monarchist - far from it - but are we really being fair to Charles?
He is clearly a man of some intelligence but he has been forced to spend decades doing nothing. His constitutional role is to hang around until his mother's heart stops. He will then step from a position of having nothing to do to a position where he can have no opinion about anything. The general perception of him has been largely manufactured by "newspapers" (like the Mail and the Express) who see their appointed mission as disguising scurrilous nonsense as news. He was encouraged (almost an arranged marriage) to marry an upper-class bimbo for dynastic reasons. His own choice was not virgo intacta and thus ineligible for consideration.
He should have been given a real job somewhere (not just in the armed services) so that he could see how the real world works. It would have kept him focussed, he could have developed, used and tested skills and kept him out of the limelight which enabled the world to observe him engaged for decades in complex thumb twiddling. But who knows, for the relatively short period he will occupy the throne, he may well be as "exemplary" as has been his mother.
Charles certainly come-across as an idiot, but the worrying part is the fact that he has been 'dabbling' in politics and has signalled that he intends to do so in future when he is King. That kind of behaviour is unacceptable for a constitutional monarch.
He may well surprise us all by announcing the termination of the monarchy. If so - with luck - he will be followed by a non-executive president who will be the choice of the populace.
I don't think it is in the power of a monarch to abolish the monarchy itself, though they can of course abdicate.
Step forward President Farage.
Quick - pass the sick-bucket
-
God put her there, Sass? Did the God - who is without error - have an off day when he planted Edward (not the) VII on the throne....the same llethario who had had more mistresses than I've had hot dinners....and invited them for a front row seat when the bishop put the bling on his bonce in the Abbey? The same king who was head of a church yet maintained a mistress till the day he snuffed it (That mistress being Camilla Parker wotsit's great great granny, by the way)? The God who is without error who put a coward like George V on the throne, who in an un-Christ like act refused the Soviet governments offer to have his own cousin, his wife and children as refugees, thus condemning them to death? And don't even start me on Edward VIII Either these were men put on an unelected position by men, or God had an off day. There is nothing of God in an unelected powerless rubber stamp of an anachronistic throwback.
God works in mysterious ways.
-
I was having quite a good day.
Thank you for putting a thought in my head that spoiled that feeling >:(
Sorry about that, Trent. It was an attempt at irony.
-
Charles certainly come-across as an idiot, but the worrying part is the fact that he has been 'dabbling' in politics and has signalled that he intends to do so in future when he is King. That kind of behaviour is unacceptable for a constitutional monarch.
I agree entirely.
My point was that a man - possibly with usable skills and abilities - has been (constitutionally) abandoned to his own devices with nothing constructive to do except wait for his mother to drop dead. He should have been given something meaningful to do. I do recall - when he was a young adult - that he received a similar kind of press treatment to that of his elder son.
Another point to be considered is that by having this family operating as the figurehead of the state - we are doing them no favours and are denying them the opportunity to be normal people.
I don't think it is in the power of a monarch to abolish the monarchy itself, though they can of course abdicate.
I dare say Sassy might disagree. ::)
-
Another point to be considered is that by having this family operating as the figurehead of the state - we are doing them no favours and are denying them the opportunity to be normal people.
Possibly the strongest argument against monarchy is the huge burden it places on an individual who never asked for the job.
-
I'm a republican and think we were no more than lucky to have Betty 2 as head of state, she's made a really good job of it, not perfect, but pretty near.
I wonder if we'll manage to have much more luck with whoever the next one happens to be, big ears no doubt.
Why should we have to suffer this continual indignity? It's a really good system being reliant on luck in preference to merit.
ippy
[/quote
Betty 2?
Of what, Ippy?
Sorry Anchor, not cap in hand or reverential enough to our Betty?
ippy
-
Sorry Anchor, not cap in hand or reverential enough to our Betty?
ippy
I suspect Anchorman's point is that Scotland didn’t have Betty 1
-
It means nothing regarding the truth that she is on the throne because God put her there.
You waffle far too much and what you say adds nothing and takes away nothing from that truth. It has been God who has used our country to bring his words to pass in the past.
But in Christ, there is no East or West, in him, no South or North, just one great fellowship of love throughout the whole wide world.
People fear Christians as they feared the Jews and we see that people hated them being prosperous and feared they might over take them. Jesus loves us and he cares a great deal about us. Why is it you cannot see beyond your own human reasoning?
From Sass below, about our Betty, the Queenie:
"It means nothing regarding the truth that she is on the throne because God put her there".
Don't miss a single day of taking the tablets Sass.
ippy
-
I suspect Anchorman's point is that Scotland didn’t have Betty 1
Sorry, I live in the South East where we're inclined to think when Scotland is mentioned, oh yes Scotland, not meaning to be dismissive of them perhaps, wrongly, not thinking to include them; my apologies, no offence intended.
ippy
-
No prob, Ippy. As a Scot, I'm sorry for foisting the Stewart rabble onto you lot when your Lizzie didn't manage to get up the duff. NS is right, though - there was never a Lizzie I of the UK, so whatever Lizzie Windsor is 'II' of, it isn't 'britain'.
-
Is there not now a convention where the 'highest ' regnal number will be taken? So the next James will be James VIII for example even though England has never had a James III through VII.
-
Is there not now a convention where the 'highest ' regnal number will be taken? So the next James will be James VIII for example even though England has never had a James III through VII.
That was invented by Churchill in 1952, Seb.....to try and cool the ire of certain individuals north of the border - such as 'Wendy Wood' and her bombing campaign - dubbed 'the most polite terrorist in history' - when she and fellow idiots bombed empty post boxes with "EIIR" on them.
Hence there's only "ER" up here.
Before Lizzie planted her posterior on the stone, the ' british' establishment couldn't care less about what other nations fellt - hence William III (Dutch Billy) was William II of Scots, then Edward definately not VII, etc.
-
Seems like a reasonable compromise.
-
Why should there be any compromise? If James Stuart was James I of 'gret britain, then Billy the Dutchman should be William I,. Edward Saxe-Coburg Edward I, and Elizabeth Mountbatten Windsor should be Elizabeth I.
-
No prob, Ippy. As a Scot, I'm sorry for foisting the Stewart rabble onto you lot when your Lizzie didn't manage to get up the duff. NS is right, though - there was never a Lizzie I of the UK, so whatever Lizzie Windsor is 'II' of, it isn't 'britain'.
Love the sensitivity in your turn of phrase; I love Phill the Greek and Betty really.
ippy
-
Why should there be any compromise? If James Stuart was James I of 'gret britain, then Billy the Dutchman should be William I,. Edward Saxe-Coburg Edward I, and Elizabeth Mountbatten Windsor should be Elizabeth I.
Actually, James (6th of that name as far as Scotland is concerned) was the first of that name for England, as you well know, Jim. 'Gret Britain' didn't come into the picture until 170-odd years later.
-
'Jamie the saxt' made it well known that he wished to be known as King of Great Britain, Hope.
-
Here's a link from Britannic to illustrate James Stuart's style of titles. https://www.britannica.com/biography/James-I-king-of-England-and-Scotland
-
Why should there be any compromise? If James Stuart was James I of 'gret britain, then Billy the Dutchman should be William I,. Edward Saxe-Coburg Edward I, and Elizabeth Mountbatten Windsor should be Elizabeth I.
Let's compromise and agree to disagree!
-
Agreed - where the royal wasters are concerned, anything goes! English history is daft.....it ignores King Louis, for starters 'cos he was politically inconvenient - whilst styling Longshanks Edward I - when the bloomin place had already had THREE Edwards before him! )Scotland, of course, similarly tried to gloss over the fact that we, too, had an Edward - Balliol - a puppet foisted on us by the auld enemy who was about twice as useless as Toom Tabard!
-
God put her there, Sass? Did the God - who is without error - have an off day when he planted Edward (not the) VII on the throne....the same llethario who had had more mistresses than I've had hot dinners....and invited them for a front row seat when the bishop put the bling on his bonce in the Abbey? The same king who was head of a church yet maintained a mistress till the day he snuffed it (That mistress being Camilla Parker wotsit's great great granny, by the way)? The God who is without error who put a coward like George V on the throne, who in an un-Christ like act refused the Soviet governments offer to have his own cousin, his wife and children as refugees, thus condemning them to death? And don't even start me on Edward VIII Either these were men put on an unelected position by men, or God had an off day. There is nothing of God in an unelected powerless rubber stamp of an anachronistic throwback.
So who is worse Satan or any man in history?
You see how senseless and how far away from God and who he is, your thoughts are?
What about Saul and David.... do yourself a favour. Having shot yourself in the foot best to close your mouth before you put your foot in it.
My God knows the end from the beginning. Do you think he chose and made them do what they did? Why do all things work together for good with those who love God?
Who made you judge of men you have never even known or met?
Who made you judge of God? Be quiet till you know whom you are talking about.
-
#24 Thanks for the cut-and- paste synopsis of the bilge that passes for a constitution in this disunited kingdom, Sass. As God gives me strength, I'll continue to treat it with the disrespect it deserves.
Jealousy is never good. But i SEE you have let yourself look stupid and even insulted the God who made us. How much can you get wrong in one thread?
-
;D ;D
Ah, a mighty fine thing to see Jim flow
Fools seldom differ comes to mind...
-
Sotrry, I won't comment on individuals (Though, having met Chairlie a few times, I might.....) I reserve the right to pour scorn, ridicule and disdain on the unearned, unelected roles they claim, though.
You have not earned your right to represent God or Faith in Christ.
So I would watch out, God just might let everyone else know this too.
-
Jealousy is never good. But i SEE you have let yourself look stupid and even insulted the God who made us. How much can you get wrong in one thread?
Hmmmmm.....
I'll stick with the Covenanters, thanks.
Their slogan "We have no king, save Christ!" works for me.
It seemed to govern my ancestor, James Brown of Priesthill, as well.
He believed in a church and state free from royal interferance.
He was shot in front of his wife and children for adhering to Christ, rather than crown.
Google "the Christian Carrier"....it might help a tad.
-
.... or render to Caesar that which is Caesar's and render to God that which is God's.