Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Steve H on October 21, 2017, 10:47:36 AM
-
The subject of the monarchy came up on another thread. Floo posted one of her trenchantly intellectual comments defending it, while others like me, thought that it should be scrapped. I have no grudge against the individual members of the royal family, though they are a pretty mediocre lot judged as ordinary individuals, but surely a hereditary head of state is an anomaly in a democracy in the present age. Heads of state and government should be directly elected, either as such or at least as an MP (as our prime minsters are). If anyone wants to defend the monarchy, please go ahead, as that's what this thread is for, but please don't come out with the tired old second-hand joke that the best argument against republicanism is two words - "President Thatcher" (or Blair, depending on your politics. Thatcher and Blair, whatever their faults, were elected, and were evwentually got rid of. Anyway, the Prime Minister, as head of government, has the real power in this country, the Queen being a mere figurehead.
-
yes, we the people choose our government but the Monarch is chosen by God . You wouldn't want to get involved in that would you?
-
It ain't broke; don't fix it.
If you want to abolish the monarchy, then something better, as colourful, as loved, as envied by others, as traditional, as stable, as fee from mammothly expensive electioneering, as anti-drab, as tourist-attracting, as able to back up trade by association, with as many links to historical events and properties, as photogenic, etc, will be required.
Oh, yes, I meant to add - your post sounds as if it is written by a killjoy (I used this word, I think it was this anyway, the last time the subject came up. :) )
-
It ain't broke; don't fix it.
If you want to abolish the monarchy, then something better, as colourful, as loved, as envied by others, as traditional, as stable, as fee from mammothly expensive electioneering, as anti-drab, as tourist-attracting, as able to back up trade by association, with as many links to historical events and properties, as photogenic, etc, will be required.
Oh, yes, I meant to add - your post sounds as if it is written by a killjoy (I used this word, I think it was this anyway, the last time the subject came up. :) )
Nice post, plenty of flourish.
-
Yep - bin it: just get rid of this odious anachronism - by this afternoon would be good.
-
The subject of the monarchy came up on another thread. Floo posted one of her trenchantly intellectual comments defending it, while others like me, thought that it should be scrapped. I have no grudge against the individual members of the royal family, though they are a pretty mediocre lot judged as ordinary individuals, but surely a hereditary head of state is an anomaly in a democracy in the present age. Heads of state and government should be directly elected, either as such or at least as an MP (as our prime minsters are). If anyone wants to defend the monarchy, please go ahead, as that's what this thread is for, but please don't come out with the tired old second-hand joke that the best argument against republicanism is two words - "President Thatcher" (or Blair, depending on your politics. Thatcher and Blair, whatever their faults, were elected, and were evwentually got rid of. Anyway, the Prime Minister, as head of government, has the real power in this country, the Queen being a mere figurehead.
Why does everyone always assume that a replacement for the monarchy must be an executive president? Just because some countries (eg USA, France) have executive presidencies the lazy conclusion is that all countries must have them.
Have a look at Germany or Ireland or even Russia, and tell me whether the presidents of those countries have any real executive power?
We already, in the monarchy have a suitable model for a presidency. Let's not define Head of State as the result of some random act of coitus but as a temporary reward for someone who has brought great credit to the country - say, David Attenborough or Simon Rattle or J K Rowling?
-
Don't replace it: just get rid and ensure that in future all who hold any political office are elected, and that there are regular re-elections.
-
Why does everyone always assume that a replacement for the monarchy must be an executive president? Just because some countries (eg USA, France) have executive presidencies the lazy conclusion is that all countries must have them.
Have a look at Germany or Ireland or even Russia, and tell me whether the presidents of those countries have any real executive power?
We already, in the monarchy have a suitable model for a presidency. Let's not define Head of State as the result of some random act of coitus but as a temporary reward for someone who has brought great credit to the country - say, David Attenborough or Simon Rattle or J K Rowling?
Yes, quite - one can also have a figurehead elected President, with the Prime Minister holding the real power. That is also the Israeli model.
Also, the top bod doesn't have to be called "President": how about reviving "Lord Protector"?
-
I find the monarchy very interesting, more so as I have got older, and the Queen is great. I'd feel sad if they were abolished but can't see that happening.
-
I find the monarchy very interesting, more so as I have got older, and the Queen is great. I'd feel sad if they were abolished but can't see that happening.
When we eventually get an independent Scotland I think within 5 years at most we'd ditch the monarchy.
-
Don't replace it: just get rid and ensure that in future all who hold any political office are elected, and that there are regular re-elections.
What a dreary, colourless, boring country we would then be.
-
What a dreary, colourless, boring country we would then be.
Not really, Susan: there is much to enjoy without that bunch of useless hangers-on and the sycophancy that surrounds them. There is already more than enough history to keep the tourists coming (assuming they like that sort of thing).
-
When we eventually get an independent Scotland I think within 5 years at most we'd ditch the monarchy.
Get ready for Queen Nicola Krankie STURGEON
-
Doubt the monarchy will be ditched, too many people find the institution interesting. I suppose if Scotland became independent it would have the choice to do so - though the royal family adore Scotland! That's up to the Scots though.
I think the royals are great, love seeing them on TV and reading about them. I must be getting old.
-
Get rid.
Not only are they almost by design a feckless and parasitic brood of dreary emotional cripples, but the idea that the hereditary principle is still accepted as the basis for anything in 2017 is an absurdity I can't get over.
Tony Benn said it best as he usually did: who would stay in the chair if your dentist, by the time he had his fingers and instruments in your mouth, revealed that he personally wasn't a dentist but his father was?
As someone once said apropos something else, they order these things better in France. And Russia, while we're at it.
-
Yep - bin it: just get rid of this odious anachronism - by this afternoon would be good.
It's not odious. It might be an anachronism but then so is Windsor Castle and nobody is suggesting we pull that down and replace it with modern buildings.
We have a constitutional head of state whose powers are tightly constrained by the constitution. I see no point in wasting our time having elections.
-
I can't see the Monarchy being abolished in the foreseeable future, I hope it isn't. The Royal Family and their trappings are attractive to tourists. I reckon our friends across the Atlantic Ocean wouldn't mind having their own Monarchy. ;D
-
I can't see the Monarchy being abolished in the foreseeable future, I hope it isn't. The Royal Family and their trappings are attractive to tourists.
You do realise that the overwhelming majority of these tourists never actually see these ghastly stiffs in person, don't you? They come to gawp and take snaps of their obscenely many, obscenely large and frequently ugly homes.
I reckon our friends across the Atlantic Ocean wouldn't mind having their own Monarchy. ;D
Reckon on what basis?
-
You do realise that the overwhelming majority of these tourists never actually see these ghastly stiffs in person,
I doubt if you have either, so why insult them? It makes you look bitter and envious rather than a rational republican.
They come to gawp and take snaps of their obscenely many, obscenely large and frequently ugly homes.
Reckon on what basis?
Which of their homes are ugly? Which are obscenely large?
-
I doubt if you have either
I have no need or desire to do so, not being the fawning and forelock-tugging type.
so why insult them?
I enjoy invective against things I don't like. That's its purpose. That's what it's for.
It makes you look bitter and envious rather than a rational republican.
Envious, absolutely not. Not bitter either. You mistake dislike for bitterness and envy, much as in other contexts many people make the same error of mistaking dislike for fear.
Which of their homes are ugly?
Buckingham Palace and Sandringham especially.
Which are obscenely large?
All of them.
-
I used to be an ardent republican as a youngster, now that I have more important things to worry about, less so.
My understanding is that Chuck has announced that the House of Windsor will end with his mum, and that he intends to begin the dynasty of Mountbatten-Windsor. Whilst I won't be standing outside the home that is rented from the Duke of Westminster when that happens, I won't be spending the day in Calais either.
-
My understanding is that Chuck has announced that the House of Windsor will end with his mum
Yay!
he intends to begin the dynasty of Mountbatten-Windsor.
Ah shit. At least give people the bad news first >:(
-
It's not odious. It might be an anachronism but then so is Windsor Castle and nobody is suggesting we pull that down and replace it with modern buildings.
We have a constitutional head of state whose powers are tightly constrained by the constitution. I see no point in wasting our time having elections.
Exactly. Well said.
(Yah boo to the killjoys!)
-
It's not odious. It might be an anachronism but then so is Windsor Castle and nobody is suggesting we pull that down and replace it with modern buildings.
Castles can stay. They're part of the nation's historical and archaeological heritage; and they can, and do, rake in tourist cash (if that's your concern, as it seems to be with so many) without the profligate inbreds still inside them.
-
We sat behind Prince Charles at a performance of Macbeth in Stratford a few years back, his height and ears were a big nuisance. Get rid.
We could replace them by choosing, say, a hundred adults at random and have them fight it out to be king/queen for the next 10 years ... much more entertaining .. like GoT. They get all the trappings but no power and have to agree to be filmed 24x7 ... and executed if they get too boring (hmm.. is that too far?)
Bread and circuses. ;D
-
I have no need or desire to do so, not being the fawning and forelock-tugging type.I enjoy invective against things I don't like. That's its purpose. That's what it's for.Envious, absolutely not. Not bitter either. You mistake dislike for bitterness and envy, much as in other contexts many people make the same error of mistaking dislike for fear. Buckingham Palace and Sandringham especially.
All of them.
Your words may not be envy, but have you considered that they are rather selfish? since there is very far from being an overwhelming majority for abolishing the monarchy, what about the feelings and wishes of those people who think it is just right? It is no good saying that they are sycophants; I for one am most certainly not.
-
Your words may not be envy, but have you considered that they are rather selfish? since there is very far from being an overwhelming majority for abolishing the monarchy, what about the feelings and wishes of those people who think it is just right?
These things are subject to the shifting sands of time, alias changing social demographics. I haven't checked the most recent figures (I'm going off to see if I can find the stats I want) but I will stick my neck out and say that I very strongly suspect that support for the monarchy mirrors religious affiliation, i.e. a feature of older rather than younger age groups. If I'm right in this - I don't know but I think I am - then as with religion, we can expect to see support for the monarchy dwindle over time.
It is no good saying that they are sycophants; I for one am most certainly not.
I don't know any other term for people who support an institution comprised of people who occupy their massively privileged position due entirely to what an earlier poster called a random act of coitus.
-
I enjoy invective against things I don't like. That's its purpose.
Yes, but if you are trying to put together a reasoned argument about why something should be different, it just makes you look like a bitter arsehole.
Envious, absolutely not.
But that is not what it looks like.
You mistake dislike for bitterness and envy
I don't think I do, actually. You are quite capable of arguing against things you don't like without descending to insults under most circumstances, so I have to assume you have a special hatred for the monarchy.
Buckingham Palace and Sandringham especially.
Buck House is not ugly. I admit I don't know what Sandringham looks like, so it could well be ugly.
All of them.
I don't think so. Don't forget, they are mostly not just private residences.
-
My understanding is that Chuck has announced that the House of Windsor will end with his mum, and that he intends to begin the dynasty of Mountbatten-Windsor.
The House of Windsor was just a rebranding exercise. Technically, we still in the Sax Coburg Gotha dynasty. Naturally, during the First World War, the idea that the Royal Family's name was German was not popular.
-
Yes, but if you are trying to put together a reasoned argument
Which on the current thread let alone others on the same subject I believe I have, in #14 and #26 -
about why something should be different, it just makes you look like a bitter arsehole.
That's only your interpretation.
But that is not what it looks like.
As is that.
I don't think I do, actually. You are quite capable of arguing against things you don't like without descending to insults under most circumstances, so I have to assume you have a special hatred for the monarchy.
No more or less special than my other hatreds. The current thread is about the monarchy, though. Get me on a thread about Islamism, genital mutilation, the Roman Catholic Church, animal cruelty, the Conservative Party and a hundred and one other things and you'll see far worse.
Buck House is not ugly.
I think it is.
I admit I don't know what Sandringham looks like, so it could well be ugly.I don't think so.
If you don't know (I do - I've been there, against my will) where does the I don't think so come from?
This a house so vast that one monarch (can't recall which one but it may have been either George V or VI) wouldn't actually live in it day to day and moved himself and queenie into a small(er) cottage in the grounds, smaller in Sandringham terms meaning somewhere where umpteen homeless people could be housed.
Don't forget, they are mostly not just private residences.
Some are; and in any case, whether they are or are not, this has no bearing on their architectural obnoxiousness, number or size.
-
The subject of the monarchy came up on another thread. Floo posted one of her trenchantly intellectual comments defending it, while others like me, thought that it should be scrapped. I have no grudge against the individual members of the royal family, though they are a pretty mediocre lot judged as ordinary individuals, but surely a hereditary head of state is an anomaly in a democracy in the present age. Heads of state and government should be directly elected, either as such or at least as an MP (as our prime minsters are). If anyone wants to defend the monarchy, please go ahead, as that's what this thread is for, but please don't come out with the tired old second-hand joke that the best argument against republicanism is two words - "President Thatcher" (or Blair, depending on your politics. Thatcher and Blair, whatever their faults, were elected, and were evwentually got rid of. Anyway, the Prime Minister, as head of government, has the real power in this country, the Queen being a mere figurehead.
Too often, the debate descends into personality.
I, too, have no issue with any of those members of Elizabeth Mountbatten Windsor's clan.
I've even met a few - and applaud Charles work on projects such as Dumfries House.
However, I fail to see why we should defer to anyone because of a title conferred by genetics; nor why members of the police, hudiciary, forces, etc, should swear allegiance to an individual with no realauthority.
I can't see why an elected figurehead president with non-executive status is so wrong. It works perfectly well in many counties; Ireland, Finland, Poland and Germany to name but four.
-
Quite.
-
I find the monarchy very interesting, more so as I have got older, and the Queen is great. I'd feel sad if they were abolished but can't see that happening.
Elizabeth not-the-second might be nice enough -and dedicated to what she thinks is her role - but the thing is; we have absolutely no choice in who is or is not the puppet with the golden hat or the pen in their hand.
-
I believe if the majority of the population wanted to be rid of the monarchy, they'd go. Strikes me that on the whole they are popular at the moment.
-
I believe if the majority of the population wanted to be rid of the monarchy, they'd go. Strikes me that on the whole they are popular at the moment.
The problem there is that we'll never get the chance to decide.
As far as I can see in this thread the main argument offered in favour of the monarchy is essentially an argument from tradition.
-
Which on the current thread let alone others on the same subject I believe I have, in #14 and #26
Your belief is incorrect them. Post 14 is a stream of invective and post 26 is an argument that the popularity of the monarchy is declining, not that it should be abolished, unless you want to throw in an ad populum fallacy.
That's only your interpretation.
Yes, that is why I said "it looks like..." If you don't want people to interpret your posts on the monarchy as sour grapes, it might be an idea to tone down the insults.
Get me on a thread about Islamism, genital mutilation, the Roman Catholic Church, animal cruelty, the Conservative Party and a hundred and one other things and you'll see far worse.
Except that you have been on such threads many times and you don't normally cheapen your posts in this way.
I think it is.
Which is your subjective opinion.
If you don't know (I do - I've been there, against my will) where does the I don't think so come from?
You tell me, it's your post that runs two parts of my answer together to make it look like I don't think Sandringham is ugly even though I haven't seen it.
Incidentally, if I had said that, I would be technically correct. I don't have an opinion on the aesthetics of Sandringham (not having seen it) so how can I think it is ugly?
meaning somewhere where umpteen homeless people could be housed.
Really? How many is "umpteen". How many rooms in this alleged cottage? Sounds to me like you are just mouthing off again without any real grasp of the facts.
Some are
Which ones?
-
As far as I can see in this thread the main argument offered in favour of the monarchy is essentially an argument from tradition.
As far as I can see in this thread the main argument offered against the monarchy is spite.
As long as our head of state is constitutional, I see no reason why we need an elected president.
-
The problem there is that we'll never get the chance to decide.
As far as I can see in this thread the main argument offered in favour of the monarchy is essentially an argument from tradition.
Indeed.
A fallacy that wouldn't be allowed to stand unchallenged by some of the monarchy supporters on this thread in any other context, it seems to me.
-
Your belief is incorrect them.
Which is your subjective opinion.
Post 14 is a stream of invective and post 26 is an argument that the popularity of the monarchy is declining, not that it should be abolished, unless you want to throw in an ad populum fallacy.
I'm glad you mentioned that, since as Gord of the Board has already said an ad. pop seems to be one of the most regularly-used cards of the monarchy supporters (i.e. #25) who state outright (or at the very least strongly imply) that the monarchy should be kept because most people think it should. They're correct on a purely statistical basis; one of the most recent surveys I could find said that 68% are happy with the status quo. (Support strongest, as I earlier said I felt would be the case, in older generations). These things however tend to shift with time; we've seen it with religious adherence and I see no reason why the same shouldn't be the case with the public attitude to the monarchy. It may be the case that as years go by we'll see a comparable slide in support. I find it hard to believe that there'll be a reversal of the trend toward non-religion and likewise (for much the same reasons, i.e. cohort replacement etc.) I don't see the royalty-apathetic now picking up monarchical sympathies as they age.
Not that it will make a blind bit of difference since as Gordon has observed, even if public support stood at 1% we don't get the chance to decide. We don't have any say in who our head of state is. That, to me, is a quite absurd state of affairs.
The more important point of course is the fallacy at the heart of this would-be argument. Retention or abolition of the monarchy has to stand on its, or their, merits/demerits as rational arguments, not on numbers as the pro-monarchies would seem to have us believe. As with the existence of gods, I know of no good arguments for; all the good arguments are against. If somebody can come up with what I think is a sound case for retaining the monarchy, I'd give it all the serious attention and thought any rational, cogent argument deserves.
Yes, that is why I said "it looks like..." If you don't want people to interpret your posts on the monarchy as sour grapes, it might be an idea to tone down the insults.
Interpretation doesn't concern me unduly. You're allowed to be wrong after all.
Which is your subjective opinion.
... about your subjective opinion, and the price of butter going up to boot. Where will it all end?
Really? How many is "umpteen". How many rooms in this alleged cottage? Sounds to me like you are just mouthing off again without any real grasp of the facts.
I can't find the number of rooms for Sandringham (though I did find that it occupies 20,000 acres of land) but Buck House has 775. Pick what you think is a decent amount of space for a single person and then families of ascending size and see how it carves up. You can have extra paper if you need it.
-
As far as I can see in this thread the main argument offered against the monarchy is spite.
As long as our head of state is constitutional, I see no reason why we need an elected president.
I'm not advocating an elected president though: a constitutional head of state, and especially in the guise of the monarchy here with all the privilege, influence and sycophancy associated with it, seems anachronistic to me and not suited to modern democratic politics.
The charade whereby the leader of the party that wins a GE has to be 'invited' by the Queen to form a government is just one example of the utter silliness of the current situation.
-
Why should we force the person who wears the golden hat, not only to believe in a religion (a thing, according ro members of this foum, which is impossible), but to be titular head od one branch of one religion in one of the constituant parts of the (so-called) UK, simply because the then monarch of that country wanted a sprog by the 'right' woman?
-
You're not alone in thinking that Anchorman. Prince of Wales favours disestablishment. You're also quite right no-one can be made to believe in a religion though I understand the Queen does believe and takes it all seriously. That will change when Charles succeeds (unless he changes his mind).
-
I am not against the monarchy because of spite, or jealousy or because I am a killjoy. Indeed I feel rather sorry for those born into this weird and fetishized existence where they become some weird semi mythical scapegoat for people's own lives. Once their lives might have been relatively unaffected other than the bizarre notion of people having to bow and pay deference to you simply because of an accident of birth but now with a 24 hour news cycle and what appears to me, the unhealthy obsession some have with the intimate details of the lives of others, we focus on did a two year kid look happy, nipslips, and who wants to be a tampon. As Anchorman has noted they are expected to believe in a certain way but now the entirety of their lives are dissected like sheep entrails.
And again, I would say they seem currently to do a good job. Somehow William and Harry are seemingly well intentioned despite having grown up in the glare of being children of symbol of some almost Bacchic death for their mother, paraded to be grieving, and to comfort those who never met their mother: a sacrifice in a nation's psychodrama.
I am also not convinced by either sides use of financial arguments. In the scale of our expenditure, any saving on the costs here would be minimal. The upkeep of the multiple big hooses would be maintained. The other side based around tourists would make sense if people didn't flock to countries such as France with no monarchy but simular history and grandes maisons.
And that applies to the killjoy argument too. I don't as I cross the border in Ireland, suddenly find that I walk into the Republic and find people in a less joyous mood than the North. I don't use the Channel Tunnel and step out in France and see people marooned in misery for lack of monarchy. I don't stand on the border between France and Spain and step from the dark clouds of depression into sunlit uplands of joy.
The monarchy is a bad idea based on the idiocy of hereditary status but more importantly it breeds the sense of deference that Bagehot talked of in The English Constitution and this extends to having an unelected second chamber, with a remaining hereditary status now outnumbered by a vast horde of appointees generally in thrall to parties rune by people who go to schools that are for the privileged! These schools and universities follow the like chooses like and thus we have govts made up disproportionately from those backgrounds and only last week the absurd figures on the demographics at Oxbridge. Tied up with the fatuous nonsense of a national religion in by far the largest part of the union, and you have a sclerotic deferential state that supports a status quo on a nonsensical idea.
And yes, if we move to a more democratic system, it will neither change overnight, or completely. But should we not, we institutionalise the inequality, and the deference and indeed the use of people born into the absurdity as the bread and circuses mentioned by Udayana.
-
...now with a 24 hour news cycle and what appears to me, the unhealthy obsession some have with the intimate details of the lives of others, we focus on did a two year kid look happy, nipslips, and who wants to be a tampon. As Anchorman has noted they are expected to believe in a certain way but now the entirety of their lives are dissected like sheep entrails.
Agree with that, it's horrible.
-
You're not alone in thinking that Anchorman. Prince of Wales favours disestablishment. You're also quite right no-one can be made to believe in a religion though I understand the Queen does believe and takes it all seriously. That will change when Charles succeeds (unless he changes his mind).
With a bit of luck, William and Kate will move to a better awareness and acceptance of non-belief, i.e. atheism and secular humanism, but I'll be long gone!
-
Reckon on what basis?
Floo never bothers with boring old reasons for her opinions - she just plucks them out of thin air!
-
Why should we force the person who wears the golden hat, not only to believe in a religion (a thing, according ro members of this foum, which is impossible), but to be titular head od one branch of one religion in one of the constituant parts of the (so-called) UK, simply because the then monarch of that country wanted a sprog by the 'right' woman?
You are incorrect in assuming that the modern church of England is descended from Henry's break with Rome. His daughter Mary took us back into the arms of Rome, and it was the second break, under Elisabeth, which was permanent. Elisabeth broke with Rome because of her sincere belief in protestantism.
-
You're not alo ne in thinking that Anchorman. Prince of Wales favours disestablishment. You're also quite right no-one can be made to believe in a religion though I understand the Queen does believe and takes it all seriously. That will change when Charles succeeds (unless he changes his mind).
Charlie Windsor - who isn't 'Prince of Wales here, but 'Duke of Rothesay (for what it's worth) is fere to believe whatever he wants and talk to all nthe plants in creation, if he feels so inclined - it's supposed to be a frre country.
But the daft tradition which infests the tripe laughingly calldcour democratic system hasd diddly squat to do with 'britain', and far too much to do with English trash wrapped up in 'tradition' to be taken seriously.
-
With a bit of luck, William and Kate will move to a better awareness and acceptance of non-belief, i.e. atheism and secular humanism, but I'll be long gone!
By 'eck, Susan...faith?
Well, whatever, it takes a lot of faith to think the absurdity known as the Act of Settlement will be discarded by the tripe known as Westminster any time soon.
-
You are incorrect in assuming that the modern church of England is descended from Henry's break with Rome. His daughter Mary took us back into the arms of Rome, and it was the second break, under Elisabeth, which was permanent. Elisabeth broke with Rome because of her sincere belief in protestantism.
Who cares? This is supposed tyo be the 'United Kingdom' - not England. (Not that you'd know it, given the tradition -bound anachronistic tripe of Westminster)
-
Who cares? This is supposed tyo be the 'United Kingdom' - not England. (Not that you'd know it, given the tradition -bound anachronistic tripe of Westminster)
And the Scottish Episcopalian church (the Scottish branch of anglicanism) had its own separate origin at the time of the reformation, founded by moderate Scottish reformers who wanted to keep Bishops and parishes. It is the only national branch of the Anglican Communion (apart, obviously, from the Church of England itself) which was not founded as an off-shoot of the C of E, but had its own separate origin.
-
And the Scottish Episcopalian church (the Scottish branch of anglicanism) had its own separate origin at the time of the reformation, founded by moderate Scottish reformers who wanted to keep Bishops and parishes. It is the only national branch of the Anglican Communion (apart, obviously, from the Church of England itself) which was not founded as an off-shoot of the C of E, but had its own separate origin.
Er...
Eh?
cHarlie Stuart tried to impose Eposcapacy on Scotland...using Laud's verion of Cranmer's Prayer book.
He lost his head as a result.
The Wars of the Three Kingdoms - mis named "The English Civil War" was the outcome.
Even after Charles II, already king of Scots, got the fake blimng at Westminster, the suppression of those whio dared to oppose episcopacy in the south and West continued.
Google "The Killing Time".
My own ancestor, John Brown of Priesthill farm in Sorn Parish, was shot in front of his wife and children for refusing to accept the king or his church. (Google' John Brown of Priesthill').
The forced introduction of Anglicanism in this country was anything BUT peaceful!
-
If you say so.
-
I looked up the 'Killing Times Scotland', good wiki article & others.
-
I did as well, thanks for that, Jim, I am pretty ignorant about that stuff. Pretty vicious treatment of dissenters. Hoping that 'Gunpowder' will also provide some background, but probably not.
-
Don't misunderstund me, the strands of dissenters varied.
Toward the 1670's sme were liitle more than Taliban with Bibles, but the savage brutality meated out by government forces was dreadful. My own kirkyard has a grave which once contained a body...I say 'once', because Alexander Peden did a terrible thing in the eyes of the government...he died a natural death.
Six weeks after he died, his corpse was exhumed by dragoons to be publicly displayed on the gibbet.
Stories like this abound - stories backed up with evidence.
The hills and moors are dotted with cairns and markers to those shot on sight for refusing to swear loyalty to the monarch as head of the 'king's kirk'; illegal Presbyterian services were held on remore moors and glens - as failing to attend the 'kings kirk' or failing to have one's infant baptised by a 'king's curate' carried both a £50 Scots fine and an opportunity to take the 'test' - the "Test Act" - and failure to swear meant an nstant bullet.
-
The subject of the monarchy came up on another thread. Floo posted one of her trenchantly intellectual comments defending it, while others like me, thought that it should be scrapped. I have no grudge against the individual members of the royal family, though they are a pretty mediocre lot judged as ordinary individuals, but surely a hereditary head of state is an anomaly in a democracy in the present age. Heads of state and government should be directly elected, either as such or at least as an MP (as our prime minsters are). If anyone wants to defend the monarchy, please go ahead, as that's what this thread is for, but please don't come out with the tired old second-hand joke that the best argument against republicanism is two words - "President Thatcher" (or Blair, depending on your politics. Thatcher and Blair, whatever their faults, were elected, and were evwentually got rid of. Anyway, the Prime Minister, as head of government, has the real power in this country, the Queen being a mere figurehead.
The Monarchy exists because the people in power want it that way. The people who really run the Country the power house.
But more importantly the queen works harder than any minister be it prime or otherwise and serves this Country far more in her daily life than any minister.
The Monarchy is not up for abolishment because only a fool would not be able to visualise the damage which would follow in the wake of such an event.