OT- The Queen's Christmas Day Message to the Commonwealth

[roger_ramjet]

Sorry rA but I cant see the relevance of either point in a modern society. The religious argument is polemics for polemics sake as we are a largely secular society - but even if it were not so, heads of all religions largely contradict the teachings of their religious icons anyway: look at successions of crusading popes in the context of "thou shall not kill".

As for the birthright argument there is an inconsistency vs elected dignitary but its largely irrelevant since those exercising birthrights in this case seem to be largely benign and powerless. Unless you head for Pol Pot like agrarian communism there will always be societal inequalities anywhere - and I have seen first hand where that leads: wholesale slaughters of your own people. But hey thats ok because he wasnt exercising a birthright, he was "of the people"

Yes in a perfect world you might iron out these inconsistencies but we are not redesigning something from scratch but working within an evolving society.

Even if redesigning from scratch you'd still never find a head of a church that is 100% pure. Let him without sin cast the first stone.....put that rock down rA

[Andy_Faber]

I find your ‘it’s only when you live abroad you see how foreign governments struggle and oppress’ argument to justify the Monarchy increasingly bizarre Rom.

Of course some foreign governments are oppressive just as some Monarchs have behaved like despots in the past. I’m not certain where you live to have reached your conclusion, but if we look at modern democracies such as Germany, Italy, France and the U.S. I doubt the people would consider themselves oppressed and they seem to be managing very well without a Royal Family.

Andy, I know you and Swale will never see eye to eye but you can’t just be blind to everything he says because of it’s source and, at the risk of again being accused of acting like his ‘rear gunner’, what is there to object to in the second paragraph of #147? It’s surely true isn’t it...there is a huge contradiction in having a ‘leader’ and ‘section of society’ within a modern democracy who are there by ‘birthright’ alone and the same is true as regards the paradox of having a ‘head of the CoE’ who’s existence is in direct conflict with at least some of the teachings of Christ.

I didn't take issue with that para RA, I can see some value in whats said, although I disagree with it. And don't take the rear gunner thing to heart, we all have our character traits on here, yours are more noble than most including mine I reckon! My response would be:

The cost or otherwise of the monarchy IS relevant (to the discussion here and to their ongoing existence), thats IMO but RA I think you would agree with that one!

The fairness of a section of society who have a "right" and power by accident of birth - well, yes, it seems unfair, but its just too big an issue, and there are too many in that section (and growing), to make any sort of step change. Taxation is the answer IMO, both an increase in same for the filthy rich and an increase in policing of people who aim to avoid it. BUT I don't mean to the extent that it makes a massive difference to that 'section of society', they wouldn't actually miss the odd 10bn or so that more progressive tax rules could gather

Just IMO again, and taking the Crown Estates as an example, if that wasn't controlled 'as is', and the land it owns was distributed in small tracts to 'the plebs', its productivity would immediately fall disastrously just due to removal of economies of scale, lack of a single/common strategy etc, depriving the govt of valuable income (and ultimately, through the govts use of it, depriving the plebs) - a similar thing has happened after land redistribution in Zimbabwe, accepting of course that that country has had plenty of other troubles.

[Romanis]

No RamAnag living abroad does not make know everything. I was replying to him who suggested by living abroad I know nothing and it was all plain nostalgia.

Now I don't necessarily disagree that just being born royal is not the best thing. However you have to look at it that's it's worked and is still working.

They are contributing and paying. Why throw all these away just to be 'modern.'

When they fail by all means change. When they abuse and become a bane and burden.

[ramAnag]

Rog...wouldn’t really argue with anything you’re saying, it just seems silly - if not massively important - to persist with something which is so undemocratic and, symbolically, so inequitable.

Andy...’noble’ indeed...well there’s a first. The symbolism argument is again relevant...how can we value democracy so highly and then have an entirely undemocratic, hereditary elite? It makes no sense to me but I agree entirely with all your points about taxation.

Rom...you keep repeating, ‘it’s working’. How? Okay...the Queen may have been a symbol of stability for approaching seventy years but she has equally, especially in recent years, been a source of division. She has, overall, been a relatively benign influence who has done a good job of opening things and attending functions throughout the World. Apparently she was in a rage over Thatcher’s attitude to apartheid in South Africa but she was also powerless and we only got to know about it God knows how many decades later, so how can she be considered relevant?
Beyond that...do Charles and Camilla ‘work’? Did Princess Margaret or, more recently, Prince Andrew and Fergie ‘work’? Did the grand old DoE ever actually do much more than put his foot in it? Were Cup Final teams really thrilled to meet the Duke of Kent? I don’t think so.

[roger_ramjet]

Ah now we get down to it....you and Swale want their cup final tickets dont you..

Id say Wimbledon too but tennis is far too elitist for a red like Swale

[Romanis]

I think I have expressed the number of times the work they're doing.
Maybe you should explain or give instances where they're not working or failing in their duty.

[ramAnag]

I think I have expressed the number of times the work they're doing.
Maybe you should explain or give instances where they're not working or failing in their duty.

Have you? I must have missed it.
I’m sure the Queen has done a fine job. She probably believes the world is a wonderfully clean place that smells of fresh paint and varnish where everyone waves, because that’s her reality. She’s good at opening things, including our own Pride Park, pulling cords, signing cards for very old people and knighting people. Question is...is it all necessary or relevant any more?
Beyond that I suppose the job of the rest is to be decent role models of some description and I have to say that the likes of Princess Margaret, Prince Andrew, Fergie, Charlie boy and even the Duke of Edinburgh with his numerous foot in mouth moments, have singularly failed in that respect. Of course, they’re only the tip of the Royal Family ‘iceberg’ and thereby lies the problem.

P.S. If they’re offering Rog...prefer RL Cup Final tickets to Wimbledon though.

[Andy_Faber]

Have you? I must have missed it.
I’m sure the Queen has done a fine job. She probably believes the world is a wonderfully clean place that smells of fresh paint and varnish where everyone waves, because that’s her reality. She’s good at opening things, including our own Pride Park, pulling cords, signing cards for very old people and knighting people. Question is...is it all necessary or relevant any more?
Beyond that I suppose the job of the rest is to be decent role models of some description and I have to say that the likes of Princess Margaret, Prince Andrew, Fergie, Charlie boy and even the Duke of Edinburgh with his numerous foot in mouth moments, have singularly failed in that respect. Of course, they’re only the tip of the Royal Family ‘iceberg’ and thereby lies the problem.

P.S. If they’re offering Rog...prefer RL Cup Final tickets to Wimbledon though.

yes it's relevant because the vast majority of the population feel that bit better for knowing its happening, it's part of the wellbeing of the nation. Of 'the rest', the vast majority are either 'not fussed' or mildly anti and way down the list are a few thousand grumblers who make way too much noise about it. This argument/discussion isn't like Brexit, its a 5-0 win not a disputed last minute pen 1-0, the moment for the republicans to strike has been and gone, and cleverer folk than us will always be able to make the economic case an louder than the antis.

[Romanis]

Have you? I must have missed it.
I’m sure the Queen has done a fine job. She probably believes the world is a wonderfully clean place that smells of fresh paint and varnish where everyone waves, because that’s her reality. She’s good at opening things, including our own Pride Park, pulling cords, signing cards for very old people and knighting people. Question is...is it all necessary or relevant any more?
Beyond that I suppose the job of the rest is to be decent role models of some description and I have to say that the likes of Princess Margaret, Prince Andrew, Fergie, Charlie boy and even the Duke of Edinburgh with his numerous foot in mouth moments, have singularly failed in that respect. Of course, they’re only the tip of the Royal Family ‘iceberg’ and thereby lies the problem.

P.S. If they’re offering Rog...prefer RL Cup Final tickets to Wimbledon though.

Ah yes, I forget you're the 1 saying we don't need a Head of State. Politicians can be trusted enough to handle everything including who should run Govt or how long to stay in power. Life is so gentle and sweet, everybody will do their part and the right thing.
No need for a Constitutional umpire. Perhaps other democracies should follow suit and do away with Presidents too, because the Queen does many things a non-executive President does.

Moreover there's no need for awards even for police and soldiers. No need for visits to hospital for the injured and sick. No need to mourn with victims of terror, opening buildings and other infrastructure are a waste of time, because nobody cares. There's no prestige or honour. Life is very simple. People want simplicity not any fanfare or gesture of thanks and appreciation.

And the other royals do jack ****. All the engagements they go to are not necessary. They do nothing but foot and mouth stuff, all the 200-500 engagements they do each year are all 'foot in mouth moments.'
The Queen does nothing at all. She doesn't advise, she doesn't offer input, she doesn't warn. She's completely powerless. All these ministers, PMs, senior civil servants etc , past and present,who have acknowledged the role she plays, well it's all made up.

Her receiving ambassadors, envoys, other world leaders, her foreign trips and those of the other royals, well, it's pointless, foreign nations leaders don't expect to be treated with respect and prestige when they visit and are not keen to extend the same respect and prestige for the UK for reciprocal visits.

Life is simple really, foreign relations is pretty straight forward. Anything otherwise is a myth. we don't need a Head of State.
We should chuck away everything we've done for centuries and embark on this simple fantasy and everything will turn out fine.
I'm sure it'll make a great movie.

[ramAnag]

Ah yes, I forget you're the 1 saying we don't need a Head of State. Politicians can be trusted enough to handle everything including who should run Govt or how long to stay in power. Life is so gentle and sweet, everybody will do their part and the right thing.
No need for a Constitutional umpire. Perhaps other democracies should follow suit and do away with Presidents too, because the Queen does many things a non-executive President does.

Moreover there's no need for awards even for police and soldiers. No need for visits to hospital for the injured and sick. No need to mourn with victims of terror, opening buildings and other infrastructure are a waste of time, because nobody cares. There's no prestige or honour. Life is very simple. People want simplicity not any fanfare or gesture of thanks and appreciation.

And the other royals do jack ****. All the engagements they go to are not necessary. They do nothing but foot and mouth stuff, all the 200-500 engagements they do each year are all 'foot in mouth moments.'
The Queen does nothing at all. She doesn't advise, she doesn't offer input, she doesn't warn. She's completely powerless. All these ministers, PMs, senior civil servants etc , past and present,who have acknowledged the role she plays, well it's all made up.

Her receiving ambassadors, envoys, other world leaders, her foreign trips and those of the other royals, well, it's pointless, foreign nations leaders don't expect to be treated with respect and prestige when they visit and are not keen to extend the same respect and prestige for the UK for reciprocal visits.

Life is simple really, foreign relations is pretty straight forward. Anything otherwise is a myth. we don't need a Head of State.
We should chuck away everything we've done for centuries and embark on this simple fantasy and everything will turn out fine.
I'm sure it'll make a great movie.

Sorry Rom...this is becoming really repetitive and getting us nowhere. At the end of the day...you’re a diehard Monarchist and I question whether there’s a role for the Royal Family in any modern democratic society. We’re both entitled to our views.

I will answer the points above because it seems you’ve started the strategy of deliberate misinterpretation, quite common amongst those who find their long treasured views threatened...anyway, here goes.

1) As you know, I don’t trust more than a handful of politicians but we do have a system of rules in place which determine how leaders are elected and how long they govern for. We don’t need a ‘constitutional umpire’ imo and it is a role the Queen has rarely been called on to fulfill even during the length of her epic reign.

2) I’m not sure what you mean about awards, hospital visits and mourning various victims etc. Most of these things are about social recognition and empathy aren’t they? Do the Queen’s occasional visits mean anything? They obviously would to monarchists such as yourself, they wouldn’t to me. I’m all in favour of showing recognition, sympathy and empathy but, had I been a relative of, for example, a Grenfell victim would I have felt better that someone with ump**** palaces had shown up to offer a display of empathy towards those who died because housing rules hadn’t been adhered to? No...not at all. Similarly with the Manchester bombing, it was the Mayor of Manchester and various other local ‘worthies’ who conducted most of the ‘mourning’ events and it was probably all the more relevant because of that. As for opening buildings etc...isn’t that just the culture of celebrity? When a new road or bridge is opened we might expect a minor Royal to cut the tape, when it’s Christmas lights being switched on we end up with a soap star or some other minor celebrity. What’s the difference?

3) I have never said the other Royals do ‘nothing but foot in mouth stuff’. I was referring specifically to the DoE. You said the Royal Family ‘worked’, in my opinion there have been too many times when, on you much heralded ambassadorial visits, he has been nothing other than embarrassing. Neither have I said the Queen ‘does nothing at all’. I have recognised that she has done a good job but questioned her relevance. She is politically powerless and of course those you mention have ‘acknowledged’ the part she plays...that’s just the establishment supporting itself.

4) Regarding receiving ambassadors etc and making foreign trips. I honestly don’t know whether they achieve anything. I don’t recall the Royals being involved in major trade deals or peace settlements and I don’t think meeting the Queen is a necessary part of ‘showing respect’ to foreign leaders.

5) ‘Foreign relations’ are, I accept, anything but straightforward, especially when we have such a nincompoop as Foreign Secretary but, honestly, when was the last time the Queen had any meaningful input into debate with the likes of Merkel, Obama, Trump or Putin? She just doesn’t, so what is her relevance to ‘foreign relations’ exactly?
‘Chuck away what we’ve done for centuries’...well, along with dog fighting, fox hunting, sending children up chimneys, slavery, drinking and driving, depriving women of the vote...there are things which can’t be defended just because it’s what we’ve done for ‘centuries’. It’s called ‘change’...embrace it.
As for the ‘movie’...I think it’s been done...or the mini series anyway.