Page 15 of 16
Re: Monarchy the institution. Yes or no?
Posted: 06 Dec 2017, 02:05
by echolalia
The Prof wrote:echolalia wrote:Portugal (1974)
Interesting.
I hadn't heard of The Carnation Revolution before. The Portuguese Monarchy was overthrown in 1910 leading to a chaotic 16 year Republic followed by a psudo-fasist dictatorship. Overthrown peacefully in 1974.
I'm not sure if there are any lessons for us now but it was an interesting read.
There''s still some kind of unofficial Royal family - is that right?
Well, the man who would be king is still around. He’s a public figure – a minor celebrity. But no one really wants a return to monarchy and his chances of fucking up the country on behalf of his own lineage are very remote.
1974 was a bloodless military coup but things got pretty giddy in the aftermath and for a time it looked as if Portugal would join the Soviet bloc. It was a very anarchic period – I’ve heard lots of stories of mansions overrun by gangs of abandoned, semi-feral children. The democratic left won out.
This song (recorded in Chateau d’Hérouville in 1971) was the sign for the revolution to start – when it played on the radio, the tanks/good times did roll:
Re: Monarchy the institution. Yes or no?
Posted: 06 Dec 2017, 13:08
by Thang-y
Thang-y wrote:Politically, I believe they're powerless but I'm about to read the articles you posted. Legally, however, she is sovereign. That may have a bearing on it ... [*edit: yes I think the connection/logic is probably that in the same way you won't get a R. -vs- R. prosecution, a legal step against the crown, similarly they want consent in passing laws affecting the crown*]
Speaking of the power and accountability of the head of state, I see that Trump's lawyer is trying to claim that:
"(The) President cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under (the Constitution's Article II) and has every right to express his view of any case."http://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/04/polit ... index.htmlNice try but Trump will remain accountable. He has to. Right?
Re: Monarchy the institution. Yes or no?
Posted: 28 Dec 2017, 10:09
by Diamond Dog
This is the kind of fawning obsequiousness that makes my stomach churn:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12 ... -game-let/?
So there are 50 Tory MP's who think the most pressing issue they can rally around is launching a new national lottery to fund a Royal yacht?
Re: Monarchy the institution. Yes or no?
Posted: 28 Dec 2017, 10:30
by Darkness_Fish
It's an interesting project though. Something that is almost guaranteed to not raise the necessary funds, and collapse within a year or so. Got to be a good tax dodge in there for some of them, surely?
Re: Monarchy the institution. Yes or no?
Posted: 10 Jan 2018, 15:39
by Joe Baxter
Toby wrote:This is too binary.
The notion of a Monarch in today's democratic world is absurd. But in countries that have complex histories where the dialogue between institutions plays a tremendously important part in the political process, such as the constitutional monarchy of the UK, the question becomes more complex.
People have tried over the last few hundred years or so to remove their monarchs, but the evidence across the world for a peaceful transition is pretty dismal. It usually ends in catastrophic levels of blood.
Britain offers an example of a monarchy that provides a powerful symbol of living history whilst being politically benign. We had our civil war on this subject nearly 400 years ago and sorted the main issues out. The Monarchy as an institution I suspect will continue to grow smaller and smaller, perhaps even more quickly once the Queen dies.
Provide a solution on how to end the institution of the monarchy and successfully resolve the constitutional and political processes that it would involve for all parties concerned and we can proceed.
Actually "We" didn't have a civil war, England had a civil war.
Re: Monarchy the institution. Yes or no?
Posted: 11 Jan 2018, 13:32
by Insouciant Western People
Joe Baxter wrote:Actually "We" didn't have a civil war, England had a civil war.
Actually, "You" were involved heavily in the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, which is perhaps a better phrase to describe the overlapping and interrelated conflicts in the British Isles between 1639 and 1651 than the misleading expression 'English Civil War'.
And you even had your own Scottish Civil War between 1644-45, fought between the Scots Royalists and the Covenanters.
A quick precis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland_in_the_Wars_of_the_Three_Kingdoms
Re: Monarchy the institution. Yes or no?
Posted: 11 Jan 2018, 14:50
by Goat Boy
He won't like that!
Re: Monarchy the institution. Yes or no?
Posted: 11 Jan 2018, 16:06
by Deebank
Charles Stuart was Scottish of course.
Re: Monarchy the institution. Yes or no?
Posted: 11 Jan 2018, 16:23
by Dr Markus
Nick wrote:Joe Baxter wrote:Actually "We" didn't have a civil war, England had a civil war.
Actually, "You" were involved heavily in the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, which is perhaps a better phrase to describe the overlapping and interrelated conflicts in the British Isles between 1639 and 1651 than the misleading expression 'English Civil War'.
And you even had your own Scottish Civil War between 1644-45, fought between the Scots Royalists and the Covenanters.
A quick precis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland_in_the_Wars_of_the_Three_Kingdoms
.....and the first Celtic Ranger derby day.
Re: Monarchy the institution. Yes or no?
Posted: 20 Jan 2018, 13:51
by Joe Baxter
The Great Defector wrote:Nick wrote:Joe Baxter wrote:Actually "We" didn't have a civil war, England had a civil war.
Actually, "You" were involved heavily in the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, which is perhaps a better phrase to describe the overlapping and interrelated conflicts in the British Isles between 1639 and 1651 than the misleading expression 'English Civil War'.
And you even had your own Scottish Civil War between 1644-45, fought between the Scots Royalists and the Covenanters.
A quick precis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland_in_the_Wars_of_the_Three_Kingdoms
.....and the first Celtic Ranger derby day.
I know that Scots and Irish were involved in the English Civil War - as mercenaries as I remember. I don't know about Ireland, but we were not at war with anyone
Nick wrote:Joe Baxter wrote:Actually "We" didn't have a civil war, England had a civil war.
Actually, "You" were involved heavily in the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, which is perhaps a better phrase to describe the overlapping and interrelated conflicts in the British Isles between 1639 and 1651 than the misleading expression 'English Civil War'.
And you even had your own Scottish Civil War between 1644-45, fought between the Scots Royalists and the Covenanters.
A quick precis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland_in_the_Wars_of_the_Three_Kingdoms
I've never heard of the various clans and factions carry on being described as "Civil War."
Re: Monarchy the institution. Yes or no?
Posted: 19 May 2018, 16:14
by Thang-y
Do threads with polls disappear? Not sure.
Bumping this one.
Re: Monarchy the institution. Yes or no?
Posted: 19 May 2018, 16:17
by Rayge
Thang-y wrote:Do threads with polls disappear? Not sure.
They don't if the poll is open-ended, without a finish date.
Re: Monarchy the institution. Yes or no?
Posted: 17 Jan 2019, 19:41
by Jimbly
Bump.............with an added rollover
Re: Monarchy the institution. Yes or no?
Posted: 17 Jan 2019, 20:11
by Diamond Dog
Jeemo wrote:Bump.............with an added rollover
Re: Monarchy the institution. Yes or no?
Posted: 19 Jan 2019, 14:29
by `
Diamond Dog wrote:Jeemo wrote:Bump.............with an added rollover
Phil the Greek was apparently atypically polite when the rescuers pulled him out of the vehicle. Probably because he was driving a courtesy car.
Re: Monarchy the institution. Yes or no?
Posted: 27 Oct 2019, 09:18
by Samoan
Thang-y wrote:UKers to vote only please (more accurately, the mugs who pay for the monarchy), comments open to all.
Not talking about any individuals - they may be very nice people (who we wouldn't be talking about if they weren't part of the royal family) - but the concept/institution of monarchy.
You may change your vote.
Re: Monarchy the institution. Yes or no?
Posted: 12 Sep 2022, 22:12
by jimboo
This thread makes interesting reading.
Anyone changed their views?
Re: Monarchy the institution. Yes or no?
Posted: 13 Sep 2022, 12:41
by Darkness_Fish
Nope. Aside from apparently now endorsing Steve Wright in the afternoon for the head of state position.
Re: Monarchy the institution. Yes or no?
Posted: 04 Oct 2022, 13:28
by Diamond Dog
If anything my views have become more anti than previously - having to suffer the three weeks of cringing bullshit that came after her death certainly reinforced my loathing of every thing about the Monarchy.
Re: Monarchy the institution. Yes or no?
Posted: 13 Oct 2022, 16:42
by Samoan
I've a feeling that someone at Hillsborough Castle set this up. Heh.
King Charles III vented his frustration at a leaky pen during a signing ceremony in Northern Ireland on Tuesday (13 September).
The new monarch initially wrote down the wrong date as he signed a visitors' book in front of cameras at Belfast's Hillsborough Castle, before his pen started leaking ink.
"Oh god I hate this [pen]!" the King said, standing up and handing it to Camilla, the Queen Consort.
"I can't bear this bloody thing, what they do, every stinking time."