Royalty

i take it that was some form of graphic designers joke ?

Lords of all they behold...

Putting aside the content and reason for this, it is a bit marvellous.

Hitler?

Jesus?

Trollface?

a mass murdered to finish the job cromwell started

Close

How much does the old cunt donate to charity?

I'm in favour of HM The Queen. Its the lesser royals that I feel should be working, and not living off the state. HRH The Duke of Edinburgh has been "working" into his 90s. I'd say thats pretty exceptional. I don't think any of us would be working into our 80s, much less our 90s. He's also charming. Ok, maybe that's easily misconstrued, as he appears to deeply lack charm, and has little tolerance for many foreign things and people; but that is charming to me......refreshing honesty. I'm against making the UK, or England if it were split off, into a republic.

If there were a war, I would lack enthusiasm to fight for President and country. But for Queen and country, I'd do my duty with ungodly relish. :-)

A president would be a reflection of the views of the people of the country and therefore one would be fighting for the country and it's people not for the embodiment of privilege that is the monarchy.

I will not be going to any wars to preserve her or her realm.

I understand you perfectly Clive, and all the other voices with the same general views, but maybe mine are different because of where I am from. I grew up in Grenada, and most West Indians (as we are termed) actually feel a part of the the former British empire, and to us/them, thats not a negative thing.......its positive.

True, the UK gave us the wonders of enforced free labour, but that is a side note of history. Trinidad is a republic, and around the Caribbean, there are few if any, that envy them, and their status.

Do.
Not.
Want.

A president would be a reflection of the views of the people of the country ...

This is rarely the case though is it?

In fact, in the (English speaking) Caribbean, its only Trinidad and Dominica (not to be confused with the Spanish speaking Dominican Republic), that are republics. Jamaica is having the same battle of public opinion that Australia and to some extent, Canada is having, as to changing to a republic. Its not that popular as it should be when analysed on paper. The republic seems rather a sideways step, and not a forward step to many. And, its easy to sway people if it is clear that the change is all for the better. that argument has not been made, as far as I know.

Crikey, and you get one at The London Graphics Centre for like £15! Let's hope the work inside does it justice!

Arf!

A president would be a reflection of the views of the people of the country

This is rarely the case though is it?

More, and less recent, counter-examples are conceivable.

I've got a ticket to see the Diamond Jubilee Pageant on the Millennium Bridge with the Tate, Royal Academy and RCA people...art student perks! I'm hoping that my friends also got tickets or the whole idea of all sitting there and getting drunk will be kind of ruined.

I would never fight for my country either way, I think the whole concept of countries is stupid.

I largely don't care if we are a republic or a monarchy. Conceptually a monarchy is a bad thing in my mind, but in reality they are powerless, and probably bring money into the country through tourism. I have no idea whether they are a net profit or loss for the country.

Conceptually a directly elected president, with either real powers or symbolic ones is a good thing IMO, but I'm not sure what the real benefits of it would be (regardless of the fact they would represent us more, as Clive says).

I would never fight for my country either way,...

Really? I would. If the country I live in, and am a citizen of, is being invaded by a foreign power, I would take up arms, and defend my country, and my family and my neighbours. I wouldn't ever want to do it, but it would be a an easy choice. When countries declare war on another, atrocities are always committed. I would protect what is dear to me, as best as i could, because it would be something I believe in.

Bringing this back to monarchy, I would be a conscientious objector, if I had a president that ordered me to go abroad and kill people. Sadly, I don't think I would feel very different if our monarch had ordered it, but I would act differently. Its a very flawed personal argument, but there it is.

.....I think the whole concept of countries is stupid....

It is no surprise that so many people disagree with me so much on so many things. I just don't understand comments like that at all, nor the thinking behind it. If that is representative of the general mood of the forum, it explains much to me.

I would have terrible trouble fighting for my country.

I was born in the UK, brought up in the UK, but don't feel remotely proud of "being English" because of the atrocious mess we seem to leave things in. We've been America's bitch (or lap-dog) for so long that we're actually a laughing stock for the rest of the the world. We're notorious for setting terrible examples of ourselves when we choose to leave the country and have only the saving grace of a music industry to be proud of.

I'm proud of what we were - not what we are.

With a strong history of Parliamentary democracy, we are unlikely to chose a republican constitution based on 18th centrury Britain, as the Americans did. We are more likely to elect a figure head president, as many other countries do, in the knowledge, at least that that president is not President for Life and is chosen by the will of the people.

I'm with Liz, Phil and Chuck. Especially Liz.......she's diamond.

I am quite sure that she would think the same about you if she gave a damn who you or any of us were.

That's exactly the point. Its my decision to be in a one-way relationship with our sovereign, as it would be the same with a president, but I prefer this one. She would only expect of me to lay her dinner service out correctly. And guess what? I'm ok with that. I'd rather be diminished by someone of my own choosing, than some idiot savant, in power for a few meagre years.

EDIT:
The more I contemplate it, the more I realise that I probably have a special affection for this Queen in particular, and might have been very indifferent if the question was posed to me, to chose between King Charles, and President Tony Blair (for example). But I so despise Tony Blair, that that is probably an unfair choice as presidential candidate.

So, who's organising the I LOVE THE ROYAL TRADITIONS ride?

1. GA2G (corgi fancier)
   
   
   
   
   

:-)

I'm with Liz, Phil and Chuck. Especially Liz.......she's diamond.

Phil and Chuck are a right pair of shithouses. Prince Phil (the racist!) has chucked his fat at anything that would have it and Charlie-Boy is no better. Liz seems alright but what the fuck does she ever do when we really need her? For example: does she ever step into diplomatic "situations" when a note or two from her might be useful? No, never.

I am quite sure that she would think the same about you if she gave a damn who you or any of us were.

She cares not for her subjects, we're just a cash-cow to her.

That's exactly the point. Its my decision to be in a one-way relationship with our sovereign, as it would be the same with a president, but I prefer this one. She would only expect of me to lay her dinner service out correctly. And guess what? I'm ok with that. I'd rather be diminished by someone of my own choosing, than some idiot savant, in power for a few meagre years.

EDIT:
The more I contemplate it, the more I realise that I probably have a special affection for this Queen in particular, and might have been very indifferent if the question was posed to me, to chose between King Charles, and President Tony Blair (for example). But I so despise Tony Blair, that that is probably an unfair choice as presidential candidate.

King Charles is a type of loopy dog, isn't it?

I LOVE THE ROYAL TRADITIONS:

1. GA2G (corgi fancier)
   
2. b&d (corgi poisoner)
   

I am leaving the country for two weeks to avoid all this hateful nonsense.

Just to clear this up. Would the monarchy be abolished tomororw (I wake every day in hope) we would not have a president like the United States, neither would have have "President Blair".

We would simply replace the the Queen with an elected head of state, the difference being should their term finished (or they die) their child does not inherit the same powers.

Look to the Republic of Ireland, they have their head of state, President Higgins, and the Prime Minister (Taoiseach). Most power rests with the Taoiseach who is appointed by the President, like Cameron and our Queen.

The idea that in the UK that a single person can pass on to their child the right to control and decide over the lives of many is a complete antithesis to democracy.