Australians have the right idea
Ash
I write from the UK
I only wish the people in my
country were perceptive
enought to recognise the need
for a British Republic and an
elected President.
Maybe one day.
But until then all success in
becoming a Republic.
Dikkii Webb
Why not? Britain has been a republic before - I believe the "Lord
Protector" was a guy named Oliver Cromwell.
They'll probably be a republic again soon. Probably before us, as well.
Dikkii
James T Ramsay
Dikkii Webb wrote in message <34F2A8...@DONTSPAMMEonthe.net.au>...
>Ash wrote:
>>
>> I write from the UK
>>
>> I only wish the people in my
>> country were perceptive
>> enough to recognise the need
>> for a British Republic and an
>> elected President.
>>
>> Maybe one day.
>>
>> But until then all success in
>> becoming a Republic.
>
Don't take any notice of this deluded man. We love our Queen and to be
against her is to be against our country, which is indeed what some of the
Blairite Islington Set are. This country will NEVER be a Republic so long as
I and my family are involved in its continuation, which we are to a very
high degree. Republicans tend to share a love of tattoos and body
mutilation.
God Save The Queen!
Ash
Dikkii Webb wrote:
> Why not? Britain has been a republic before - I believe the "Lord
> Protector" was a guy named Oliver Cromwell.
>
> They'll probably be a republic again soon. Probably before us, as well.
>
> Dikkii
Unfortunately it was the same Republic that invited Charles II back to
Britain.
When will we Brits ever learn?
And I have a sneaking suspiscion I'll be waiting a lot longer than you
ASH
Ash
James T Ramsay wrote:
> Don't take any notice of this deluded man. We love our Queen and to be
> against her is to be against our country, which is indeed what some of the
> Blairite Islington Set are. This country will NEVER be a Republic so long as
> I and my family are involved in its continuation, which we are to a very
> high degree. Republicans tend to share a love of tattoos and body
> mutilation.
>
> God Save The Queen!
God better save the Queen
Because I certainly won't
I find your sterotype of Republicans offensive in the extreme. Ken Livingstone
does not strike me as a fan of body mutilation. 1/2 of all Australians I am sure
do not share a fetish for tatoos.
You Love the Queen - A woman as British as Bierwurst and Beethoven.
Monarchy suffers from a bizarre belief in its own importance. I'm sure Charles
earned all of the medals. And what a decent man Philip is, a royal so popular
his own country sent his family packing. I found his comments on the massacres
perpetrated by the British in India deeply misguided. And calling the Dunblane
parents hysterical is unforgiveable.
We cannot tolerate unaccountable figures who can go about representing Britain
in such a fachion.
Cromwell had the right idea
ASH
L'Ogard D'Ciskard
>
>Cromwell had the right idea
>
>ASH
Maybe?
Dikkii Webb
James T Ramsay wrote:
> >
> Don't take any notice of this deluded man. We love our Queen and to be
> against her is to be against our country, which is indeed what some of the
> Blairite Islington Set are. This country will NEVER be a Republic so long as
> I and my family are involved in its continuation, which we are to a very
> high degree. Republicans tend to share a love of tattoos and body
> mutilation.
>
Shouldn't you be using the royal "we and our family", Your Royal
Highness?
Dikkii
shane white
What is all this "I love the Queen garbage?!?!?!?!"
No I am not for a republic, nor would I consider myself a monarchist.
I look at the facts. This referendum is going to cost me millions of
dollars, for what perceived benefit???
NONE!!!!!
All this crap about Australia not having an identity of itself, how
becoming a republic will *save* the economy, it's for the good of the
country....BULLSHIT.
I couldn't give a toss about what this or that prince said. I think
Australia is UNREAL, and consider myself priveleged to be here. I
don't need a new flag or head of state to make me proud of my country.
I am proud to be an Australian today.
It's all about ambitious bastards wanting to see their names in the
media/history books, and about people wanting change for the sake of
change.
Ask yourself this question, If Australia became a republic tomorrow,
what benefit would you receive???
Ash <a...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>James T Ramsay wrote:
>> Don't take any notice of this deluded man. We love our Queen and to be
>> against her is to be against our country, which is indeed what some of the
>> Blairite Islington Set are. This country will NEVER be a Republic so long as
>> I and my family are involved in its continuation, which we are to a very
>> high degree. Republicans tend to share a love of tattoos and body
>> mutilation.
>>
>> God Save The Queen!
> God better save the Queen
>Because I certainly won't
>I find your sterotype of Republicans offensive in the extreme. Ken Livingstone
>does not strike me as a fan of body mutilation. 1/2 of all Australians I am sure
>do not share a fetish for tatoos.
>You Love the Queen - A woman as British as Bierwurst and Beethoven.
>Monarchy suffers from a bizarre belief in its own importance. I'm sure Charles
>earned all of the medals. And what a decent man Philip is, a royal so popular
>his own country sent his family packing. I found his comments on the massacres
>perpetrated by the British in India deeply misguided. And calling the Dunblane
>parents hysterical is unforgiveable.
>We cannot tolerate unaccountable figures who can go about representing Britain
>in such a fachion.
>Cromwell had the right idea
>ASH
Ash
James T Ramsay wrote:
> And of course Cromwell was completely unaccountable too. He wasn't called
> "Lord Protector" for nothing. As for representing Britain, obviously your
> alternative would be some dull politician, or maybe some vacuous celebrity.
Dull and vacuous pretty much some up the royal family. No great inspiration -
no great interlect.
> > God better save the Queen
> >Because I certainly won't
> >
> Many Republicans have no concept of hierarchy so they wouldn't believe in
> God in the first place.
>
Tell that to French. Italian and Irish Republicans. Particularly the Irish.
Republicanism does not equal atheism. I myself am certain of the existence of a
higher power.
The Americans got rid of the concept of monarchy in the War of Independence. The
US has higher % church attendence than the UK and more people who believe in
God.
> >I find your stereotype of Republicans offensive in the extreme. Ken
> Livingstone
> >does not strike me as a fan of body mutilation. 1/2 of all Australians I am
> sure
> >do not share a fetish for tattoos.
> >
> I remember servicemen being outraged that a person with such gutter morals
> as Ken Livingstone was allowed to stand so near to our sovereign at the
> Wreath Laying Ceremony at the Cenotaph on Remembrance Day. Many people do
> *not* share his minority views - or am I thinking of Tony Banks? Anyway, my
> quip about the average lifestyle of a United *Kingdom* republican is just
> that, but it largely holds true in my and many other's experiences. I would
> be willing to bet a token amount of money that the majority of people to
> whom I refer are of the traitor persuasion, which everyone knows is the
> simple truth.
Just because someone has different views, does not mean they have 'gutter
morals'.Huge numbers of people around the world would share the offense in your
view of Republicans. Clearly you have a limited understanding of different
people and their own ideas. Lived an isolated life like the Queen prehaps?
> >Monarchy suffers from a bizarre belief in its own importance. I'm sure
> Charles
> >earned all of the medals. And what a decent man Philip is, a royal so
> popular
> >his own country sent his family packing.
>
> The Monarchy is terribly important - the whole fabric of our constitution
> relies on it. But as Her Britannic Majesty said at the Guildhall, her reign
> only continues with the consent of the majority of the people. I find your
> comments extremely offensive to a seventy-one year old lady who said on her
> twenty-first birthday, "I declare before you, that for my whole life, be it
> long or short, shall be devoted to your service." It breaks my heart when
> ungrateful Republican wretches jump on the bandwagon and denounce this
> wonderful lady. Just think if you decided to "devote" your "whole life" to
> the furtherance of your country and someone came around and verbally kicked
> you in the teeth for it how you'd feel.
>
What bandwagon? I have my own opinions.
Tell me why I should be grateful. What exactly has she done for this nation,
aside from gobbling up tax money even though she is hugely wealthy in her own
right. How has she served Britain? She has not provided a symbol to rally
around. She is not inspirational. I doubt she has worked hard, and any work she
has done I think does not pay for her life of privelege.
Her constitutional role as been absorbed by cabinet gradually since the days of
Walpole, the royal prerogatives excercised by it for generations . All that
remains now is the monarch's ability to sign bills into law. A difficult job
indeed.
The fabric of the British Constitution is the supremacy of Parliament, as
enshrined in the Bill of Rights of 1688. Your interpretation of constitutional
matters has been out of date for over 300 years.
> >I found his comments on the massacres
> >perpetrated by the British in India deeply misguided. And calling the
> >Dunblane
> >parents hysterical is unforgivable.
>
> The man is seventy-odd. I find some of his comments refreshing after being
> subjected to several hours of wishy washy drivel from other people. I admit
> he has said some very unwise things but you're putting them in the wrong
> context. When he said the Dunblane parents were "hysterical" he meant it in
> the dictionary-definition. I would be hysterical if my children were shot
> down at their local school. Obviously you would be completely calm.
I myself am 1/2 Indian. I'm glad you find the cold blooded murder of 1000s of
people 'refreshing'. People executed for taking part in passive, non violent,
resistence. If you know your history, which I doubt, General Dyer of 'His
Majesties Armed Force's' opened fire on a crowd of men, women and children to
'teach them a lesson' at at Jalianwalla Bagh. Over 1000 bullets were fired, each
inflicting a casualty. No provision was made for the injured. I'm sure you find
Historian David Irving's belief that the holocaust "simply didn't happen"
refreshing as well.
His heartless comments refered to the 'hysterical' calls for gun reform. In the
wake of popular protest he has argued for freedom to own hand guns. I make it my
business to make myself fully aware of the context. You show a particular desire
to pervert it. But i suppose you do not want to separate Phil from his precious
guns.
I gave Phillip as an example of the unaccountability of monarchy. Your defense
has proved more offensive then he himself. I did not think that was possible.
ASH
James T Ramsay
-----Original Message-----
From: Ash <a...@globalnet.co.uk>
To: James T Ramsay <James.T...@BTInternet.com>
Date: Wednesday, February 25, 1998 8:20 PM
Subject: Re: Australians have the right idea
> Dull and vacuous pretty much some up the royal family. No great
>inspiration -
I would like a suggestion for a better alternative than an evasion. The
simple truth is that because the Queen is not elected, she can represent the
whole of the United Kingdom and not a minority who voted for it. Imagine if
the Scots overwhelmingly voted for X whereas 45% of the UK voted for Y, a
further 30% for Z, etc., etc. Y would become president and the Scots and the
majority of the English would not be pleased. No, the hereditary principle
is extremely precious.
>Tell that to French. Italian and Irish Republicans. Particularly the
>Irish.
>
distinction. I actually think that there may be a scintilla of an argument
for an Australian head of state coming from Australia, but that argument is
so tiny in comparison with my objections. As for the French, Italians, etc.,
they did not overthrow their monarchs and are therefore subject to what is
their status quo. I therefore do not consider them Republicans. I very much
doubt, for example, there is a Republican Movement in any of these
countries. There are plenty of monarchist ones, however.
>Just because someone has different views, does not mean they >have 'gutter
your
>view of Republicans. Clearly you have a limited understanding of different
The Queen is isolated? You might have forgot, or maybe you were not alive
(I certainly was not) during the war, when the Queen was enlisted as a Land
Army Girl, where she learnt to drive. Maybe you've forgotten the Queen is
head of hundreds of charities including those dealing with the destitute and
poor. Maybe you've forgotten the Princess Royal is the president of "Save
the Children", and participates very actively in what it does. Just maybe
you should take a look at the British Monarchy's Web-site and go to the
diary of engagements it has for the year - then you'll realise how hard it
works on *your* ungrateful behalf.
>Tell me why I should be grateful. What exactly has she done for this
nation,
>aside from gobbling up tax money even though she is hugely wealthy in her
own
>right. How has she served Britain? She has not provided a symbol to rally
>around. She is not inspirational. I doubt she has worked hard, and any work
she
She will not be a rallying point when there are people like you trying to
break it up. Don't you see, your attitudes are the destructive ones, you are
the problem. If it wasn't for people like you always disseminating
scandalously untrue propaganda, then we wouldn't have so much of a problem,
would we?
Yet more rubbish about her finances. Along with that "Nationalism Argument"
you have decided to ignore, finances make up a lot of the typical Republican
bile. You haven't heard of Crown Estate. The Queen owns Regent Street, Bond
Street and several other hundreds of thousands of acres of the English
countryside in her own right (please don't start arguing about how it came
to be hers, we can go back to 1215 if you like) and the profits for that,
which in 1996 totalled some £94,000,000, are surrendered to the Treasury in
receipt of the Civil List. As you know that is significantly less than
£90Million, so in fact the Queen gets a raw deal. I in fact advocate the
privatisation of the monarchy, and have written to the Queen several times
urging her to consider it just to snub Blair for scrapping Britannia. If she
did say that she wanted to keep Crown Estate Revenue and live without
tax-payers money, her income would instantly double. But she's not like
that, she has scruples and morals, and I respect her for that. Somehow if
lesser people (i.e., a Republican) were in that same position, they would
not be "devoting" their "whole life" to the service to their country in the
he
way she patently does.
This is where the Republican argument is the most fatally flawed. In effect
abolishing the monarchy would mean surrendering millions upon millions of
pounds of our national heritage and land. If the Queen is not yet the
richest woman in the world (she is far from it by the way) she would be if
the monarchy were to be abolished.
And this is the point I find the most interesting.
>Her constitutional role as been absorbed by cabinet gradually since the
days of
>remains now is the monarch's ability to sign bills into law. A difficult
job
>indeed.
and government, and if those bonds are tried to be lessened to any extent,
turmoil ensues - and you know what? The Queen wins every time.
>The fabric of the British Constitution is the supremacy of Parliament, as
>enshrined in the Bill of Rights of 1688. Your interpretation of
constitutional
>matters has been out of date for over 300 years.
>I myself am 1/2 Indian. I'm glad you find the cold blooded murder of 1000s
of
>people 'refreshing'. People executed for taking part in passive, non
violent,
>Majesties Armed Force's' opened fire on a crowd of men, women and children
to
each
>inflicting a casualty. No provision was made for the injured. I'm sure you
find
>Historian David Irving's belief that the holocaust "simply didn't happen"
>refreshing as well.
>
referring to any specific comments that I found "refreshing", not least any
action carried out fifty or so years beforehand that spurred them. I find
his overall style refreshing compared to other repressed comments, because
people can have a good argument about them if they don't agree with them.
>His heartless comments referred to the 'hysterical' calls for gun reform.
In
the
>wake of popular protest he has argued for freedom to own hand guns. I make
it my
>business to make myself fully aware of the context. You show a particular
desire
precious
>guns.
Ah, the gun debate. Well of course I don't agree with banning hand guns, it
is a ridiculous and illiberal thing to do. It is a knee-jerk reaction, as
you well know, and it would do nothing to prevent that sort of situation
happening. Prince Philip might of called the cried for reform "hysterical",
but he did not make a specific link between the bereaved parents and the
adjective. That makes all the difference, and it is mischievous of you to
suggest in your original reply that was the case.
>I gave Phillip as an example of the unaccountability of monarchy. Your
>has proved more offensive then he himself. I did not think that was
possible.
don't want to repress any original personalities. Philip makes stupid
comments, we all know that, but I think it endears us more to him because of
it. Yes we can laugh at him and call him a bumbling old man, but that is
part of the beauty of having a royal *family* to represent us. They are a
true reflection of the majority suburban-dwelling middle class population.
Ian Lowery
Dikkii Webb <dik...@DONTSPAMMEonthe.net.au> wrote:
>Shouldn't you be using the royal "we and our family",
What's with this royal wee bit? Is there a royal urinary tract
infection?
Ian
------------------------------------------------
To reply, remove "nospam" from my e-mail address.
Ash
James T Ramsay wrote:
> As for the French, Italians, etc., they did not overthrow their monarchs and
> are therefore subject to what is
> their status quo. I therefore do not consider them Republicans. I very much
> doubt, for example, there is a Republican Movement in any of these
> countries. There are plenty of monarchist ones, however.
>
Oh so the French Revolution, probably the most important event of the millenium
did not happen. Lousis XVI was not sent to the guillotine along with his wife.
Clearly the First Republic never existed, nor those that followed.
Obviously Victor Emmanuel II was not removed from power by popular Republican
pressure in 1945.
History submits to your obviously greater knowledge: )
You speak utter rubbish. Your knowledge reflect the inward looking nature of the
monarchy.
France and Italy have been hotbeds of Republican sentiment for generations.
Popular Republicanism. They contain some of the most active Socialist parties in
Western Europe, particularly Italy. The Great Powers of Europe lack any
monarchist movement - ie: Germany and France.
> >Just because someone has different views, does not mean they >have 'gutter
> >morals'.Huge numbers of people around the world would share the offence in
> your
> >view of Republicans. Clearly you have a limited understanding of different
> >people and their own ideas. Lived an isolated life like the Queen perhaps?
>
> The Queen is isolated? You might have forgotten, or maybe you were not alive
> (I certainly was not) during the war, when the Queen was enlisted as a Land
> Army Girl, where she learnt to drive. Maybe you've forgotten the Queen is
> head of hundreds of charities including those dealing with the destitute and
> poor. Maybe you've forgotten the Princess Royal is the president of "Save
> the Children", and participates very actively in what it does. Just maybe
> you should take a look at the British Monarchy's Web-site and go to the
> diary of engagements it has for the year - then you'll realise how hard it
> works on *your* ungrateful behalf.
>
Yes the Queen was a Land Army Girl - and she learned to drive.
It is only unusual because as a royal she does live a normal life like most
people in this country.
Yes the Queen is the figurehead of Hundreds of charitees. I congratulate anyone
who does charitable work. BUT Especially those behind the scenes who have no
interest in Public relations. Many of these people do not get the thanks they
deserve but dedicate their lives to it. They do not get double page spreads in
the tabloids for their efforts. I am grateful to the silent majority, not the
vocal few.
The Queen is enormously wealthy in her own right - agreed. A wealth accumulated,
tax free, up until recently. No trace of inheritence tax, etc.
I doubt even Bill Gates could pay for the back tax bill of the monarchy, even
this century.
The Queen getting a 'raw deal' is laughable. The money has been systematically
poached from the people of not just Britain but the old Empire with centuries.
It is only right she give the large proportion of it back. It is the people's
money after all.
I think you suffer from delusions of grandeur if you think you can influence the
monarchy in respect to privatisation. An apolitical monarch could not snub a PM
with a democratic mandate. Privatisation only legitimises the last millenia of
pillage by the monarchy inflicted on the people of Britain and its old colonies.
Why should she have that income. A more 'charitable' thing to do would be to
divert it all to good causes. That is more then she could ever raise herself.
The only reason for 'devoting her life' to her 'work' is that she has to. This
by virtue of her birth. No credence is given to quality, just the fact her
parents did the same job.
A Republic would not mean an end to National Herritage and the lands involved.
The Queen has little rights to the land she 'owns' in the name of the people. No
one who shares my opinion would concede the Queen should be granted her obscence
wealth. An estimate of back taxation I am sure would even the balance
> >Her constitutional role as been absorbed by cabinet gradually since the
> days of
> >Walpole, the royal prerogatives exercised by it for generations . All that
> >remains now is the monarch's ability to sign bills into law. A difficult
> job
> >indeed.
>
> As I have just outlines, there is an extremely fine balance between Crown
> and government, and if those bonds are tried to be lessened to any extent,
> turmoil ensues - and you know what? The Queen wins every time.
>
They have been lessened consistently since 1688. The Bill of Rights, the
supremacy of Parliament enshrine in British law that Parliament wins every time.
Your opinions do not stand up to legal reality.
From Walpole onward, Cabinet has acted more independently, until it is now acts
on its own. The Queen's role is minimal. She cannot oppose legislation, let
alone draft it. The Queens speech isn't even hers, being written in effect by
the incumbent government by virtue of their manifesto.
> >The fabric of the British Constitution is the supremacy of Parliament, as
> >enshrined in the Bill of Rights of 1688. Your interpretation of
> constitutional
> >matters has been out of date for over 300 years.
>
> I refer the gentleman to the answer I made earlier
>
Which does not stand up to British Law. Argue your case to a judge - it would
not stand up. And for God sake learn some history.
> >I myself am 1/2 Indian. I'm glad you find the cold blooded murder of 1000s
> of
> >people 'refreshing'. People executed for taking part in passive, non
> violent,
> >resistance. If you know your history, which I doubt, General Dyer of 'His
> >Majesties Armed Force's' opened fire on a crowd of men, women and children
> to
> >'teach them a lesson' at at Jalianwalla Bagh. Over 1000 bullets were fired,
> each
> >inflicting a casualty. No provision was made for the injured. I'm sure you
> find
> >Historian David Irving's belief that the holocaust "simply didn't happen"
> >refreshing as well.
> >
> Obviously you're taking my comments wildly out of context. I was not
> referring to any specific comments that I found "refreshing", not least any
> action carried out fifty or so years beforehand that spurred them. I find
> his overall style refreshing compared to other repressed comments, because
> people can have a good argument about them if they don't agree with them.
>
You found the bigotted comments 'refreshing'. Accountability makes people think
twice about what they say. He has contributed to diplomatic blunders with many
members of the commonwealth. I think it is just a bit important that figures
representing our country should not threaten our alliances. His comments about
Africans, Aboriginees and Indians have offended literally millions. Especially
comments over the indian massacre, an event embedded deeply in the national
consciousness of India. His 'refreshing' argument jepardises relations.
> >His heartless comments referred to the 'hysterical' calls for gun reform.
> In
> the
> >wake of popular protest he has argued for freedom to own hand guns. I make
> it my
> >business to make myself fully aware of the context. You show a particular
> desire
> >to pervert it. But I suppose you do not want to separate Phil from his
> precious
> >guns.
> Ah, the gun debate. Well of course I don't agree with banning hand guns, it
> is a ridiculous and illiberal thing to do. It is a knee-jerk reaction, as
> you well know, and it would do nothing to prevent that sort of situation
> happening. Prince Philip might of called the cried for reform "hysterical",
> but he did not make a specific link between the bereaved parents and the
> adjective. That makes all the difference, and it is mischievous of you to
> suggest in your original reply that was the case.
>
A defender of monarchy accuses me of illiberalism. HO HO Mr Monarchy, You make
me laugh.
Do you suggest other restrictions by government are illiberal - hard drugs
perhaps. I think not. Philip stood up as a gun enthusiast, not as a defender of
liberalism. Liberal gun laws are linked to violent crime - take the US.
> >I gave Phillip as an example of the unaccountability of monarchy. Your
> defence
> >has proved more offensive then he himself. I did not think that was
> possible
> I lose no sleep by having an unaccountable member of the royal family, and I
> don't want to repress any original personalities. Philip makes stupid
> comments, we all know that, but I think it endears us more to him because of
> it. Yes we can laugh at him and call him a bumbling old man, but that is
> part of the beauty of having a royal *family* to represent us. They are a
> true reflection of the majority suburban-dwelling middle class population.
How can these people reflect middle class feelings and aspirations. They know
nothing of life outside palaces and castles. Pretending to understand the needs
of the people is the worst aspect of Royalty. Elected figures are forced to be
at least closer to the people - their politcal lives depend on it.
ASH
James T Ramsay
-----Original Message-----
From: Ash <a...@globalnet.co.uk>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.australian
To: James T Ramsay <James.T...@btinternet.com>
Date: Thursday, February 26, 1998 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: Australians have the right idea
>Oh so the French Revolution, probably the most important event of the
millennium
>did not happen. Lousis XVI was not sent to the guillotine along with his
wife.
>Clearly the First Republic never existed, nor those that followed.
>Obviously Victor Emmanuel II was not removed from power by popular
Republican
>pressure in 1945.
>History submits to your obviously greater knowledge: )
>You speak utter rubbish. Your knowledge reflect the inward looking nature
of the
>monarchy.
>France and Italy have been hotbeds of Republican sentiment for generations.
>Popular Republicanism. They contain some of the most active Socialist
parties in
>Western Europe, particularly Italy. The Great Powers of Europe lack any
>monarchist movement - ie: Germany and France.
Well, its very easy to misunderstand - deliberately or otherwise - my
comments and try to make me look ridiculous. No doubt some would have been
duped, but hopefully those who read what I wrote properly would know that I
was talking about the "status quo". I am not harping back to the past, which
is what Republicans like to do, I am saying that the French and Germans
simply accent their current constitutional system at the moment. Therefore,
there is no *active* support for a Republic. However, the French are
absolutely obsessed with our monarchy, as you might know but don't want to
acknowledge.
>Yes the Queen was a Land Army Girl - and she learned to drive.
>It is only unusual because as a royal she does live a normal life like most
>people in this country.
>Yes the Queen is the figurehead of Hundreds of charities. I congratulate
anyone
>who does charitable work. BUT Especially those behind the scenes who have
no
>interest in Public relations. Many of these people do not get the thanks
they
>deserve but dedicate their lives to it. They do not get double page spreads
in
>the tabloids for their efforts. I am grateful to the silent majority, not
the
>vocal few.
This is a predictable argument, but no sane person would claim the Queen was
a publicity seeker. Indeed, it would be positively strange if the head of
state was not also head of hundreds of charities. However, you resolutely
refuse to acknowledge the good that she does. You must have a very hard
heart if you can't give the tiniest ounce of credit to her for doing so much
on this country's behalf. For when one says "The Queen" from the USA to
Uzbekistan, one thinks not of HM Queen Beatrix or the Queen of Denmark, but
Her Most Excellent Majesty, The Queen of the United Kingdom.
>The Queen is enormously wealthy in her own right - agreed. A wealth
accumulated,
>tax free, up until recently. No trace of inheritance tax, etc.
Utter nonsense. You obviously have failed to do your research. A quick flick
through the Times Richest in the UK shows the Queen with a personal fortune
estimated as £100,000,000 which is the total of her personal estate
(Sandringham, Balmoral, etc.). What I was trying to get at in my last
correspondence was that Buckingham Palace, Kensington Palace, etc., are NOT
hers and only for the use of the head of state, whoever he or she may be,
but ONLY on the basis that the Queen receives the Civil List. This is the
intricate balance to which I refer. If the Civil List were to be abolished
or, indeed, the monarchy, the Queen would have legitimate claim to all these
palaces on top of 100s of acres of prime central London real estate and
133,000 acres of Cornish estate (the Duchy of Cornwall). And if it came down
to legalities, she would win.
>I doubt even Bill Gates could pay for the back tax bill of the monarchy,
even
>this century.
As I said before, the palaces are for the use of the sovereign so long as
the
Civil List is given. In addition to that, you are wildly overestimating the
tax, because the Queen only pays tax on the income she receives from the
Stud at Sandringham and her personal fortune, which is, as I'm sure you are
aware, a fraction of that of Bill Gates. Yet another failed Republican
argument purporting the false wealth of our gracious Queen.
>The Queen getting a 'raw deal' is laughable. The money has been
systematically
>poached from the people of not just Britain but the old Empire with
centuries.
>It is only right she give the large proportion of it back. It is the
people's
>money after all.
Examples please. Now you've completely disregarded all fact and are moving
into the realms of Republican fantasy. No, the land upon which we live is
never ours if you care to go back to the beginning of the world. The
original people who claimed it never paid for it. You are obviously a
Communist who wishes the land of all people such as the Duke of
Northumberland and the Duke of Westminster, whose forefathers probably won
it in battles in 12 hundred and odd. I find winning land in battles a quite
legitimate activity in the 13th century.
>I think you suffer from delusions of grandeur if you think you can
influence the
>monarchy in respect to privatisation. An apolitical monarch could not snub
a PM
>with a democratic mandate. Privatisation only legitimises the last
millennia
of
>pillage by the monarchy inflicted on the people of Britain and its old
colonies.
>Why should she have that income. A more 'charitable' thing to do would be
to
>divert it all to good causes. That is more then she could ever raise
herself.
You must suffer even bigger delusions if you think you're ever going to get
a Republic. Just think: The United Republic. To me that is an Orwellian
nightmare of soviet socialism. It is anathema to me and most of the British
public. If you were quite happy for some idiot like Keating or Tony Banks to
be president then you're a prime fool.
You also assume that I have no influence on the monarchy at all. My
motivation for writing those letters was to support Her Majesty and to make
her realise that the majority of the public were on her side and realised
that a Republic was unwanted
>The only reason for 'devoting her life' to her 'work' is that she has to.
This
>by virtue of her birth. No credence is given to quality, just the fact her
>parents did the same job.
The Queen is the most experienced head of state. And King Charles III will
be the most experienced king when he comes to power. The beauty of the
monarchy is that they are good at what they do, and are trained from birth
to do it. The Queen has reigned over eleven Prime Ministers, and has far
more experience of world affairs than you or I will ever.
>A Republic would not mean an end to National Heritage and the lands
involved.
>The Queen has little rights to the land she 'owns' in the name of the
people. No
>one who shares my opinion would concede the Queen should be granted her
>obscene
>wealth. An estimate of back taxation I am sure would even the balance
You simply don't understand or stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that the
Queen is the ultimate owner of these various properties. She could claim
legitimacy to them because her forefathers paid for them. It was Queen
Victoria who personally paid for the famous frontage of Buckingham Palace,
and whether that was from taxes or whatever, the fact is she paid for it and
no-one can dispute or argue with that.
>They have been lessened consistently since 1688. The Bill of Rights, the
>supremacy of Parliament enshrine in British law that Parliament wins every
time.
>Your opinions do not stand up to legal reality.
I am only talking about in the event of a Republic.
>From Walpole onward, Cabinet has acted more independently, until it is now
acts
>on its own. The Queen's role is minimal. She cannot oppose legislation, let
>alone draft it. The Queens speech isn't even hers, being written in effect
by
>the incumbent government by virtue of their manifesto.
I know, I know, I know. I agree, I agree, I agree. ONLY in the event of a
Republic. The monarchy isn't stupid you know, it made it this way
deliberately. George III wasn't going to sign away the profits for
Regent Street without something in return. And you cannot get away from it,
its a deliberately installed condition of the agreement that makes sure the
Royal family doesn't lose out in the event of a revolution! Its marvellous
and its clever!
>Which does not stand up to British Law. Argue your case to a judge - it
would
>not stand up. And for God sake learn some history.
If the Queen argued her case in front of a judge she *would* win.
>You found the bigoted comments 'refreshing'. Accountability makes people
think
>twice about what they say. He has contributed to diplomatic blunders with
many
>members of the commonwealth. I think it is just a bit important that
figures
>representing our country should not threaten our alliances. His comments
about
>Africans, Aborigines and Indians have offended literally millions.
Especially
>comments over the Indian massacre, an event embedded deeply in the national
>consciousness of India. His 'refreshing' argument jeopardises relations.
Of course the Indian government wasn't exactly acting in a very good manner
either, and nor was, as it happens, our supposedly marvellously
democratically accountable Foreign Secretary.
>Do you suggest other restrictions by government are illiberal - hard drugs
>perhaps. I think not. Philip stood up as a gun enthusiast, not as a
defender of
>liberalism. Liberal gun laws are linked to violent crime - take the US.
I am not a liberal, but I do defend people's rights to shoot and trap dumb
animals. I support fox hunting and hope that dreadful Foster Bill gets
talked out of the Lords. Good old Lords, - they've much more sense than the
entire front bench put together.
I do not support liberal gun laws, I support the Countryside. I don't
imagine you turning up in your Barbour on whatever-day-it-is.
>How can these people reflect middle class feelings and aspirations. They
know
>nothing of life outside palaces and castles. Pretending to understand the
needs
>of the people is the worst aspect of Royalty. Elected figures are forced to
be
>at least closer to the people - their political lives depend on it.
The concept of a Royal family is a Victorian invention, everyone knows that.
Like kilts and other things, the Victorians were very good at inventing
things, and what they did invent should not be knocked. Of course, the rise
in immorality in Britain is very heartbreaking, and the rise in impolite
people and generally undesirable vagrants has led to people questioning the
monarchy. That is why I made my comment about tattoos, etc. People are
actually asking why they have to be polite to the Queen - can you believe
that? Oh no, I'm sure it would be much better if we all called each other
swearwords, talked loudly and we're generally unpleasant and didn't bother
to have a neat appearance. Yes, what a marvellous place modern Britain is.
Teenage prostitution, drunken youth syndrome, violent crime soaring through
the roof and probably an acceptance of paedophiles is next in line for
decriminalisation. You already get jokes about them on popular TV
programmes, and that's the first indication of something being accepted as
normal. You'll probably dismiss my comments as silly, but they are
symptomatic of the wider picture. I know oppressive "liberals" like you like
to shove your Islingtonian ideals on to the rest of us, and Republicanism
(in the UK) is a wider symptom of that.
Loyal British Subject
Ian Lowery
"James T Ramsay" wrote:
>Republicans tend to share a love of tattoos and body mutilation.
This is true, I like to mutilate the bodies of monarchists.
I don't like tatoos, I used to go around with a tatooist's daughter
until I realised she had designs on me.
I dunno about this Dupe of EddenBugger bloke. He's a bit suss, after
all, he sleeps with a queen.
Ash
> Well, its very easy to misunderstand - deliberately or otherwise - my
> comments and try to make me look ridiculous. No doubt some would have been
> duped, but hopefully those who read what I wrote properly would know that I
> was talking about the "status quo". I am not harping back to the past, which
> is what Republicans like to do, I am saying that the French and Germans
> simply accent their current constitutional system at the moment. Therefore,
> there is no *active* support for a Republic. However, the French are
> absolutely obsessed with our monarchy, as you might know but don't want to
> acknowledge.
In a world where Monarchy is the exception to the rule you need no help in
appearing ridiculous.
If you love 'proper' monarchy go and live in an undemocratic country - maybe
Saudi Arabia. You enjoy the trappings of a democratic country yet dismiss them.
Economic growth has shown to be the product of economic liberalism. Would you
rather be a citizen or a serf, not even owning yourself. Monarchy is evil. You
will not find any widespread movement in any country to restore a monarchy in a
Republic. HAVE A GO - YOU WILL FAIL. FIND ANY MAINSTREAM PARTY.
I can find them - look at Australia.
People vote in France, Germany and Italy. This is a sure sign of people
recognising the legitimacy of the Republican Government.
The French like others are interested in the "novelty" of royalty. Given the
volatility of the French nation, if they wanted royalty they would get it. The
did not want Louis, the did not want the Bourbons and certainly not the July
monarchy. The French 'accent' to nothing - De Gualle was pushed out. Not
everyone in the world is a passive as yourself. And to quote a Monarchist
arguement - if it "ain't broke, don't fix it" - it is as applicable to these
countries as you think it is to Britain. I simply feel monarchy is "broke"
You are possibly confusing the concept of monarchy with celebrity.
> This is a predictable argument, but no sane person would claim the Queen was
> a publicity seeker. Indeed, it would be positively strange if the head of
> state was not also head of hundreds of charities. However, you resolutely
> refuse to acknowledge the good that she does. You must have a very hard
> heart if you can't give the tiniest ounce of credit to her for doing so much
> on this country's behalf. For when one says "The Queen" from the USA to
> Uzbekistan, one thinks not of HM Queen Beatrix or the Queen of Denmark, but
> Her Most Excellent Majesty, The Queen of the United Kingdom.
I would like to say I appreciate the Queen's charitable work. I do not doubt her
motives but I know there is more than one reason for what she does.
A President could do the same and provide better value for money.
I agree - the Queen is held in high regard abroad. Other countries regard the
British monarchy as 'quaint'. The knowledge of the monarchy abroad should not be
taken as a positive display of Britain. It shows us as backward.
> Utter nonsense. You obviously have failed to do your research. A quick flick
> through the Times Richest in the UK shows the Queen with a personal fortune
> estimated as £100,000,000 which is the total of her personal estate
> (Sandringham, Balmoral, etc.). What I was trying to get at in my last
> correspondence was that Buckingham Palace, Kensington Palace, etc., are NOT
> hers and only for the use of the head of state, whoever he or she may be,
> but ONLY on the basis that the Queen receives the Civil List. This is the
> intricate balance to which I refer. If the Civil List were to be abolished
> or, indeed, the monarchy, the Queen would have legitimate claim to all these
> palaces on top of 100s of acres of prime central London real estate and
> 133,000 acres of Cornish estate (the Duchy of Cornwall). And if it came down
> to legalities, she would win.
Public buildings they are, and public they will remain.
> As I said before, the palaces are for the use of the sovereign so long as
> the
> Civil List is given. In addition to that, you are wildly overestimating the
> tax, because the Queen only pays tax on the income she receives from the
> Stud at Sandringham and her personal fortune, which is, as I'm sure you are
> aware, a fraction of that of Bill Gates. Yet another failed Republican
> argument purporting the false wealth of our gracious Queen.
The Queen has inherited huge amounts of wealth along with her role. It is the
basis of the hereditary principle. I refer to tax on this inheritence.
The Royal Family also has a hidden wealth of incalcuable value - art treasures
that should be public. Also - all propeties are given tax exempt status - this
status demands acceptable entry to the properties which is forthcoming on an
irregular and expensive basis. If the Queen cared so much about her subjects she
would not charge so much for entry to the Palaces that it stops many poorer
people. It is a profit based enterprise designed for tourists, not 'subjects'.
> Examples please. Now you've completely disregarded all fact and are moving
> into the realms of Republican fantasy. No, the land upon which we live is
> never ours if you care to go back to the beginning of the world. The
> original people who claimed it never paid for it. You are obviously a
> Communist who wishes the land of all people such as the Duke of
> Northumberland and the Duke of Westminster, whose forefathers probably won
> it in battles in 12 hundred and odd. I find winning land in battles a quite
> legitimate activity in the 13th century.
Battles provide legitimacy. Genghis Khan, Hitler and Napoleon would be proud.
I am not a Communist. If it could work prehaps, but from all the evidence I see
it can not. The Human element always fails. People are different, and often do
not want to share.
I am a meritocrat. People should attain positions of power and responsibility
through merit alone, not through wealth or birth. It could never be perfectly
applied but then neither can absolute monarchy.
> You must suffer even bigger delusions if you think you're ever going to get
> a Republic. Just think: The United Republic. To me that is an Orwellian
> nightmare of soviet socialism. It is anathema to me and most of the British
> public. If you were quite happy for some idiot like Keating or Tony Banks to
> be president then you're a prime fool.
I am British. I live in Britain. A Republic i am sure would not keep a part of
the United Kingdom in its name. Does the French Republic Sound Orwellian, or
maybe the Federal Republic of Germany. The US is a United Republic. Mccarthyism
was a sure sign that socialism plaays only a limited part in American life.
Republic is not a bad word. It is the chosen system of most countries on Earth.
> You also assume that I have no influence on the monarchy at all. Mymotivation
> for writing those letters was to support Her Majesty and to make her realise
> that the majority of the public were on her side and realised that a Republic
> was unwanted
I assume you have no influence on the monarchy. To presume so is arrogance on
your part. You have already quoted the volume of letters the Queen recieves, the
majority of which she never sees, allocated to some secretary. You have as much
impact on the monarchy as King Canute had on the tides.
You say you made her realise a Republic was not wanted by the majority. She
could read that in any newspaper. You exagerate both your own importance and
that of the Queen.
THIS IS YOUR MOST IMPORTANT FAILING
> The Queen is the most experienced head of state. And King Charles III will
> be the most experienced king when he comes to power. The beauty of the
> monarchy is that they are good at what they do, and are trained from birth
> to do it. The Queen has reigned over eleven Prime Ministers, and has far
> more experience of world affairs than you or I will ever.
Of course. She has offended religious groups by demanding to wear socks in
temples. A monarch has to respect the customs and beliefs of other cultures just
as any other would. Protocal only goes so far, and only as on as it does not
show foreign countries disrespect.
The Queen has had one informal chat per week with each of these PMs. She is
never sent to diplomatic hotspots. Her knowledge of world affairs is shaped
around the Commonwealth. Her hands on experience is limited. Kofi Annan has
dealt with a dictator. In his brief tenure as Secretary General he has had more
experience then a woman who views the world either from the deck of Britannia or
a plush office in some palace.
> You simply don't understand or stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that the
> Queen is the ultimate owner of these various properties. She could claim
> legitimacy to them because her forefathers paid for them. It was Queen
> Victoria who personally paid for the famous frontage of Buckingham Palace,
> and whether that was from taxes or whatever, the fact is she paid for it and
> no-one can dispute or argue with that.
I can
If inheritence tax had ever been applied to 'owned' properties, this would have
forced the break up of the royal estates.
> And you cannot get away from it,its a deliberately installed condition of the
> agreement that makes sure theRoyal family doesn't lose out in the event of a
> revolution! Its marvellous and its clever!
Louis XVI had a form of the civil list in France. Not that I approve of
violence, but you give that arguement to the mob. A violent revolution would
remove the monarchy entirely and break up the lands. This will not happen at any
time in the future I hope.
The Royals may keep their wealth after a political settlement, but at least what
they represent will be removed from the fabric of our constitution. It is worth
the price.
> I am not a liberal, but I do defend people's rights to shoot and trap dumb
> animals. I support fox hunting and hope that dreadful Foster Bill gets
> talked out of the Lords. Good old Lords, - they've much more sense than the
> entire front bench put together.
> I do not support liberal gun laws, I support the Countryside. I don't
> imagine you turning up in your Barbour on whatever-day-it-is.
The Lords are just as bad as the monarchy. People have no right to make
decisions just because one of their ancestors did some king a favour.
Anyway, the House of Lords should take this opportunity to frustrate the will of
the people. Hereditary peers will soon those their voting rights and with it the
Tory majority is removed.
Good old Lords - they have the poorest attendence of any legislative figures in
the democratic world. The vast majority of them, the hereditary peers in turn
represent the narrowest possible constituency - the wealthy landowners. They are
well enough represented in the Commons.
50 years ago the majority would have thought reforming the Lords an insult.
Views change.
> The concept of a Royal family is a Victorian invention, everyone knows that.
> Like kilts and other things, the Victorians were very good at inventing
> things, and what they did invent should not be knocked.
A wonderful invention. Lets look at some more
The workhouse - The product of a confused morality that believed people simply
chose not to work.
Chimney Sweeps - basically child murder
Poverty - Some of the worst seen in Britain's history. Malnutrition and disease
were common. 2/3 of all volunteers for the Boer War were rejected on the basis
of their poor condition, even though standards were lower than in the Napoleonic
Wars
Imperialism - the root cause of Anglo German arms race and thus WW1 and WW2. The
Monarchy was a key part of that, Victoria anxious to massage her own ego by
being granted the title Empress of India.
> Of course, the rise in immorality in Britain is very heartbreaking, and the
> rise in impolite
> people and generally undesirable vagrants has led to people questioning the
> monarchy. That is why I made my comment about tattoos, etc.
You are saying vagrants are in their position because of immorality. I'm not a
Communist but I'm with Marx on this one. Homelessness is the product of the
economic system and society in general.
Tatoos - hmmm. Those at the Convention in Australia who are deciding the
structure of a Republic look quite respectable. Even the monarchists. I like the
way you offend the newsgroup we are in. Tell me the truth. Are you really Prince
Philip?
However, immorality has been around as long as royalty, long before people
questoned the legitimacy of Monarchy.
> Teenage prostitution, drunken youth syndrome, violent crime soaring through
> the roof and probably an acceptance of paedophiles is next in line for
> decriminalisation. You already get jokes about them on popular TV
> programmes, and that's the first indication of something being accepted as
> normal.
The twisted Victorian morality accepted prostitution even though it looked down
upon it. Brothels were far more active then than now. It is after all the
world's oldest profession. Increases are symptomatic of Britain's relative
economic decline since the begining of the century, not through dubious morals.
The Victorians simply chose to ignore their problems. Prostitution was not an
acceptable part of civilised society. But It was so bad under the Victorians
that legislation tolerated it - The Contagious Diseses Acts of the 1860s
introducing monitoring of prostitutes, because of huge epidemics of STDs. Long
before that William Blake spoke of the "youthful harlots" who cursed London, and
how they "Blight with lagues the marriage herse". I suggest you read Mrs
Warren's Profession by George Bernard Shaw. It might offer some insight.
Drugs were a respectable part of society - opium fiends were common in the
aristocracy. The Opium War was fought over control of drugs.
Drunken youths were more prevelent. The infamous Gin Shops sold alchol to the
youngest children to drown the sorrows of poverty.
Speculating on the acceptence of paedophiles is obscene. The Paedophile list is
a sign of the crackdown on something that has probably always existed.
Do not look at the past with rose tinted spectacles. Nostalgia should not be
accepted over facts
> I know oppressive "liberals" like you like to shove your Islingtonian ideals
> on to the rest of us, and Republicanism
> (in the UK) is a wider symptom of that.
I do not seek to impress my views on the masses you proclaim to represent. I
believe what I believe. I do not agree with much of what you have to say. To
impress my belief on the nation without its consent is to act like the kings and
queens of old.
That is why I feel a Republic is a long way off. But as you probably are aware,
popularity for the institution, not its individual figures, is at an all time
low. I hope change will come one day, but I am no the one to force it. No Head
of State can remain in the face of public opinion.
> Loyal British Subject
I am loyal to my country, but not to a monarch who I do not consider to act on
my behalf.
ASH
James T Ramsay
-----Original Message-----
From: Ash <a...@globalnet.co.uk>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.australian
To: James T Ramsay <James.T...@btinternet.com>
Date: Friday, February 27, 1998 6:35 PM
Subject: Re: Australians have the right idea
>In a world where Monarchy is the exception to the rule you need no help in
>appearing ridiculous.
>If you love 'proper' monarchy go and live in an undemocratic country -
maybe
>Saudi Arabia. You enjoy the trappings of a democratic country yet dismiss
them.
>Economic growth has shown to be the product of economic liberalism. Would
you
>rather be a citizen or a serf, not even owning yourself. Monarchy is evil.
You
>will not find any widespread movement in any country to restore a monarchy
in a
>Republic. HAVE A GO - YOU WILL FAIL. FIND ANY MAINSTREAM PARTY.
>I can find them - look at Australia.
I believe there is a campaign to remove the extravagant and corrupt
Brazilian
President. I also believe there is an effort to reinstate the exiled king of
Albania. The Island of Fiji has recently rejoined the Commonwealth and is
looking to reinstate Queen Elizabeth II as their monarch. "Monarchy is
evil" - dear me we are getting a little het up about things. You've probably
just alienated a large section of the newsgroup by this ridiculous comment.
And to paint me as some sort of fanatical extremist when over 78% of the
British public agree with me is slightly bizarre. Are you saying that the
majority of the people in the United Kingdom support an evil woman? Are you
completely mad?
>People vote in France, Germany and Italy. This is a sure sign of people
>recognising the legitimacy of the Republican Government.
And people vote in Great Britain for Labour, the Conservatives and the
Liberal Democrats - all monarchist parties. Indeed, Blair seems to swoon
every time he meets the Queen, and, not surprisingly by the way he seems to
conduct his own court, has a certain appreciation for the system of
Constitutional Monarchy.
>The French like others are interested in the "novelty" of royalty. Given
the
>volatility of the French nation, if they wanted royalty they would get it.
The
>did not want Louis, the did not want the Bourbons and certainly not the
July
>monarchy. The French 'accent' to nothing - De Gualle was pushed out. Not
>everyone in the world is a passive as yourself. And to quote a Monarchist
>argument - if it "ain't broke, don't fix it" - it is as applicable to
these
>countries as you think it is to Britain. I simply feel monarchy is "broke"
Monarchy is not "broke" at all. Monarchy has not changed, only a minority of
the public's perception of it. This minority, are, like yourself, highly
sympathetic to Communism (which wouldn't wash well with the average Sun
reader), actively prejudiced against the Upper classes and most likely
without religion and the concept of god being a "king of kings". Therefore
it is only in the perception of a few people, who unfortunately will always
persist and exist, infiltrating newspapers and the BBC, who think this way.
And the wider public stubbornly refuses to go along with it. I would like to
know what you think is "broke" with monarchy, when it took one day to remove
Edward VIII from the throne but took months and months to kick Nixon out.
Who is the more accountable of those two?
>I would like to say I appreciate the Queen's charitable work. I do not
doubt her
>motives but I know there is more than one reason for what she does.
At last, a hint of gratitude.
>A President could do the same and provide better value for money.
I do not think so. First of all he couldn't provide all that
>I agree - the Queen is held in high regard abroad. Other countries regard
the
>British monarchy as 'quaint'. The knowledge of the monarchy abroad should
not be
>taken as a positive display of Britain. It shows us as backward.
You may also notice that there is a country, a bit like ours but regrettably
we are distancing ourselves from its moral values, called Japan. Japan is a
Constitutional monarchy, and it is also a very polite and reserved compared
to ours. The Japanese do not grumble about their Emperor because they are,
by and large, an educated society which appreciates the idea of hierarchy.
I
see a direct correlation between the general politeness of a country and
whether it supports its monarchy (if it has one). We all know Japan is
regarded as a reserved and traditional nation, but no-one could describe it
as backward. No, whether a country has a Constitutional monarchy or not is
no indication of how it is perceived. I completely disagree with you about
what is perceived of Elizabeth II abroad. Maybe among heroin-injecting urban
anarchists she is perceived as upholding backwardness, but amongst the wider
populations of Middle-America, Middle-France and Middle-Germany - the people
that matter with their tourist money and their respectable businesses - have
a great admiration for the Queen. And if being "forward" is some dreadful
vision of extreme liberation and the Queen dancing to rave music while
downing countless outlawed illegal substances, give me backwardness any day.
>Public buildings they are, and public they will remain.
They are not public buildings. They are Crown estate.
>The Queen has inherited huge amounts of wealth along with her role. It is
the
>basis of the hereditary principle. I refer to tax on this inheritance.
When was the last time you had a meeting with the Queen's personal
accountants? You honestly think you know the wealth of the Queen and what
her financial affairs are? I prefer to err on the side of caution and give
her the benefit of the doubt.
>The Royal Family also has a hidden wealth of incalculable value - art
treasures
>that should be public. Also - all properties are given tax exempt status -
this
>status demands acceptable entry to the properties which is forthcoming on
an
>irregular and expensive basis. If the Queen cared so much about her
subjects she
>would not charge so much for entry to the Palaces that it stops many poorer
>people. It is a profit based enterprise designed for tourists, not
'subjects'.
Really, and you would know? Judging by your past inaccuracies I very much
doubt. The Royal collection is treated as any other government-owned
treasure. A president would have his pick of the National Gallery before he
came into office, as demonstrated by our beloved Lord Chancellor. However,
many of the art that the Royal family has was paid for out of private
income. Portraits of family and other items have been gifts or commissioned
with government consent. Obviously under a Republic you would disallow the
president from having his portrait done.
>Battles provide legitimacy. Genghis Khan, Hitler and Napoleon would be
proud.
I wasn't saying they were legitimate, all I was saying is that they have
happened and no-one would dream of punishing their great great great great
grandchildren for what they did. It is also a fact of life that such people
as the Duke of Northumberland have come across their land some way or
another, and no-one is screaming for them to give it back to....well, we
don't know really.
>I am not a Communist. If it could work perhaps, but from all the evidence I
see
>it can not. The Human element always fails. People are different, and often
do
>not want to share.
It is simply a fact that I have never met a British Republican who does not
have strong sympathies with Communism. You are a further example.
>I am British. I live in Britain. A Republic I am sure would not keep a part
of
>the United Kingdom in its name. Does the French Republic Sound Orwellian,
or
>maybe the Federal Republic of Germany. The US is a United Republic.
Mccarthyism
>is a sure sign that socialism plays only a limited part in American life.
To the British Man or Woman the "United Republic of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland" will sound repugnant. I cannot speak for other countries.
Obviously you feel qualified enough to do so.
>I assume you have no influence on the monarchy. To presume so is arrogance
on
>your part. You have already quoted the volume of letters the Queen
receives, the
>majority of which she never sees, allocated to some secretary. You have as
much
>impact on the monarchy as King Canute had on the tides.
You do not know my influence. I would not be willing to disclose it to you
either, only to say I have some - be it limited - but it is real.
>Of course. She has offended religious groups by demanding to wear socks in
>temples. A monarch has to respect the customs and beliefs of other cultures
just
>as any other would. Protocol only goes so far, and only as on as it does
not
>show foreign countries disrespect.
I simply do not believe what you say. I believe you are twisting the truth.
The Queen had every right not to visit the temple if she was forced to walk
barefoot, but regardless of that she is 71 years old. Why would the Queen
wear socks for goodness sake if that wasn't what she was instructed to do?
She wouldn't have worn shoes if she hadn't been asked to do so.
>The Queen has had one informal chat per week with each of these PMs. She is
>never sent to diplomatic hotspots. Her knowledge of world affairs is shaped
>around the Commonwealth. Her hands on experience is limited. Kofi Annan has
>dealt with a dictator. In his brief tenure as Secretary General he has had
more
>experience then a woman who views the world either from the deck of
Britannia or
>a plush office in some palace.
Of course she hasn't had hands-on experience, but who needs hands on
experience with modern day communications. More importantly than that she
has access to the most influential people and takes great interest in the
Commonwealth. Diplomats in London are not registered with the government,
they are registered to the Court of St. James's, for example, and the Queen
holds a ball at Buckingham Palace for all diplomats once a year, where she
gets to know a lot more than you or I about world affairs.
>I can
>If inheritance tax had ever been applied to 'owned' properties, this would
have
>forced the break up of the royal estates.
But the Royal estates are held in trust to the Royal family so long as they
receive the Civil List. That is the arrangement of George III
>Louis XVI had a form of the civil list in France. Not that I approve of
>violence, but you give that argument to the mob. A violent revolution
would
>remove the monarchy entirely and break up the lands. This will not happen
at any
>time in the future I hope.
A violent revolution in 1998? And do you think the Court of Human Rights in
Strasbourg would stand for it? Do you think the government would stand for
it? I don't think so
>The Royals may keep their wealth after a political settlement, but at least
what
>they represent will be removed from the fabric of our constitution. It is
worth
>the price.
Ah - I finally won the argument. I don't think many people would agree that
it would be worth it though. We would still have a royal family continuing
to overshadow a dull politician president. The public would hate it!
>The Lords are just as bad as the monarchy. People have no right to make
>decisions just because one of their ancestors did some king a favour.
I don't believe in democracy 100% of the time. The Lords have just the right
amount of power for the influence they exercise. Of course I don't believe
in
100% democracy, that would be stupid. I prefer a cocktail of all different
systems, and the monarchy, the commons and the House of Lords provides it.
(I think I've written this before).
>Good old Lords - they have the poorest attendance of any legislative
figures in
>the democratic world. The vast majority of them, the hereditary peers in
turn
>represent the narrowest possible constituency - the wealthy landowners.
They are
>well enough represented in the Commons.
They don't get paid, however. Its the cheapest second chamber to run in the
whole of Europe. Your clamouring to be spendthrift should be appealed to.
>50 years ago the majority would have thought reforming the Lords an insult.
>Views change.
Fifty years ago people would have not thought of offending the Queen.
Standards slip. Sad isn't it.
>The workhouse - The product of a confused morality that believed people
simply
>chose not to work.
>The work house was not invented in Victorian times. I believe it was the
16th century.
>Chimney Sweeps - basically child murder
>Poverty - Some of the worst seen in Britain's history. Malnutrition and
disease
>were common. 2/3 of all volunteers for the Boer War were rejected on the
basis
>of their poor condition, even though standards were lower than in the
Napoleonic
>Wars
>Imperialism - the root cause of Anglo German arms race and thus WW1 and
WW2. >The
>Monarchy was a key part of that, Victoria anxious to massage her own ego by
>being granted the title Empress of India.
Yes yes. I didn't say they were perfect.
>You are saying vagrants are in their position because of immorality. I'm
not a
>Communist but I'm with Marx on this one. Homelessness is the product of the
>economic system and society in general.
Doesn't mean they have to steal. By the term "vagrant" I refer to one who
has broken the law. You might find this type of behaviour perfectly
acceptable but I do not.
>However, immorality has been around as long as royalty, long before people
>questioned the legitimacy of Monarchy.
My comparison with Japan backs up how impoliteness has a link with
disrespect for the head of state.
>The twisted Victorian morality accepted prostitution even though it looked
down
>upon it. Brothels were far more active then than now. It is after all the
>world's oldest profession. Increases are symptomatic of Britain's relative
>economic decline since the beginning of the century, not through dubious
morals.
No, you are completely wrong. Whereas we know have "Mandy the Social worker
with one GCSE" giving free contraception to teenage girls out on the streets
of Glasgow, prostitution was denounced by much of Victorian society. Would
prostitution be called "the White Slave trade" as it was in the 19th century
today? No, it is called the "oldest profession" and we all have a bit of a
giggle about penguins. In 1882 a select committee of the House of Lords said
this of prostitution:
"The evidence before the Committee proves beyond doubt that juvenile
prostitution, from an almost incredibly early age, is increasing to an
appalling extent in England, and especially in London"
They were trying o do something about it, and they weren't scared to use
the word "immorality" and parental control". Now we have leftie extremists
wanting to set up "toleration zones" to encourage people to take
prostitution up in relative safety.
>The Victorians simply chose to ignore their problems. Prostitution was not
an
>acceptable part of civilised society.
Just proved you wrong
>Speculating on the acceptance of paedophiles is obscene. The Paedophile
list is
>a sign of the crackdown on something that has probably always existed.
Yes but children in schools now call people "Paedophiles" as terms of abuse
rather than "poof" or whatever in years gone by. Society has shifted its
attention on paedophilia in exactly the same way as it did homosexuality in
decades gone by. I would not be surprised if, in fifty years time, the
public would not batter an eyelid at a "relationship" between a seven year
old boy and a fifty year old man.
>That is why I feel a Republic is a long way off. But as you probably are
aware,
>popularity for the institution, not its individual figures, is at an all
time
>low. I hope change will come one day, but I am no the one to force it. No
Head
>of State can remain in the face of public opinion.
Public opinion is extremely fickle and I believe the Royal family and Prince
Charles are becoming more popular.
>I am loyal to my country, but not to a monarch who I do not consider to act
on
>my behalf.
The Queen is the symbol of the nation - she is the nation.
Ash
James T Ramsay wrote:
> >In a world where Monarchy is the exception to the rule you need no help in
> >appearing ridiculous.
>
> >If you love 'proper' monarchy go and live in an undemocratic country -
> maybe
> >Saudi Arabia. You enjoy the trappings of a democratic country yet dismiss
> them.
> >Economic growth has shown to be the product of economic liberalism. Would
> you
> >rather be a citizen or a serf, not even owning yourself. Monarchy is evil.
> You
> >will not find any widespread movement in any country to restore a monarchy
> in a
> >Republic. HAVE A GO - YOU WILL FAIL. FIND ANY MAINSTREAM PARTY.
> >I can find them - look at Australia.
>
> I believe there is a campaign to remove the extravagant and corrupt
> Brazilian. President. I also believe there is an effort to reinstate the
> exiled king of
> Albania. The Island of Fiji has recently rejoined the Commonwealth and is
> looking to reinstate Queen Elizabeth II as their monarch. "Monarchy is
> evil" - dear me we are getting a little het up about things. You've probably
> just alienated a large section of the newsgroup by this ridiculous comment.
> And to paint me as some sort of fanatical extremist when over 78% of the
> British public agree with me is slightly bizarre. Are you saying that the
> majority of the people in the United Kingdom support an evil woman? Are you
> completely mad?
The principle of monarchy is evil, not the Queen. I do not seek to judge her
character. That is not the issue. Ask people if authoritarian government is evil
- they will agree. Ask people if government should be by the people, for the
people - they will agree. The monarchy is popular in the same vein as Hollywood
celebs. Few support monarchy as the bast basis for government, even though most
would advocate retaining the constitutional monarchy.
I would like to know the source of the statistic. I am inclined to think it is
the 'James T Ramsay Off the top of My Head Poll".
78% support you on what exactly. I can except 78% may be in favour of keeping
the current system but the Queen does not have a 78% approval rating, and no
where near that figure would consider monarchy the best system.
> >People vote in France, Germany and Italy. This is a sure sign of people
> >recognising the legitimacy of the Republican Government.
>
> And people vote in Great Britain for Labour, the Conservatives and the
> Liberal Democrats - all monarchist parties. Indeed, Blair seems to swoon
> every time he meets the Queen, and, not surprisingly by the way he seems to
> conduct his own court, has a certain appreciation for the system of
> Constitutional Monarchy.
Did I argue Britain had a Republican tradition. No, I did not. I was
illustrating the support of people in Republics for the system they operate.
> >The French like others are interested in the "novelty" of royalty. Given
> the
> >volatility of the French nation, if they wanted royalty they would get it.
> The
> >did not want Louis, the did not want the Bourbons and certainly not the
> July
> >monarchy. The French 'accent' to nothing - De Gualle was pushed out. Not
> >everyone in the world is a passive as yourself. And to quote a Monarchist
> >argument - if it "ain't broke, don't fix it" - it is as applicable to
> these
> >countries as you think it is to Britain. I simply feel monarchy is "broke"
>
> Monarchy is not "broke" at all. Monarchy has not changed, only a minority of
> the public's perception of it. This minority, are, like yourself, highly
> sympathetic to Communism (which wouldn't wash well with the average Sun
> reader), actively prejudiced against the Upper classes and most likely
> without religion and the concept of god being a "king of kings". Therefore
> it is only in the perception of a few people, who unfortunately will always
> persist and exist, infiltrating newspapers and the BBC, who think this way.
> And the wider public stubbornly refuses to go along with it. I would like to
> know what you think is "broke" with monarchy, when it took one day to remove
> Edward VIII from the throne but took months and months to kick Nixon out.
> Who is the more accountable of those two?
Republicans are not all highly sympathetic to Communism. Your attempts to
categorise us is patronising. As I have said, are the majority of Australians
Communist because they want their own head of state not ours. Few people in this
country practice their religion on a regular basis. i do not profess to be one
of these but I strongly believe in God. I object to your use of monarchist terms
to explain God. I am a Christian but cannot accept the bible on face value. I
believe in evolution, the Big Bang, etc. I further believe that when written it
was directed towards people with no concept of presidents or prime minister. The
King was then regarded as the supreme ruler. It was simply a statement of God as
the greatest authority in existence.
We are all equal in the eyes of God. Monarchs who proclaim to be "more equal
than others" are frankly wrong - (I know you appreciate Orwell). Divine monarchy
has been used for generations to legitimise abusive regimes - Tsarist Russia for
example.
My prejudice extends to all, regards of class, who have got to their positions
not on the basis of their own merit.
You ideas of media infiltration reflects a deep sense of paranoia on your part,
not the monarchist movement in general.
One so fond of conspiracies should be aware that their were attempts to remove
the alleged 'Fascist sympathiser' for years before the abdication - notables
such as Churchill listed. I do not think Churchill was a Communist.
> >A President could do the same and provide better value for money.
>
> I do not think so. First of all he couldn't provide all that
>
> >I agree - the Queen is held in high regard abroad. Other countries regard
> the
> >British monarchy as 'quaint'. The knowledge of the monarchy abroad should
> not be
> >taken as a positive display of Britain. It shows us as backward.
>
> You may also notice that there is a country, a bit like ours but regrettably
> we are distancing ourselves from its moral values, called Japan. Japan is a
> Constitutional monarchy, and it is also a very polite and reserved compared
> to ours. The Japanese do not grumble about their Emperor because they are,
> by and large, an educated society which appreciates the idea of hierarchy.
A very different society with a completely different history of monarchy. The
Emperor was forced to renounce his godliness by the Allies in 1945
Education is no mark of appreciation for the monarchy. The culture French
Revolution and the period of enlightenment are associated with political
awareness, not of monarchy. Educated societies learn to question to existing
order, not stick with status quo.
Hierarchy is an unavoidable given human nature. I would rather people were given
an opportunity to rise to the surface rather than be forced to except a position
for life. This sort of hierarchy reeks of the caste system. We do not want to
create a class of 'untouchables' which is the usual result of heirarchy
> I see a direct correlation between the general politeness of a country and
> whether it supports its monarchy (if it has one). We all know Japan is
> regarded as a reserved and traditional nation, but no-one could describe it
> as backward. No, whether a country has a Constitutional monarchy or not is
> no indication of how it is perceived. I completely disagree with you about
> what is perceived of Elizabeth II abroad. Maybe among heroin-injecting urban
> anarchists she is perceived as upholding backwardness, but amongst the wider
> populations of Middle-America, Middle-France and Middle-Germany - the people
> that matter with their tourist money and their respectable businesses - have
> a great admiration for the Queen. And if being "forward" is some dreadful
> vision of extreme liberation and the Queen dancing to rave music while
> downing countless outlawed illegal substances, give me backwardness any day.
Are therefore the majority of countries impolite because they have no monarchy.
That is what you suggest.
I never said Britain was backward - monarchy is simply a rendundant, lifeless
part that is itself backward, and helps reinforce the idea abroad.
I feel you are labelling all Republicans drug using anarchists. Ho ho. What a
sheltered life you must lead. You may find that those in the drug culture are
not famed for education or political activity. You like to linger on the worst
aspects of contemporary society while ignoring the worst problems of the
monarchy.
> >Public buildings they are, and public they will remain.
>
> They are not public buildings. They are Crown estate.
>
> >The Queen has inherited huge amounts of wealth along with her role. It is
> the
> >basis of the hereditary principle. I refer to tax on this inheritance.
>
> When was the last time you had a meeting with the Queen's personal
> accountants? You honestly think you know the wealth of the Queen and what
> her financial affairs are? I prefer to err on the side of caution and give
> her the benefit of the doubt.
I know that the Monarchy has only been liable to tax for a handful of years - I
found that on your precious Royal Website.
> >The Royal Family also has a hidden wealth of incalculable value - art
> treasures
> >that should be public. Also - all properties are given tax exempt status -
> this
> >status demands acceptable entry to the properties which is forthcoming on
> an
> >irregular and expensive basis. If the Queen cared so much about her
> subjects she
> >would not charge so much for entry to the Palaces that it stops many poorer
> >people. It is a profit based enterprise designed for tourists, not
> 'subjects'.
>
> Really, and you would know? Judging by your past inaccuracies I very much
> doubt. The Royal collection is treated as any other government-owned
> treasure. A president would have his pick of the National Gallery before he
> came into office, as demonstrated by our beloved Lord Chancellor. However,
> many of the art that the Royal family has was paid for out of private
> income. Portraits of family and other items have been gifts or commissioned
> with government consent. Obviously under a Republic you would disallow the
> president from having his portrait done.
I neither consider myself without art nor without religion. It is well known in
art circles that the monarchy holds the single largest 'private' collection in
Britain. I will not say public as they are not accessible to the people, even
thought they may be 'public property' on paper.
> >I am not a Communist. If it could work perhaps, but from all the evidence I
> see
> >it can not. The Human element always fails. People are different, and often
> do
> >not want to share.
>
> It is simply a fact that I have never met a British Republican who does not
> have strong sympathies with Communism. You are a further example.
I doubt you have ever met a Republican, or at least you are demonstrating
'selective memory'
> >I am British. I live in Britain. A Republic I am sure would not keep a part
> of
> >the United Kingdom in its name. Does the French Republic Sound Orwellian,
> or
> >maybe the Federal Republic of Germany. The US is a United Republic.
> Mccarthyism
> >is a sure sign that socialism plays only a limited part in American life.
>
> To the British Man or Woman the "United Republic of Great Britain and
> Northern Ireland" will sound repugnant. I cannot speak for other countries.
> Obviously you feel qualified enough to do so.
I sense another "James T Ramsay Off the top of My Head Poll"
I have never proposed that as a name. I am British, and I would rather be a
citizen than a subject, as is the current formal status.
> >I assume you have no influence on the monarchy. To presume so is arrogance
> on
> >your part. You have already quoted the volume of letters the Queen
> receives, the
> >majority of which she never sees, allocated to some secretary. You have as
> much
> >impact on the monarchy as King Canute had on the tides.
>
> You do not know my influence. I would not be willing to disclose it to you
> either, only to say I have some - be it limited - but it is real.
Delusions of grandeur can indeed be very real. But nothing a good psychiatrist
can't sort out.
> >Of course. She has offended religious groups by demanding to wear socks in
> >temples. A monarch has to respect the customs and beliefs of other cultures
> just
> >as any other would. Protocol only goes so far, and only as on as it does
> not
> >show foreign countries disrespect.
>
> I simply do not believe what you say. I believe you are twisting the truth.
> The Queen had every right not to visit the temple if she was forced to walk
> barefoot, but regardless of that she is 71 years old. Why would the Queen
> wear socks for goodness sake if that wasn't what she was instructed to do?
> She wouldn't have worn shoes if she hadn't been asked to do so.
>
To paraphrase you - "I simply do not believe what you say. I believe you are
twisting the truth".
She was not forced to visit the temple
She was required to remove her socks. Much time was taken negotiating her status
to do so. What a waste of time.
Leaders have to respect the religious customs of others. For example I would not
go into a Synnagogue and scream for the glory of Allah.
She is no different than any other human being. Her actions made her look absurd
- I know, I've seen the footage. She simply should not have gone if she thinks
she is better than other people and other faiths.
> >The Queen has had one informal chat per week with each of these PMs. She is
> >never sent to diplomatic hotspots. Her knowledge of world affairs is shaped
> >around the Commonwealth. Her hands on experience is limited. Kofi Annan has
> >dealt with a dictator. In his brief tenure as Secretary General he has had
> more
> >experience then a woman who views the world either from the deck of
> Britannia or
> >a plush office in some palace.
>
> Of course she hasn't had hands-on experience, but who needs hands on
> experience with modern day communications. More importantly than that she
> has access to the most influential people and takes great interest in the
> Commonwealth. Diplomats in London are not registered with the government,
> they are registered to the Court of St. James's, for example, and the Queen
> holds a ball at Buckingham Palace for all diplomats once a year, where she
> gets to know a lot more than you or I about world affairs.
Ok - I don't know you - you don't know me. Do not presume my qualifications. I
know they are superior to the Queen's.
Being registered to the monarch is a symbollic gesture - nothing else. The Queen
has no power over them. Much like her power in the wider government.
The fact remains - she is not a great foreign policy expert.
> >Louis XVI had a form of the civil list in France. Not that I approve of
> >violence, but you give that argument to the mob. A violent revolution
> would
> >remove the monarchy entirely and break up the lands. This will not happen
> at any
> >time in the future I hope.
>
> A violent revolution in 1998? And do you think the Court of Human Rights in
> Strasbourg would stand for it? Do you think the government would stand for
> it? I don't think so
I do not approve of violent revolution. I do not think it will happen. But
people in 1900 did not anticipate the rise and fall of communism or two global
wars.
Your examples reflect a certain degree of ignorance. The ECHR is, not affiliated
to the European Union and lacks any executive powers. I do not think
revolutionaries will go to an appeal court based on historical experience. There
is no mandate for armed intervention by other European Powers
Revolution could entail the collapse of government - they would be in no
position to handle it - take the Provisional Gov in Russia in 1917
No government can presume stability, no government on earth. Circumstance is the
ultimate decider and neither you, nor I, nor your precious Queen knows what is
around the corner.
> >The Royals may keep their wealth after a political settlement, but at least
> what
> >they represent will be removed from the fabric of our constitution. It is
> worth
> >the price.
>
> Ah - I finally won the argument. I don't think many people would agree that
> it would be worth it though. We would still have a royal family continuing
> to overshadow a dull politician president. The public would hate it!
How have you won. I, unlike yourself, do not presume to speak for the nation. I
am not the public and neither are you.
And just try and argue that the Queen is not Dull.
> >The Lords are just as bad as the monarchy. People have no right to make
> >decisions just because one of their ancestors did some king a favour.
>
> I don't believe in democracy 100% of the time. The Lords have just the right
> amount of power for the influence they exercise. Of course I don't believe
> in
> 100% democracy, that would be stupid. I prefer a cocktail of all different
> systems, and the monarchy, the commons and the House of Lords provides it.
> (I think I've written this before).
You appear to believe in it 0% of the time.
The British system is ultimately misleading. We have no written constitution, no
separation of powers, no clear idea.
The British cocktail is a recipie for confusion.
> >Good old Lords - they have the poorest attendance of any legislative
> figures in
> >the democratic world. The vast majority of them, the hereditary peers in
> turn
> >represent the narrowest possible constituency - the wealthy landowners.
> They are
> >well enough represented in the Commons.
>
> They don't get paid, however. Its the cheapest second chamber to run in the
> whole of Europe. Your clamouring to be spendthrift should be appealed to.
I wouldn't pay people who hardly attended.
> >50 years ago the majority would have thought reforming the Lords an insult.
> >Views change.
>
> Fifty years ago people would have not thought of offending the Queen.
> Standards slip. Sad isn't it.
Cromwell may have offended Charles I just a bit.
> >The workhouse - The product of a confused morality that believed people
> simply
> >chose not to work.
>
> >The work house was not invented in Victorian times. I believe it was the
> 16th century.
>
> >Chimney Sweeps - basically child murder
>
> >Poverty - Some of the worst seen in Britain's history. Malnutrition and
> disease
> >were common. 2/3 of all volunteers for the Boer War were rejected on the
> basis
> >of their poor condition, even though standards were lower than in the
> Napoleonic
> >Wars
>
> >Imperialism - the root cause of Anglo German arms race and thus WW1 and
> WW2. >The
> >Monarchy was a key part of that, Victoria anxious to massage her own ego by
> >being granted the title Empress of India.
>
> Yes yes. I didn't say they were perfect.
>
You said their inventions were marvellous - they are clearly not, the modern
monarchy among them
> >You are saying vagrants are in their position because of immorality. I'm
> not a
> >Communist but I'm with Marx on this one. Homelessness is the product of the
> >economic system and society in general.
>
> Doesn't mean they have to steal. By the term "vagrant" I refer to one who
> has broken the law. You might find this type of behaviour perfectly
> acceptable but I do not.
The homeless do not all steal. I do not advocate theft so lets not put words
into my mouth. You have no compassion for the suffering of many in the
underclass. I thought the royalist connection to Dianna might give an inkling of
the problems in this world caused by what you call "undesirables" but what I
call the evils of modern society- an illness to be cured.
Do you live in the real world or in some plastic bubble. Can't you appreciate
social problems are not about morality on the slide - it is a symptom of urban
degeneration in the UK.
> >However, immorality has been around as long as royalty, long before people
> >questioned the legitimacy of Monarchy.
>
> My comparison with Japan backs up how impoliteness has a link with
> disrespect for the head of state.
Yes - and people respected figures like the Prince Regent enormously.
Your link is dubious - Japan has been traditional and polite long before the
creation of the title Emperor. In any sense popular culture is changing Japan,
regardless of the monarchy.
> >The twisted Victorian morality accepted prostitution even though it looked
> down
> >upon it. Brothels were far more active then than now. It is after all the
> >world's oldest profession. Increases are symptomatic of Britain's relative
> >economic decline since the beginning of the century, not through dubious
> morals.
>
> No, you are completely wrong. Whereas we know have "Mandy the Social worker
> with one GCSE" giving free contraception to teenage girls out on the streets
> of Glasgow, prostitution was denounced by much of Victorian society. Would
> prostitution be called "the White Slave trade" as it was in the 19th century
> today? No, it is called the "oldest profession" and we all have a bit of a
> giggle about penguins. In 1882 a select committee of the House of Lords said
> this of prostitution:
> "The evidence before the Committee proves beyond doubt that juvenile
> prostitution, from an almost incredibly early age, is increasing to an
> appalling extent in England, and especially in London"
>
> They were trying o do something about it, and they weren't scared to use
> the word "immorality" and parental control". Now we have leftie extremists
> wanting to set up "toleration zones" to encourage people to take
> prostitution up in relative safety.
No one wants to encourage prostitution. And 'Lefties' have little or no power in
this country. i do not consider the labour party left wing. Point out leftie
extremism. i think you will find these measures have been suggested by the
police, a conservative institution, out of pragmatism rather than ideology. This
will happen as long as poverty exist. I for one would rather people did not die
of it or spread diseases like AIDS to epidemic proportions.
Would you rather teenagers were denied access to contraception. This would only
lead to an increase in disease. They are not forced upon people but given on
demand. You attack social workers and have probably led the sort of comfortable
life where you have never come into contact with any. That is your advantage but
does not give you the power to criticise people doing there job in THE REAL
WORLD.
Prostitution has been refered to as the worlds oldest Profession since biblical
times, before you, I or Ken Livingstone. Remember Mary Magdelen oh religious
one.
"The White Slave trade" was used as a moral platform. The Victorians preached
but did little. The slums grew along with prostitution and alcoholism.
Oh - if you have a little giggle about prostitution you are sicker than I
thought. It is as serious as any other issue and must be dealt with through
realistic gestures rather than fine words.
> >The Victorians simply chose to ignore their problems. Prostitution was not
> an
> >acceptable part of civilised society.
>
> Just proved you wrong
>
> >Speculating on the acceptance of paedophiles is obscene. The Paedophile
> list is
> >a sign of the crackdown on something that has probably always existed.
>
> Yes but children in schools now call people "Paedophiles" as terms of abuse
> rather than "poof" or whatever in years gone by. Society has shifted its
> attention on paedophilia in exactly the same way as it did homosexuality in
> decades gone by. I would not be surprised if, in fifty years time, the
> public would not batter an eyelid at a "relationship" between a seven year
> old boy and a fifty year old man.
What school have you been to. Show me an 6 year old than can spell paedophile.
I suppose you approve of the treatment of Oscar Wilde, a genius of his time,
simply because of his sexual orientation.
What two consenting adults do on their own is their business.
But you are letting your sick imagination run away with you. Exploitation of
children remains evil, homosexually or hetrosexually.
> >I am loyal to my country, but not to a monarch who I do not consider to act
> on
> >my behalf.
>
> The Queen is the symbol of the nation - she is the nation.
The Queen is just a symbol - you have failed to justify any important
constitutional role.
The people make Britain - the jobs, the culture, the spirit. You should give
credit where credit is due - to the normal people who make Britain what it is.
What is a leader without a country to lead? Nothing. Do not dismiss the
contribution of 60 million people over a handful.
ASH
Denis Wright
Ian Lowery <ia...@nospam.curie.dialix.com.au> wrote:
> I don't like tatoos, I used to go around with a tatooist's daughter
> until I realised she had designs on me.
Hell, that's nothing. I would have married a clairvoyant, but she left
me before we met.
DW
--
| Dr D A Wright History Dept Uni of New England Armidale |
| NSW AUSTRALIA 2351 Ph +61 67 732479 Fax +61 67 733520 |
|____ http://www.une.edu.au/~arts/History/dwright.htm ___|
Doc W
Ian Lowery <ia...@nospam.curie.dialix.com.au> wrote:
> I don't like tatoos, I used to go around with a tatooist's daughter
> until I realised she had designs on me.
Hell, that's nothing. I would have married a clairvoyant, but she left
me before we met.
| Dr D A Wright History Dept Uni of New England Armidale |
| NSW AUSTRALIA 2351 Ph +61 67 732479 Fax +61 67 733520 |
|____ http://www.une.edu.au/~arts/History/dwright.htm ___|
At the recent agricultural conference here in Canberra, I was told
by a scientist that it has been discovered that
"Australian men can't get Mad Cow Disease. Why? All Australian men are pigs..."
The scientist was a female Pommy.