in denmark and many other scandinavian countries we have monarchy. and i feel its ok like when they are getting married - alot of people sees it (our prince just did and i know a lot of womens cried *lol they suck they cry*)
<!--QuoteBegin-Snidely+Sep 23 2004, 05:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Snidely @ Sep 23 2004, 05:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Then again, America has respect for the office of president. We don't have the same for the schmuck who lives in No. 10, or any of our politicians, for that matter.
Watch <i>The West Wing</i>, and then compare that to <i>Yes, Minister</i> and <i>The New Statesman</i>. You'll see what I mean. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Nor do we have respect for our monarchy. Other British comedians use the Queen, Camilla (Related to monarch strongly), Charles etc. in their sketches. No one really cares about the government on monarchy here in England, we only care about how the country isn't being run, not how it is.
Personally, the monarchy is a poor excuse to have some rich royalty in this country, a presidency like in America is how Britain needs to go. I believe it has more advantages to suit the current situationin England and Britain.
i dont know about a president, we dont want a sheep like tony blair doing that, running the whole country oh boy we'd be blown off the earth in a war and non-off the goverment of england really have anything i would think would make a good president we'd need someone with strong morals and a stable head to lead the country i mean america was unlucky they had bush and hes a ****, lol, but truthfully if we did get a president then we would need someone thats not apart of politics atm, because they dont know what there doing
<!--QuoteBegin-Ice-Phoenix+Sep 29 2004, 03:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ice-Phoenix @ Sep 29 2004, 03:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> i dont know about a president, we dont want a sheep like tony blair doing that, running the whole country oh boy we'd be blown off the earth in a war and non-off the goverment of england really have anything i would think would make a good president we'd need someone with strong morals and a stable head to lead the country i mean america was unlucky they had bush and hes a ****, lol, but truthfully if we did get a president then we would need someone thats not apart of politics atm, because they dont know what there doing <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Uh presidents of america have much less power than you think
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Sep 29 2004, 04:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Sep 29 2004, 04:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Ice-Phoenix+Sep 29 2004, 03:44 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ice-Phoenix @ Sep 29 2004, 03:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> i dont know about a president, we dont want a sheep like tony blair doing that, running the whole country oh boy we'd be blown off the earth in a war and non-off the goverment of england really have anything i would think would make a good president we'd need someone with strong morals and a stable head to lead the country i mean america was unlucky they had bush and hes a ****, lol, but truthfully if we did get a president then we would need someone thats not apart of politics atm, because they dont know what there doing <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Uh presidents of america have much less power than you think <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ya, they can't do much more than veto laws, declare wars, appoint judges, and some **** like that. Yes, I'm aware that congress needs to approve of the war, but half the wars we've fought have never been officially declared, and thus bypassed such barriers. I believe they're usually refered to as *peace keeping missions*.
Also, I'm completely unaware of how the British government works. How much power does the Prime Minister have, and where does the monarchy fit in besides being a pretty boy to England?
I think i'll pass that on to somebody... British, but i explained the aussie system somewhere up there *points* and i'm pretty sure its the same thing. It is based on the "Westminster" system of government.
Unfortunately the PM can declare war all by himself. We were one of the first countries to declare war in both WW1 and WW2, and we did so as an alignment thing with Britain.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->in denmark and many other scandinavian countries we have monarchy. and i feel its ok like when they are getting married - alot of people sees it (our prince just did and i know a lot of womens cried *lol they suck they cry*)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
UK = United Kingdom. This could technically include the penal colony south of the equator, the emerald isle of endless whisky, or the highlands where the bonny lass Gem comes from. As well as other places like Wales. Or something.
England is like, the 'CENTER' of the UK though, that's what governed by the monarchy. Or something. Who the hell knows.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Sep 29 2004, 10:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Sep 29 2004, 10:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The difference between UK and England is insignificant nowadays <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Is it really ? I don't think so, there seems to be quite a huge territorial difference to me.
United Kingdom <img src='http://www.cnn.com/interactive/specials/0006/e.europe/countries/images/countries/united.kingdom.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
England (and other parts of the UK) <img src='http://www.hotels-christmas-breaks.co.uk/maps/united-kingdom.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->but teh queen doesn't really do anything for me now does she<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, she does. See, if she creates more money than she consumes (through tourism), that encourages the economy (competition), which creates jobs. With more jobs, less people don't have a job and receive unemployment help. When less people receive unemployment help, more of your tax money can be used to do whatever, maintain the streets, build schools, you name it.
Oh, and Thursday, try to not generalize ("we don't respect the monarchy").<b>You</b> might not, many other people might, though.
<!--QuoteBegin-EEK+Sep 29 2004, 08:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (EEK @ Sep 29 2004, 08:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> UK = United Kingdom. This could technically include the penal colony south of the equator, the emerald isle of endless whisky, or the highlands where the bonny lass Gem comes from. As well as other places like Wales. Or something.
England is like, the 'CENTER' of the UK though, that's what governed by the monarchy. Or something. Who the hell knows. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Australia is not part of the UK.
It is part of the Commonwealth. We are the "Commonwealth of Australia" and a constitutional monarchy. "UK" refers to those countries under Direct Control of the English Parliament. In England.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Actually, she does. See, if she creates more money than she consumes (through tourism), that encourages the economy (competition), which creates jobs. With more jobs, less people don't have a job and receive unemployment help. When less people receive unemployment help, more of your tax money can be used to do whatever, maintain the streets, build schools, you name it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and don't forget that i'm pretty sure that she'd be spending her money in England for the large part of the year. That means, effectively, a direct injection of taxpayer money into some businesses that deal with the Royal Households.
the difference between the UK and England is the same as the difference between the United States (the U.S. not the US of A) and Canada, Asia and Japan and a heck of other things. Theres years of rivalry and bloodshed between many parts of the UK, especially the scots and english so I'd darn well say there's a good difference.
Thanks for sharing your ignorance though Forlorn.
~huggles EEK and grill~ I'm actually from the 'midlands' in the capital of Edinburgh but close enough eek ^^
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Sep 29 2004, 10:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Sep 29 2004, 10:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The difference between UK and England is insignificant nowadays <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Indeed. Hold on, here's my nose. Let me move it out the way so I can see past it.
Britain = UK = Wales + Northern Ireland + Scotland + England. It also has "dependent terrotories" listed as: Anguilla, Bermuda, British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands, St Helena & St Helena Dependencies, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and Turks and Caicos islands.
I believe Gem is currently residing in Scotland, and may even be Scottish. The Scots, the Welsh and Northern Irish tend to get annoyed when you confuse England with Britain. And rightly so.
There is also the Commonwealth, a relic from the British empire. It countries are listed as: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Cameroon, Canada, Cyprus, Dominica, Fiji Islands, The Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu and Zambia.
I believe the Queen is the head of state for each of the countries in the Commonwealth, although I stand to be corrected on this. However, each of these countries has their own government, of whatever form, which control the destiny of that country independently of the ties to the British monarchy via the Commonwealth.
I like the monarchy. I like having the tradition. It serves to remind me that Britain is a country with a rich past. The principal royals, the Queen, Prince Charles, Princess Anne, work very hard for Britain and the Commonwealth. A visit from the Queen to a country can achieve more than a visit from Britain's Prime Minister. Partly because such a move is seen as less political.
I see the Queen and the monarchy as distinctly apolitical even though she, technically, holds some constitutional powers. These powers are in word only and would never be used to disrupt the political process by the current monarch. Parliament would strip such powers immediately if they were abused by any monarch, as has been demonstrated in the past.
<!--QuoteBegin-TOmekki+Sep 30 2004, 03:48 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TOmekki @ Sep 30 2004, 03:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> how does having a royal family make england less democratic? (or sweden, denmark and norway, belgium and monaco, for that matter) <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Because the whole idea of democracy is that everybody is equal.
It is claimed that we (British) live in a classless society. Frankly, it is the biggest load of rubbish ever. How can you reside in a classless society, when you have a monarchy? A monarchy which consists of people who will never have to work a day in their life if they choose not to.
Take a walk around London one afternoon, and see how many starving people you can find. Then wander to Buckingham Palace and ask yourself one question:
'What have they done to possibly deserve living in such luxury?'
(Great) Britain is the isle which consists of England, Wales and Scotland. UK is England, N. Ireland, Scotland and Wales. England is just...well, England.
Repeated for clarification and to drive the point on home and ram it through the wall into the living room.
I love the monarchy. They are a relic of our long and prosperous history. Removing them would be like removing the soul of England. They generate revenue, they're good for public relations. They probably do a lot more than you think they do for this country and the commonwealth.
I hate the drama the media seems to enjoy throwing at us concerning them, however. Let Diana rest in peace already for crying out loud.
As a side note, I want to take a trip to <a href='http://www.sealandgov.com/' target='_blank'>Sealand</a>, a country/"sovereign principality" off the coast of England. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Geminosity+Sep 30 2004, 03:48 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Geminosity @ Sep 30 2004, 03:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> the difference between the UK and England is the same as the difference between the United States (the U.S. not the US of A) and Canada, Asia and Japan and a heck of other things. Theres years of rivalry and bloodshed between many parts of the UK, especially the scots and english so I'd darn well say there's a good difference.
Thanks for sharing your ignorance though Forlorn. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Learned something new today.
Asia : Japan does not make sense on the same analogy of Ireland : UK as asia is a contentent last I checked, but it could be the ignorance speaking out in me once again
Ok edited <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <3 forlorn:) at least he can admit he was wrong
<!--QuoteBegin-Geminosity+Sep 30 2004, 03:48 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Geminosity @ Sep 30 2004, 03:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> the difference between the UK and England is the same as the difference between the United States (the U.S. not the US of A) and Canada, Asia and Japan and a heck of other things. Theres years of rivalry and bloodshed between many parts of the UK, especially the scots and english so I'd darn well say there's a good difference. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> i beg to disagree, at the risk of being proven wrong:
united states and canada/japan are 2 totally different nations, with different goverments and such.
england/scotland/n. ireland are part of the uk, they dont have their own goverment. or, even if they do have sovereignty they are still all the same nation.
example: finland has a region called ahvenanmaa/åland isles that is pretty much autonomous, but it has mostly same laws as the rest of finland. therefore the difference between finland and ahvenanmaa is not the same as, say, norway and sweden.
the analogys I drew were in calling a larger mass by a part of it like saying japan when you mean asia. I don't care much about governments and crud so <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> I guess I could have explained the point a little better but I was too busy being annoyed =3
It seems to me that you've all missed one of the main points of the monarchy, the army fights for <b>queen</b> and country. Being answerable to the monarch creates a safeguard against a renegade government, since the queen does have emergency powers if she so wishes to use them.
I personally am pro-monarch because they are a familiar figurehead to look up to, whereas the prime ministers aren't exactly the best people to represent the country <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> Also as I think someone else mentioned we don't have a well-defined constitution, therefore are not suited to a republic unless one is compiled.
edit: Also the royal family aren't the sponges they once were, most of the lesser family members who would have got money in the past have now had their funding cut and have got jobs. The queen herself doesn't live mainly on taxes she plays the stock market to get most of her income <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Geminosity+Sep 30 2004, 03:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Geminosity @ Sep 30 2004, 03:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> the analogys I drew were in calling a larger mass by a part of it like saying japan when you mean asia. I don't care much about governments and crud so <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> I guess I could have explained the point a little better but I was too busy being annoyed =3 <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> oh, i missed that. the us <-> canada analogy threw me off. i guess you meant "say united states when you mean america".
we are just taught at school that uk is england,wales,scotland,n.ireland. hate to say this but no one uses "uk" or "british" we just say england for everything :]
Granted, I didn't know about the whole Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and England situation before today, but the thought still counts.
Britain just has that little "ain" part that I like to write out so much for some stupid reason that I can't figure out at this particular moment in time.
Comments
Watch <i>The West Wing</i>, and then compare that to <i>Yes, Minister</i> and <i>The New Statesman</i>. You'll see what I mean. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nor do we have respect for our monarchy. Other British comedians use the Queen, Camilla (Related to monarch strongly), Charles etc. in their sketches. No one really cares about the government on monarchy here in England, we only care about how the country isn't being run, not how it is.
Personally, the monarchy is a poor excuse to have some rich royalty in this country, a presidency like in America is how Britain needs to go. I believe it has more advantages to suit the current situationin England and Britain.
Uh presidents of america have much less power than you think
(This is arguable actually..)
Uh presidents of america have much less power than you think <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ya, they can't do much more than veto laws, declare wars, appoint judges, and some **** like that. Yes, I'm aware that congress needs to approve of the war, but half the wars we've fought have never been officially declared, and thus bypassed such barriers. I believe they're usually refered to as *peace keeping missions*.
Also, I'm completely unaware of how the British government works. How much power does the Prime Minister have, and where does the monarchy fit in besides being a pretty boy to England?
Unfortunately the PM can declare war all by himself. We were one of the first countries to declare war in both WW1 and WW2, and we did so as an alignment thing with Britain.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->in denmark and many other scandinavian countries we have monarchy. and i feel its ok like when they are getting married - alot of people sees it (our prince just did and i know a lot of womens cried *lol they suck they cry*)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
was that the tassie woman? Mary, right?
England is like, the 'CENTER' of the UK though, that's what governed by the monarchy. Or something. Who the hell knows.
Is it really ? I don't think so, there seems to be quite a huge territorial difference to me.
United Kingdom
<img src='http://www.cnn.com/interactive/specials/0006/e.europe/countries/images/countries/united.kingdom.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
England (and other parts of the UK)
<img src='http://www.hotels-christmas-breaks.co.uk/maps/united-kingdom.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->but teh queen doesn't really do anything for me now does she<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, she does. See, if she creates more money than she consumes (through tourism), that encourages the economy (competition), which creates jobs. With more jobs, less people don't have a job and receive unemployment help. When less people receive unemployment help, more of your tax money can be used to do whatever, maintain the streets, build schools, you name it.
Oh, and Thursday, try to not generalize ("we don't respect the monarchy").<b>You</b> might not, many other people might, though.
England is like, the 'CENTER' of the UK though, that's what governed by the monarchy. Or something. Who the hell knows. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Australia is not part of the UK.
It is part of the Commonwealth. We are the "Commonwealth of Australia" and a constitutional monarchy. "UK" refers to those countries under Direct Control of the English Parliament. In England.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Actually, she does. See, if she creates more money than she consumes (through tourism), that encourages the economy (competition), which creates jobs. With more jobs, less people don't have a job and receive unemployment help. When less people receive unemployment help, more of your tax money can be used to do whatever, maintain the streets, build schools, you name it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and don't forget that i'm pretty sure that she'd be spending her money in England for the large part of the year. That means, effectively, a direct injection of taxpayer money into some businesses that deal with the Royal Households.
In a supposedly democratic country, it flies in the face of that ideal.
Theres years of rivalry and bloodshed between many parts of the UK, especially the scots and english so I'd darn well say there's a good difference.
Thanks for sharing your ignorance though Forlorn.
~huggles EEK and grill~
I'm actually from the 'midlands' in the capital of Edinburgh but close enough eek ^^
Indeed. Hold on, here's my nose. Let me move it out the way so I can see past it.
Britain = UK = Wales + Northern Ireland + Scotland + England. It also has "dependent terrotories" listed as: Anguilla, Bermuda, British Antarctic Territory, British Indian Ocean Territory, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands, St Helena & St Helena Dependencies, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and Turks and Caicos islands.
I believe Gem is currently residing in Scotland, and may even be Scottish. The Scots, the Welsh and Northern Irish tend to get annoyed when you confuse England with Britain. And rightly so.
There is also the Commonwealth, a relic from the British empire. It countries are listed as: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Cameroon, Canada, Cyprus, Dominica, Fiji Islands, The Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guyana, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu and Zambia.
I believe the Queen is the head of state for each of the countries in the Commonwealth, although I stand to be corrected on this. However, each of these countries has their own government, of whatever form, which control the destiny of that country independently of the ties to the British monarchy via the Commonwealth.
I like the monarchy. I like having the tradition. It serves to remind me that Britain is a country with a rich past. The principal royals, the Queen, Prince Charles, Princess Anne, work very hard for Britain and the Commonwealth. A visit from the Queen to a country can achieve more than a visit from Britain's Prime Minister. Partly because such a move is seen as less political.
I see the Queen and the monarchy as distinctly apolitical even though she, technically, holds some constitutional powers. These powers are in word only and would never be used to disrupt the political process by the current monarch. Parliament would strip such powers immediately if they were abused by any monarch, as has been demonstrated in the past.
Because the whole idea of democracy is that everybody is equal.
It is claimed that we (British) live in a classless society. Frankly, it is the biggest load of rubbish ever. How can you reside in a classless society, when you have a monarchy? A monarchy which consists of people who will never have to work a day in their life if they choose not to.
Take a walk around London one afternoon, and see how many starving people you can find. Then wander to Buckingham Palace and ask yourself one question:
'What have they done to possibly deserve living in such luxury?'
They should be hung.
The royal family doesn't make England less of a democracy, since they have no real power.
UK is England, N. Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
England is just...well, England.
Repeated for clarification and to drive the point on home and ram it through the wall into the living room.
I love the monarchy. They are a relic of our long and prosperous history. Removing them would be like removing the soul of England. They generate revenue, they're good for public relations. They probably do a lot more than you think they do for this country and the commonwealth.
I hate the drama the media seems to enjoy throwing at us concerning them, however. Let Diana rest in peace already for crying out loud.
As a side note, I want to take a trip to <a href='http://www.sealandgov.com/' target='_blank'>Sealand</a>, a country/"sovereign principality" off the coast of England. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Theres years of rivalry and bloodshed between many parts of the UK, especially the scots and english so I'd darn well say there's a good difference.
Thanks for sharing your ignorance though Forlorn. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Learned something new today.
Asia : Japan does not make sense on the same analogy of Ireland : UK as asia is a contentent last I checked, but it could be the ignorance speaking out in me once again
Scotland has the power to pass its own laws but is still part of the UK
Theres years of rivalry and bloodshed between many parts of the UK, especially the scots and english so I'd darn well say there's a good difference. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i beg to disagree, at the risk of being proven wrong:
united states and canada/japan are 2 totally different nations, with different goverments and such.
england/scotland/n. ireland are part of the uk, they dont have their own goverment. or, even if they do have sovereignty they are still all the same nation.
example: finland has a region called ahvenanmaa/åland isles that is pretty much autonomous, but it has mostly same laws as the rest of finland. therefore the difference between finland and ahvenanmaa is not the same as, say, norway and sweden.
tinytiny edit
I guess I could have explained the point a little better but I was too busy being annoyed =3
I personally am pro-monarch because they are a familiar figurehead to look up to, whereas the prime ministers aren't exactly the best people to represent the country <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> Also as I think someone else mentioned we don't have a well-defined constitution, therefore are not suited to a republic unless one is compiled.
edit: Also the royal family aren't the sponges they once were, most of the lesser family members who would have got money in the past have now had their funding cut and have got jobs. The queen herself doesn't live mainly on taxes she plays the stock market to get most of her income <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I guess I could have explained the point a little better but I was too busy being annoyed =3 <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
oh, i missed that. the us <-> canada analogy threw me off. i guess you meant "say united states when you mean america".
we are just taught at school that uk is england,wales,scotland,n.ireland. hate to say this but no one uses "uk" or "british" we just say england for everything :]
Granted, I didn't know about the whole Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and England situation before today, but the thought still counts.
Britain just has that little "ain" part that I like to write out so much for some stupid reason that I can't figure out at this particular moment in time.
Andromeda! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
You must put aside your differences in order to defeat the Ma'Gog.