Chris_Sleeps Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 No way! And that's a most positive NO The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 That is, of course true. I've no idea who he socialises with. Who is he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuttsie Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 That is patently false, and a swift point to Edward VIII brings it down. A man born to a job, and absolutely ill suited to the task - through political and marital choices. The argument that a monarch is a protection against politics is silly, because without politics we'd have a political monarch, and with a Royal constitution we still have politicians. We have the very thing you are arguing against - self-serving politicians. Also, the weakness of democracy is not a defense of monarchy. It's like arguing apples are good because bananas are bad. We're all well aware of the problems of politicians, but I'd rather a man have power from the ballot than from the chance of popping out of the Royal womb. A vote - in defense of not voting. ----- What a great method of picking Heads of state. We don't apply it to bus drivers - no man ever got given the keys to a bus because his Dad was also a bus driver - but apparently it's a fine means of picking who should pilot the ship of state. I will never in my life understand Royalism. I really won't. It is the most anachronistic set of thought outside religion. I find it madness beyond words. And then we have the problem of who popped it into the Royal womb in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.