syne Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 You royalists really are hard of understanding aren't you? How many times for God's sake? It's got nothing to do with money. It's about the principle of continuing with an antiquated anachronistic system which is divisive and reinforces class distinction and prejudice, which is detrimental to the future prosperity of the country ....snip.... What's not to like? Unless of course you belong to the country where these muppets reign and the laughs on you. Although I tend to agree with your sentiment and stance on the monarchy I was under the impression that the set up we have now (in a nut shell) was to prevent the antiquated system of warlords repeatedly squabbling over land and power resulting in many years of bloodshed and unrest. The combination of democratic (lol) parliament and head of state (warlord) was to create a democracy and a figurehead to stand against usurpers to create a stable country. it's v simplistic description granted. But someone has to be at the top otherwise everyone else tends to fight to be at the top. I'm not sure were evolved/educated enough as humans to be able to actually live together without engaging in petty fights/wars. hence the need for a controlling parent figure (the crown) to nullify the collateral damage that consumes the population. I do agree that the continuation of "an antiquated anachronistic system which is divisive and reinforces class distinction and prejudice, which is detrimental to the future prosperity of the country" is a VERY bad thing. but I can't possibly see the UK population let alone humanity ever getting their act together enough to actually live in peace and harmony. I've seen a good idea how it'd could begin in this country but human survival instinct and jealousy seems to eventually equal standing upon someone else to get ahead.. PS You say your not subject of the queen, you are unfortunately. I know this is true as you have less power than; her government, her police force, her armies and her other subjects. (this is assuming your not the US/chinese premier posting on here for amusement) If you want to test this theory then just break a few of her laws and see what happens. We are all subjugate to her power. Which is kind of the beauty of the crown/democratic mix, she stays in power as long as the subjects are not overly aggrieved with the laws they are subject to. When you bring in politics and media then it gets annoyingly twisted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 syne, Surely the risk of warlords returning within Britain at the present time has diminished somewhat, and we could attempt to form a more equalitarian society, where no one automatically gets to receive deference for no good reason, other than whose womb they emerged from? After all, other countries manage it don't they? Austria is a good example, their Royalty, the Hapsburg's were far grander than the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha's in many respects. They were removed during the War and when they attempted to make a return they were rejected by the Austrians. Your right that no society is perfect, that comes down to failings in human nature which I cannot see a remedy for. That doesn't mean we should just give up and accept the status quo because we can't be arsed though, does it? Attempting to make life as fair as possible should be an aim and equality would be a good start. ---------- Post added 30-01-2014 at 16:01 ---------- . PS You say your not subject of the queen, you are unfortunately. I know this is true as you have less power than; her government, her police force, her armies and her other subjects. (this is assuming your not the US/chinese premier posting on here for amusement) If you want to test this theory then just break a few of her laws and see what happens. We are all subjugate to her power. Which is kind of the beauty of the crown/democratic mix, she stays in power as long as the subjects are not overly aggrieved with the laws they are subject to. When you bring in politics and media then it gets annoyingly twisted. So if you go abroad on holiday to Spain or the Netherlands do you automatically become a 'subject' of the King of Spain or King of the Netherlands? What if you retired and went to live in Spain? Would you then become a 'subject' of King Carlos? Obviously, whilst in those countries you would be subject to their laws, that wouldn't make you a 'subject' of their King though, would it? I am a citizen of the Republic of Ireland, it says so in my passport. A citizen of a Republic cannot be a 'subject', is that clear? If it wasn't so then all the American citizens living in this country would be 'subjects' of her Majesty wouldn't they? Do you think they are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Attempting to make life as fair as possible should be an aim and equality would be a good start. Marxist ideology. Tried and tested, and doesn't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliceBB Posted January 30, 2014 Author Share Posted January 30, 2014 Marxist ideology. Tried and tested, and doesn't work. I think you will find it underpins (to name but a few) Christianity, Buddhism and humanism, as well as Liberalism and Social Democracy. Have those things been tried and tested and found to be useless, too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Marxist ideology. Tried and tested, and doesn't work. Dear me, here we go again, what is with you royalists and your obsession with left wing politics? I'm about as far from being a communist as you can get. Read my comment regarding inheriting parents and grandparents success in post 220. You apparently suffer under the delusion that equality is only a Marxist ideology? Which is the most capitalist country on the planet? Where do these words come from? ' We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal.' Well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syne Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Attempting to make life as fair as possible should be an aim and equality would be a good start. ---------- Post added 30-01-2014 at 16:01 ---------- Obviously, whilst in those countries you would be subject to their laws, that wouldn't make you a 'subject' of their King though, would it? I am a citizen of the Republic of Ireland, it says so in my passport. A citizen of a Republic cannot be a 'subject', is that clear? Yes, you are in a manner of speaking. When you go into a different country your allegiance may not change but in reality you do become subjugate to the ruling power. Hence embassies having different laws to the country they are in but even that is at the host countries discretion. Aquascience notwithstanding and diplomatic relations aside when you enter another country you end up under their laws so are subject to their crown. Its all semantics though, as what you choose to do and what you are permitted to do and who allows it get mixed up with whether you agree with it. Not sure about Ireland as a republic..as I effectively know nothing about the place Like I said I agree with you. No-one should be rich or have control whilst there are any people who are poor and have none. That is not the way of nature but as a conscious entity we all do have the option to act differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 syne. You are completely misinterpreting the situation and arriving at an incorrect assumption. Assuming you have a British passport then you are a British subject. That is your legal status. Were you to be arrested in a foreign country you could, and most probably would, ask for assistance from the British embassy. Even if you didn't, the local authorities would inform the British embassy that one of their nationals was being held. You do not lose your national legal identity by crossing a border. It's crazy to think you would, in fact it would make it impossible to deport anyone from anywhere, 'I'm here so I'm now a national/subject of this land.' As a visitor or ex Pat resident in a foreign country you remain a citizen/subject of your original country, unless you choose to apply for citizenship of the new country. One of my nieces recently become an Australian citizen. It's an involved process,it took quite some time, even though she had been living and working there for years. Having to obey the laws of any country you happen to be in is only common sense. It doesn't bestow any rights on you, or allow you to vote for instance, which you could do if you were actually a citizen/subject of that country. As for Ireland, 26 of the 32 counties gained their independence from Britain following the Irish War of Independence 1916 to 1922. The six north eastern counties remain part of the UK for the time being. The Good Friday Agreement GFA agreed in 1998 means that the country will be reunited at some point in the future. It will take years and I doubt that I will live to see it happen. In the meantime, the 26 counties form a Republic which is an independent sovereign state, and I hold a passport issued by that state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syne Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 (I'm using 'queen', 'government' and 'crown' interchangeably btw) like i said though its semantics. If I don't consider my self to be a willing subject of the queen but I am born on this island does that automatically make me one? theres being a subject of and being subject to and being subjugated all amount to the same thing; your are going to be controlled by those in power in the region your in. It's awkward to talk about because you've got human constructs like borders and kings and nationalities, mixed with real things like powers (strength) and freedoms and human will and then you've got history and everyday life mixed in as well. When you declare your allegiance to a crown (or flag, whatever) that is a choice, but what your going to receive in return isn't really proportional to your allegiance. In saying that I mean if I pledge to the crown then I help keep her on her throne with all that entails and in return I'm granted a certain amount of freedoms and liberty(what's not against the/her law in other words) She gets that as well, but also gets to be in control of the laws so its not fair or proportional. So even by choice you are being controlled But that freedom I'm granted only exists in areas under her power. I'm subject -by choice- and subjugated -regardless- I can choose to go against the queen but it would be a fruitless endeavour. For example try building a house pretty much anywhere in england and claim allodial title see what eventually happens to it. How long could you fight for? So when it comes to going abroad the same applies I can call my self a national of wherever, England, Ireland, I can call my self subject of whoever the queen, no-one or the flying spaghetti monster, its arbitrary. ifswim. But being abroad I suddenly find myself subjugated to another crowns set of laws and I'm faced with the same problem I had at home; willingly comply, acquiesce, rebel or leave. It becomes highly irrelevant what nationality I consider myself to be I'm subject of the host. there are many people locked up around the world for breaking their hosts laws and in some cases the queens diplomats help out and in some they don't. This comes back to the proportionate allegiance. How important would you have to be for government to rescue you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjw47 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 syne. Your way over thinking this in my opinion. Yes, any single individual is pretty powerless against the might of any country's law enforcement. My point however is simply that we all have legal national identities which those of us with documentation can prove quite easily. In the words of that great philosopher Popeye ' I yam what I yam!' Just because we are in another country, our identity doesn't change. We obviously need to obey the laws of the country we are in for purely practical purposes. My point is that I happen to be a citizen of the Republic of Ireland, that remains true wherever I may be. If you hold a British passport then you are a British citizen/subject, wherever you may be. You are not entitled to the same benefits as the local citizens, but they are also not entitled to the protection offered to you by your passport. If a local gets into trouble with the law he/she are on their own. It's their country and they have to rely on local justice. You however can seek help from your embassy who will intercede on your behalf. Whether it proves successful or not is another thing. The fact that it applies however proves the point that you are not 'subject' to that country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Dear me, here we go again, what is with you royalists and your obsession with left wing politics? I'm about as far from being a communist as you can get. Read my comment regarding inheriting parents and grandparents success in post 220. You apparently suffer under the delusion that equality is only a Marxist ideology? Which is the most capitalist country on the planet? Where do these words come from? ' We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal.' Well? "All men are created equal but some are more equal than others" Calm down, get over the resentment and just learn to live with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.