Happy "Birthday" Liz!

[Hubbl3]

I wouldn't want to live in a country where the state could just take everything away from people because they like to do so.


From the top 10 countries on that list around seven have a monarchy

Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium and New Zealand. Which is the 7th?

The complaint British republicans have isn't that our system is autocratic, it's that our head of state isn't chosen by the people. At least Americans get to choose their head of state. But to be honest the American system has got far worse problems than ours. The amount of money a US presidential candidate has to raise and spend is insane. The British Conservative Party spent £16 million pounds at the last election. Obama and Romney spent $2 billion between them in 2012.

There are some democratic republic systems where the head of State is not choosen by the people.

[Deleted]

From the top 10 countries on that list around seven have a monarchy

Economic Freedom Index shows something completely different though.

Also the monarchies you so prominently advocate for have no political power, whatsoever - they have no say in anything. From a "democratic perspective" each of those monarchs has much power as the poorest drug abusing snitch from the street.

[Orlong]

The complaint British republicans have isn't that our system is autocratic, it's that our head of state isn't chosen by the people. At least Americans get to choose their head of state. But to be honest the American system has got far worse problems than ours. The amount of money a US presidential candidate has to raise and spend is insane. The British Conservative Party spent £16 million pounds at the last election. Obama and Romney spent $2 billion between them in 2012.

Candidates for US president have to have their message reach a massively higher amount of people over a much larger land mass, than a British PM candidate does, so they have to buy ad time on 10s of thousands of TV stations. Its also one of the reasons I think they should ban all types of advertising based campaigning and allow only town hall meetings and nationally televised debated on C-SPAN (Government TV channel). This way its not only the rich that get to run for president

[Hyve]

That's true, but the presence of a monarchy doesn't necessarily mean that a country can't have a healthy democratic system. It just means that we don't get to choose our head of state, and we don't get to kick them out if we think they're not doing a good job.

The presence of a Monarch doesn't impact a Democracy in most nations, especially in the U.K.

The Queen / Monarch has purely ceremonial powers, and any others she does have are kept there entirely for the sake of tradition, but she is strictly forbidden by Law & Rule to make use of those powers.

Her influence though, and that of the entire Royal Family, in Business & International Affairs has helped us a lot over the last few years. I'd dread to think how bad things would be here, without our Monarchy.

[Deleted]

I could be the Queen of the United Kingdom if I wanted to, I'm just very busy right now and I've a lot of stuff going on in my life.

Like getting that alt to level 90.

[Hyve]

Candidates for US president have to have their message reach a massively higher amount of people over a much larger land mass, than a British PM candidate does, so they have to buy ad time on 10s of thousands of TV stations. Its also one of the reasons I think they should ban all types of advertising based campaigning and allow only town hall meetings and nationally televised debated on C-SPAN (Government TV channel). This way its not only the rich that get to run for president

Except only the rich would then be president, as who else could afford a national Town Hall Tour? I doubt any small time mayor could afford to even visit all the Town Halls in a single state, let alone the entire country, not to mention the insane amount of time that would take.

This isn't 1683, we can and should use technology.

[Lyllian]

That's true, but the presence of a monarchy doesn't necessarily mean that a country can't have a healthy democratic system. It just means that we don't get to choose our head of state, and we don't get to kick them out if we think they're not doing a good job.

In the UK Parliament can remove the Monarch if they so desire, via impeachment. To date this has happened twice, firstly with 'Charles I' and his subsequent execution, and then with his son 'James II' and his removal from the throne.

Parliament has the power to remove, try, judge and appoint monarchs, even if it seldom does so. Ever since Parliament removed James II from the throne and appointed Mary and William as joint sovereigns all British monarchs have effectively been subject to parliament, and no monarch could ever successfully oppose parliament.

[Hubbl3]

In the UK Parliament can remove the Monarch if they so desire, via impeachment. To date this has happened twice, firstly with 'Charles I' and his subsequent execution, and then with his son 'James II' and his removal from the throne.

Parliament has the power to remove, try, judge and appoint monarchs, even if it seldom does so. Ever since Parliament removed James II from the throne and appointed Mary and William as joint sovereigns all British monarchs have effectively been subject to parliament, and no monarch could ever successfully oppose parliament.

They "removed" him in a civil war.

[Orlong]

Except only the rich would then be president, as who else could afford a national Town Hall Tour? I doubt any small time mayor could afford to even visit all the Town Halls in a single state, let alone the entire country, not to mention the insane amount of time that would take.

This isn't 1683, we can and should use technology.

They could use telepresence so he can do the town hall from his home to the town hall full of people. It wouldnt cost a dime

[Dhrizzle]

The usual bone of contention I see is that the monarchy is a completely undemocratic institution. Hereditary public office really shouldn't still be a thing in 2014.

At least with a hereditary system it's pot-luck what kind of person you'll get, and they'll generally have been raised to properly treat with other dignitaries and the common folk. With an electoral system you tend to get a "choice" between a couple of rich folks who are selected from the political classes by the political classes and the small group of rich/powerful folks who pay for their campaigns.

I'm fairly certain that, given a choice between our hereditary leader (the Queen) and our elected leaders (the Prime Ministers - Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown and Cameron in my life-time), most Brits would prefer to have the Queen as head of state.

- - - Updated - - -

They "removed" him in a civil war.

Charles I was removed at the end of "the" Civil War, and that's when we realised that non-Royal heads of state can be worse than the Royal ones. James II was deposed by the "Glorious Revolution" but there was no actual warfare involved and William and Mary took charge peacefully by popular assent.

[Deleted]

Seriously, are you fucking shitting me? Her job is mostly walking around from place to place, talking and posing, it's hardly a fucking job at all. The only difference between her and a welfare social bum is that she has a title.

Yeah, no. See my post above for what she does in a day

She's eighty-fucking-eight. If you're still spending hours in meetings, doing paperwork and taking part in 430 public engagements a year at that age, then you can talk. As it stands you're a nurse; your job is also walking around, doing paperwork and talking to people, and nobody cares if you say something dumb or express an unsavoury opinion because you don't have the platform to insult entire nations. See how easy you can make something sound when you boil it down to the basics?

[MerinPally]

I'm fairly certain that, given a choice between our hereditary leader (the Queen) and our elected leaders (the Prime Ministers - Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown and Cameron in my life-time), most Brits would prefer to have the Queen as head of state.

She's by far the least controversial, she represents the UK fantastically. Something that those listed primeministers cannot. I'd argue that Thatcher would be perfect but many would disagree with me, namely 99% of the population that lives north of Watford. Blair, Brown and Cameron are all useless. I know nothing of Major so I couldn't possibly comment.

[Kalis]

She's by far the least controversial, she represents the UK fantastically. Something that those listed primeministers cannot. I'd argue that Thatcher would be perfect but many would disagree with me, namely 99% of the population that lives north of Watford. Blair, Brown and Cameron are all useless. I know nothing of Major so I couldn't possibly comment.

Zombie Thatcher?

[Deleted]

No sympathy from me that she`s still "working", when I often see elderly folk having to work because pensions barely offer them enough to get by at best & pensions are only going to get lower if rumours are correct.
Hell, I know gawd knows how many farmers, wagon drivers that still work well past the retirement age. True some do because it`s a habit they`ve done for decades, but most because they can`t afford not to work.

[MerinPally]

Zombie Thatcher?

If I had my way I'd want her to be a living head in a jar all Futurama style, just like we should for Sir Dave Attenborough. I think we need recordings of Sir Dave and Chris Lee reading the dictionary so that we can have their voices forever.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Oh wow, the Queen's birthday is today. Happy B-day your highness from America.