I mean the queens speech, this is what does it for me. She sits on her **** all year, (dont get me wrong, i am english) comes out for 15 minutes and talks to us all like shes a bloody god, gives out inhelpful advice (mostly bo***cks about giving and helping friends etc, stuff you use to get off your grandparents when you went round for dinner on a sunday) and we call her our queen. Now im sorry but for all you history buffs out there, look at the great and bad kings and queens of the past. When monarchy ran the country and decided on the welfare of the state, that is when true monarchy has a purpose. now the queen has more power in those tiny white gloves than any head of state in the world, inc george bush (sorry to disappoint you americans out there, i know u like to think ur always bigger and better) so why doesnt she get off her **** and do something useful to impact on all our lives. Make a few decisions etc. Its ludacris. So why do we have one and why do we like her. What she do?
2007-12-25 14:56:18 · 27 answers · asked by Princey 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
Definitely, they had the right idea in France
2007-12-25 15:01:16 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 6⤋
The reason the whole entire monarchy thing is still going on is because, the parliament is scared of the way the public would act when the oldest tradition in English history would be put to a stop. Personally, I don't live in England, but I think that the monarchy act should be abolished. Change in todays society would be a good thing, because as many of us can agree, the leadership of a country shouldn't be dependant on the bloodline of a royal family.
2007-12-27 22:09:56 · answer #2 · answered by Malichi 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It may be a surprise to some but QE2 is also head of the Constitutional Monarchy of Canada, but Canada is Independently ruled, not under British rule.
I am a UK and Canadian Citizen who is loyal to the Queen, but for some time I have held the opinion that once HM leaves, Canada should end the relationship. I have recently had second thoughts on seeing some of the unsavory financial actions of some of our recent PMs.
There has to be a neutral repository of power when the existing government falls. That being said, I do not think it should be occupied by the latest politically correct socialite.
The US has a well defined system of devolution of power in the event of Presidential failure. They also have a functional and elected senate, not an appointed group of political hacks.
I seriously think Canada should consider a constitutional re-org. after HM's time, and it should be in planning now.
Australia have also visited the same question recently. It has nothing to do with personality, I think HM is a person of great character and wisdom, but I think it is time the Colonies took the next natural step. That is not to say abolishing the Commonwealth as an allied group of nations, but preserving common defence and business interests, including the the most powerfull and first to leave. This is more or less a defacto situation today, but should be strengthened because, as we have seen, several so called NATO allies who are not in the Commonwealth, have failed to live up to their obligations.
2007-12-26 14:40:30 · answer #3 · answered by kellring 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No I don't think the Monarchy should be abolished far from it Her Majesty the Queen and the Royal Family work very very hard in deed in fact harder than you will probably ever work I don't know how you have the nerve to call yourself English with stupid remarks like yours and also swearing just shows how ignorant you are it looks to me as if you know nothing about the Monarchy so I suggest you do a little research you might learn a thing or two about the Monarchy and the Royal Family
2007-12-26 03:20:36 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Actually, Her majesty doesn't sit on her **** very much at all. Probably a lot less than you do actually. She works very very hard (and she's 80+). She brings in more money to this country than any other organisation and raises more money for charities than anyone else on the planet... / She can't do as she likes.. she has duties to perfom every day of her life.Like, Christmas day, for instance. she probably won;t be sat at home watching the telly after Christmas lunch like you will- she might even have to entertain some foreign dignitaries or something, just in an effort to keep the peace between all the countries in the Commonwealth. And, just to correct you a little, she has absolutely NO power in those little white gloves(although it would be nice to think she could swat George Bush round the head and knock some sense into him)!
2007-12-26 09:58:01 · answer #5 · answered by Nip 2 · 6⤊ 0⤋
My answer to that appalling question is go on reading the Sport. I suggest you study the activities of the Royal Family ... Look at the Civil list and the income from the Crown Estates and the Duchy of Lancaster... Which goes to the government!Look at the number of jobs for young people the Princes Trust has created .Would you prefer to have a liar like Tony Blair or an incompetent fool like Brown as Head of State ?
2007-12-26 18:43:28 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No I don't. And I think it should be expanded. Perhaps the Queen should have more real power. Perhaps her rule should be extended over other lands, including any of the 50 states that make up the US. And I think that those countries for whom she is the nominal power, e.g., Canada and Australia and others, should make a financial contribution to her upkeep.
God save the Queen!
2007-12-26 16:18:03 · answer #7 · answered by colder_in_minnesota 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No, the Queen is a great figurehead and she actually cares for the people of this country, unlike our greedy, corrupt self serving career politicians who are only in it for the money and glory.
As for the rest of your poorly spelled, barely legible nonsense, I can only comment that the Queen does not "sit on her ****" all year, she works hard and bloody hard at her public engagements. She's past 80, will you still be working at that age? I doubt it.
2007-12-26 15:58:12 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I agree with Totallyt.
But if the monarchy was ever abolished I would like to see them start their own political party, there are enough royalists out here to put them in power. At least we would have a government that has served their country in the military. For all you Di supporters= she would have been an M.P. If Gt Britain is to be run as a business this would make it a family business
2007-12-26 10:56:18 · answer #9 · answered by amtrun 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
If European and Asean leadership thinks the way Anarchist American mentality. The probablity manarchy will be totaly deminished by its roots not just abolished. If America will act as the evil campaign against "metacells people" Totaly kill and anihilate all this human cells.
Its not impossible, the advancement of scientific human cells study by the middle name and surmanes itself.
Unfortunately as of today only President George Bush who is being indeferent nor on a shoulder shrug, against royal people and Mopezat of all his lives has practically enjoyed royal numerous murders and assault by his personal foreign affairs office and his personal US Embassy in cooperation and in conspiracies. This also to include the email frauds.
http://www.valdemarsdatter.co.cc/
If the government of US Alliance continue by their royal puppetry, Means putting to throne royal people not really in authority and not the legitimate royal monarch. Do you think they can be lopsided.If this legitimate monarch call on Jehad both muslim and christian and delare socialism,deny their being a royal monarch and grab absolute power through socialism, Thats the time monarchy will totaly abolished. Primogeniture will be collided to leftiest and its the end. Because a primogeniture is basically sancrosanct duly constituted and the legitimate power of a Salic primogeniture cannot be surpass by anyone not even Queen Elizabeth II.
To my point of view, If you are a monarch out of constitutional puppettry don't forget whats the constitution jurisdiction and limitations doin just for you and you should be aware to other judicial power that is not at your grasp. Take the first move, RESPECT the primogeniture of ligitimate state will afficial in contained. Do not wait for her absolute legitimate judicial wrath to wreck on your neck.
The logic is,why should a primogeniture kill by her own hand when state law of absolute sovereignty is more than enough. It takes time and one should spend few years of waiting, but once this will be proven beyond reasons. Thats when judicial absoluteness will be so judgemental.
If I were this puppet monarchs be friendly and hospitable, it was so obvious no such mounbatten and mopezat in the throne of UK nor France nor Germany neither Spain. I dont think this people on judiciary and Bundastag ever be crazy and sacrifice their proffesional licences and Integrity except Per Stig Moller.
Other politicians hire people to march on the street and this people actually don't know what they are shouting. At the end of the day one thousand dollars was most appreciated.
If you think the world will be better without monarchy. My Absolute answer is..."I don't think so people" cause without monarchy is basically lawlessness. Think europe after the crackdown of Roman Empire, The decayed of barbaric europe, But I appreciate Beawolf and Aleric.
Abuses in actions of current puppett monarch e.g. Queen Elizabeth II sparks cetizentrys desgust. Instead of showing compassion to her people glued face on TV and no other TV show in every TV Channel. One can compare such desgust to a dectator on a speech paronoid of revolution and feeling affraid to die.
2007-12-26 00:30:05 · answer #10 · answered by PRINCESS AQUIRAH 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Her Majesty,Queen Elizabeth II of the Royal House of Windsor and head of the British Commonwealth shall never get out of her Throne until the sad day she dies,"God Save the Queen!" "Long to Reing over us!"
2007-12-26 01:08:43 · answer #11 · answered by Agustin 3 · 5⤊ 0⤋