Prince Charles has gotten the death sentace commuted on Mirza Tahir Hussain who was banged up in Pakistan 18 years ago for shooting a taxi driver in a struggle. He maintains the taxi driver tried to sexually assalt him, pulled a gun and it went off as Hussain tried to fight him off. He immediately turned himself in but got banged up under Sharia Law.
The death sentace has been lifted but the dead mans family still want him dead. The taxi drivers mum says she will set herself on fire if he is released so he still has a long way to go.
The question is, would an elected head of state have had the same pull as a member of the Royal family and future King of England did. We may not give a toss about the Royal family but the rest of the world still regard them very highly.
For this reason alone I would vote against any Republican movement that formed in this country.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I agree. But I do want them to pay proper tax.
"I'm gonna set myself on fire coz youre not going to kill the guy who killed my rapist son." Yeah that makes sense! Silly cow.
Cobblers!
Let's have an elected President and cut the monarchy out of the political system.
I am not saying we have to behead them (well maybe one or two).
Prince Charles can still go and do his good samiritan shit regardless of whether he is head of state.
Vive le republic
but how would being a republic make the situation BETTER? seems like we would be losing a few good things (tourism etc) and gaining absolutely nothing...
long live the king!
The tourism argument is weak. France decapitated its king and the number of tourists visiting there far exceeds our own. In fact kick the royals out of their royal palaces and open them up (entirely not just one piss poor wing) and you will increase tourism
The original concept of kingship was founded on democratic principles where kings were elected ie. the best person for the job. It was never conceived as a hereditary system, which evolved because corrupt individuals couldn't stand the idea of losing power/influence
If as you say our royal heritage is one of the main reasons people come to this country, lets kick them out of of their royal places (Sandringham, Holyrood, Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace, after all how many palaces do you need) and let the tourists in. The tower of London is one of the most popular tourist destinations (used to be a royal residence, not anymore).
Anyway this is getting of the main point. The main question is whether an unelected person should be in a position to wield such an influence over our state. And before anyone says she has no power, don't be naive. She exercises a huge influence over our institutions ie. the church of england (and through them 90% of our schools), our political process (through the honours sytem and placing 26 bishops in the house of lords to ensure the secular system maintains a religious ethos), the right to declare war (note parliament can't start or prevent a war but she can), make international treaties). If she is impotent then why is she there? Lets move them out of the political system.
On another note what really pisses me of is that anyone taking the new citizenship test has to swear allegiance to the country, the constituion and then finally the Queen (who is technically God,Jesus and the Holy Ghost's representative on earth...what a farce).
And another thing...ifwe are going to give them our hard earned taxes, the very least they can do is take a DNA test to prove that they are royal anyway.
How about this theoretical scenario. A terrorist kills Prince William, Prince Harry becomes heir to the throne. Are we afraid of democratic reform in this country that we would rather the illegitimate child of Princess Dianna and some reality tv show numpty become King...as I said its farcical
frankly dont care if the monarch is illegitimate or not...
and I'll still assert that the monarch only has nominal powers...she doesnt stop/start was...she signs the dotted line.
She doesnt appoint bishops, she just signs the dotted line.
She does as she is told.
The Queen's role is to:
Perform the ceremonial and official duties of Head of State, including
representing Britain to the rest of the world;
Provide a focus for national identity and unity;
Provide stability and continuity in times of change;
Recognise achievement and excellence;
Encourage public and voluntary service.
I would prefer a head of state who is accountable to the people/parliament rather than a monarch who is completely unaccountable.
The royal perogatives are used by the Primeminister who can act arbitrarily (without recourse to Parliament) then they are rubber stamped by an unaccountable monarch. The system is maintained on the basis that the primeminister protects her status and income in return for her rubber stamping the appointment of cronies, foreign escapades and international treaties(Masstricht). All very cosy. The system is corrupt and fear of change stops us from evolving the system.
By all means let her keep the title of Queen and the royal duties that do not conflict with the principles of democracy. She can keep a palace, hand out awards, unify the country, charity work, but they do not need to be part of the political system to continue those duties. To truly call ourselves a democracy the concept of a hereditary head of state should be binned.
when was the last time an English monarch asserted their authority and infringed on our democracy? I'd suspect it was before the 1688 Glorious Revolution!
Post a Comment