| | Author | Message |
|---|
Biggles  
| | #1 posted November 7, 2003 at 9:31pm (EDT) |
Let us hope this latest scandal brings about their abolishment! I doubt it will though 
What I've gleaned doesn't seem like a hugely big issue to me, I suppose it depends whether that allegation of gay rape gets thrown in the ring as well as a homosexual relationship.....But then again, the kinds of people who support the monarchy may not be as unconcerned as me about even "allegations" of the heir to the throne having a sexual relationship (encounter?) with a man.... | bbb
| | #2 posted November 8, 2003 at 6:19am (EDT) |
were r u from biggles?because im from the U.S and they wouldnt tell us anything about this scandal,it was said to be a very nasty rumer and it would not be repeated. | kaleb777  
| | #3 posted November 8, 2003 at 8:08am (EDT) |
Would that be a bad thing in your eyes Biggles? I thought you were a supposed liberal.
Just think of all those people who would be out of a job if the tourism attracted by the royals was ended. Another great liberal achievement? | Biggles
| | #4 posted November 8, 2003 at 8:27am (EDT) |
No, I'm not a liberal - I'm left wing.
I'm a subject in my country, not a citizen. We have an unelected figurehead who supposedly represents us but is a long way from being in touch with ordinary people. We pay her and her family huge amounts of money.
The tourism wouldn't die out just like that - the palaces, etc. would still be there - some of them would still be owned by the royals, it's just that they wouldn't be legally anything special.
Should we not ban fox hunting too, because people are going to lose their jobs? | Biggles
| | #5 posted November 8, 2003 at 8:28am (EDT) |
I'm in England, but details have been posted by a couple of foreign newspapers on their websites. The French paper, Liberation is one. You can translate the site using Google and then read it. | Frostbrand
| | #6 posted November 8, 2003 at 4:43pm (EDT) |
There you go, blaming liberals again. You really are stupid aren't? You clearly don't know CRAP about liberals otherwise you wouldn't LIE about us all the time! | msgman
| | #7 posted November 8, 2003 at 4:45pm (EDT) |
He wouldn't be the first. I can't imagine that it would make any significant difference, even if it's true (which I very much doubt). | Biggles
| | #8 posted November 8, 2003 at 5:03pm (EDT) |
I dont think it would make much of a difference to anti-monarchists like me, because we tend to be pretty left-wing. *But* a lot of monarchists (obviously not all) are Christian and conservative and might not think much of that kind of thing.... It's true he wouldn't be the first, but he'd be the first in this non-deferent age with global media. In the past, things like that simply weren't reported and many ordinary people didn't know much about current affairs anyway.
It's also dependent on quite how the media reports the actual allegations (I'm sure they'll get permission, or just go ahead anyway, before too long), true (unlikely, I agree) or not. Is it just going to be limited to him having homosexual experiences, or is the gay rape theme going to be thrown in there as well? The tabloids will relish talking about Prince Charles, gay sex and gay rape all in the same article. | Biggles
| | #9 posted November 8, 2003 at 5:08pm (EDT) |
Brian - Kaleb does have a valid point. Jobs would be lost and the UK economy would be hit if we abolished the monarchy. I don't believe that's a reason to keep them, but many people do. I don't think there would be a sudden loss of tourism, but it would decline over time. And it would be the liberals and left-wingers that would have forced the change, not the conservatives, so his points are well made..... | msgman
| | #10 posted November 9, 2003 at 8:56am (EDT) |
It's true that those people with a traditional view of morality would be more likely to consider it a problem if Prince Charles was guilty of the act mentioned in the allegations. But, equally, they are the same people who would strongly defend the monarchy as an institution against what they would perceive as being anti-monarchist attacks. The more that republicans attempt to make political capital out of it, the more the traditionalists are likely to close ranks. Those who would defend the monarchy are also more likely to believe the prince's denials.
So I don't see this as having any significant effect on the overall balance of popular opinion. It may have some effect on the question of whether Charles should step aside and allow the crown to pass directly to William, but that's a separate issue. In the long run, though, I think this will do more damage to the tabloid press than to the monarchy. If the allegations are untrue (and remember that they have been made by an individual who has a very big axe to grind), then a lot of people are likely to wonder why the press seems to keen to report them. | Biggles
| | #11 posted November 9, 2003 at 9:22am (EDT) |
I'm not sure about that axe-to-grind. I haven't heard anything like that...? | msgman
| | #12 posted November 9, 2003 at 9:53am (EDT) |
Both of the allegations (the rape one, and the current one) were allegedly made by the same individual, and the (non-royal) subject of the allegations is, allegedly, the same person in both cases. And the source of the allegations was once employed by the prince in a role where his immediate boss was the person who is, allegedly, the subject of the allegations, and the source of the allegations was allegedly demoted or disciplined by the subject of the allegations in response to alleged reports of misconduct or inability to do the job. It has subsquently been alleged that the source of the allegations has suffered from alcoholism and post-traumatic stress disorder and has a history of making false or misleading allegations in order to divert attention from his own alleged failings. The previous allegation was reported at the time to the police, who investigated and concluded that there was no case to answer, and the source of the allegations was subsequently sacked by the subject of the allegations.
It is therefore not unreasonable to speculate that, having failed to make the first allegation stick, the source of the allegations has made a second allegation which is potentially more damaging as it is not only harder to disprove than the first allegation but also involves a member of the royal family and will therefore generate considerably more press interest. The allegation in this case is that the prince is not the main target of the allegations, he has merely been used as the fall guy in the course of a personal vendetta by the source of the allegations against the main subject of the allegations. | Frostbrand
| | #13 posted November 9, 2003 at 4:12pm (EDT) |
I woulds till visit there. In fact if I could afford to I'd love to visit ALL my ancestral homelands (I'm a bit of a mutt genetically speaking), inclduing but not limited to Britian, Ireland and Scotland (also Germany, Australia (yes I have Aussie relatives, somewhere), and the East Coast where the Native Ameircans I'm distatnly related too were forced out by the Itlaians, Portugese, and Spanish.). | Biggles
| | #14 posted November 9, 2003 at 6:22pm (EDT) |
Scotland's *in* Britain, you dunce!   | Frostbrand
| | #15 posted November 10, 2003 at 1:45pm (EDT) |
See? If I could afford to vacation in Europe I could've learned that! My geography classes when I was still in school were very ethnocentric. According to my last geogrpahy teacher's favorite map, nothing outside of North America existed. I'm not kidding. The only map he had was of North Amarica. And I still got in trouble for correcting him on his pronunciation of Yucatan. He prounonced ii You-cay-ton. | Biggles
| | #16 posted November 10, 2003 at 3:20pm (EDT) |
My geography lessons revolved around the tourist trade and what farmers think about people building on their land.... It was social-geography rather than political or physical geography. A huge waste of time!!! | kaleb777
| | #17 posted November 11, 2003 at 4:07pm (EDT) |
I think the pomp etc attracts a lot of visitors and interest in Britain. I bet it's far more than what the monarchy gets paid.
I was thinking how hypocritical people who are shocked at the prospect of homosexuality in Charles. They were on TV here openly talking about it (something I understand your media can't) and they had several advisers to the royals as well as workers saying things like "he always looked at the girls, never the lads" and "he was in the navy and no one ever said he seemed to be checking out the other men". What I found disgusting was this type of talk rather than anything Charles might have done. I imagine Thomas Jefferson might have acted the same if people had of made accusations of sex with a slave with advisors saying "he would never touch a nigger" etc. It should be Charles denying an affair. The sexuality of the person he was supposed to be screwing shouldn't matter. The fact he was married to Diana at the time seems to be lost on the media. | Biggles
| | #18 posted November 11, 2003 at 4:57pm (EDT) |
I agree entirely with that second bit  It shouldn't be an issue what gender the person he had an affair with, just that he had one (if he did). But we *know* that he wasn't monogamous already, so it shouldn't be a big deal. Unfortunately, I just can't help myself somewhat enjoying the Royal Family in a bit of a pickle/scandal. I know that's bad of me, but I do despise them as a body so much. | kaleb777
| | #19 posted November 12, 2003 at 5:04pm (EDT) |
They're really just doing a job. Think of how horrible it would be to be under constant scrutiny. These people really didn't have a choice in the matter - they were born into it. MAybe the institution can be criticised, but I actually pitty the individuals. I also think it's worth saving just for cultural reasons. I'm Anglo, and I think it would be a tragedy to lose those traditions. What would your opinion be of the traditions of a Kingdom like Tonga to be lost forever just to become another cookie cutter suburban TV watching culture just like everywhere else. Isn't the traditions of the British people worth holding on to? Remember Britain has a sort of responsibility as the core of Anglo Celtic culture to retain traditions that millions of people in the English speaking world have a link to. | Biggles
| | #20 posted November 12, 2003 at 6:44pm (EDT) |
I also have human rights issues relating to the pressure and scrutiny the Royal Family are subjected to. I'm not so woolly that I think it's right the way they're treated. I especially feel sorry for the children being raised - by the time they're adults they all seem to be the same which has to be a product of the media intrusion as much as the way that they're brought up.
I would like to retain traditional links, but I don't think that should prevent us from making changes. I hate the monarchy as it is, but I think I would have far fewer objections to it if it was completely overhauled. I'd like the constitutional role of the monarch to be drastically changed - there should be no possibility for the monarch to ask a party to form a government that didn't win an election (as the Queen did in the 70s) for example. I'd like Parliament to have sole control over most of the royal powers through actual Acts rather than just through precedent. A few years ago, that wouldn't have satisfied me, but now the House of Lords is no longer going to be hereditary peers, I'm happy for it to be the only check on the House of Commons between elections.
I admire the monarchy as they have it in some of the Scandinavian countries. The nuclear family have engagements but aren't paid vast amounts - the royals who aren't the direct lineage don't get anything from taxpayers. They're very much more "down with the people" than our royals are, and they're more positive role models. I never hear about them making racist comments or being anti-semitic, which is commonplace with the British royal family. If we had something more like that, I think I'd be proud of them. I'm very fond of tradition - I love the stories of kings and queens from years ago, but they actually did something. They led their people through wars and plagues....I'd rather live in a democracy, but old monarchs were actual leaders - present day ones are just figureheads. If my nation is going to have a figurehead, I'd like it to be someone I respect, even if I don't like them much. | kaleb777
| | #21 posted November 13, 2003 at 4:44pm (EDT) |
The British Royal family make anti-Semetic comments? That's weird considering they have some Jewish blood in the mix.
I think you should focus your attention on the House of Lords. That is a travesty. The Queen could still exist as a head of state, like how some countries have a President for ceremonial duties and a Prime Minister who actually governs. The House of Lords has too much power. It should be replaced with a Senate. You could have it like Australia, where each state (county for you) has the same number of senators no matter the population which means power is not concentrated in the biggest states. In the case of the UK it seems London sucks all the money in from the rest of Britain. Imagine if senators from up north had the same voting power as senators from greater London. Policy is generated in the House of Representatives (commons) and sent to the senate where they have the power to reject it and demand alterations until a majority of senators are happy and vote to pass it. Who Do the Lords represent? It seems they should be given the arse the hangers-on they are. | Biggles
| | #22 posted November 14, 2003 at 12:34pm (EDT) |
The late Queen Mother was known to have made various anti-semitic comments during her lifetime. I know that she was very much a product of another age, but even so.... Where's the Jewish blood from in the British Royal Family? I don't know much about their heritage, bar the main line of descent.
I think that the House of Lords as was, was definitely a travesty. But the House of Lords as is, and as will be, is fine by me. I wouldn't want an elected upper house because then the people sitting in it could claim to have equal powers to those in the lower house (being imbued with sovereignty by the electorate in the same way) and that could cause all kinds of snarls. I'm not familiar with how the Australian system works, but I have studied the US system and having a Senate like their's would be incredibly different to our current system. So little changes or gets done in the US because the Senate is such a powerful check on the powers of the House that nothing ever gets through both. Here, we have the Parliament Act which means that any bill that passes the House of Commons three times but is rejected by the House of Lords, can be passed regardless. That's a good thing! It means that the fox hunting bill which has been passed by the House of Commons but rejected by the House of Lords (because the reforms aren't done yet, and a lot of aristocrats are still holding seats) can be pushed through according to the will of the electorate. Of course, the fact that the House of Lords isn't passing the bill anyway is unconstitutional. According to precedent, anything that the House of Lords believes has been mandated by the British people is passed into law once it makes it through the Commons. But they're refusing to do that on a technicality.
Personally, I wouldn't want an elected body where each region had the same number of MPs regardless of their size. Why should the vote of each Welsh person be worth more than mine as an English person? I know that would make power less concentrated in the highly populous areas, but that's not necessarily a good thing either. Say the regions were smaller, on a county scale say. The people living in the most populous areas are often the poorest and most needy people, yet their votes would not be worth as much as the wealthier people living out in the countryside.
I do understand what you're saying about Northern MPs being over-represented so being able to match the London MPs, but it just doesn't seem fair. If there are truly more people in London, then of course they should have more money to spend than Yorkshire.
Currently, the Lords who are actually lords largely represent no-one. But soon they will all be appointees or high court judges or non-hereditary peers. Some, but not all will probably be elected. The aristocrat lords are getting given the boot - great stuff |
Topic Page Hits: 1 today (1 in the last 30 days) |
