Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Can The Queen And Monarchy Be Dissolved?  
User currently offlineMbj-11 From Jamaica, joined Aug 2000, 386 posts, RR: 1
Posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3509 times:

To all the British members of A.net, can the entire monarchy be done away with? Is there anything on the books that allows for that? Not that I am advocating that they or the queen should go. But I am curious on how powerful the post of the monarchy is in England. E.g. If the majority of the immediate family has been found to be party to any illegal activity punishable by jail time, would the monarchy be at an end?
Or are they technically "above the law?"


Jesus is the Christ and he alone saves
164 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineConnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 1, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3509 times:

I am not 100% clear on this, but I think the monarch has the right to pay off the navy -- not that she would do it. She can dissolve Parliament as well, I believe, without consulting the PM, or, in the case of no majority, can invite essentially anyone to attempt to form a government. Honours, decorations, etc., are also I believe within the monarchs' purview.

As to criminal charges, I really don't know what the British constitutional law would say, as their constitution is basically a set of traditions flowing from Magna Carta. In Canada we have a written constitution (now) but I do not believe it makes any reference to the monarch being subject to common or criminal law. My guess is that the monarch is in fact above the law.

But I'm sure I'll be corrected, gently, if I am incorrect.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineBlackProjects From United Kingdom, joined exactly 7 years ago today! , 756 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3509 times:

A Qoute from the Royal Familys website.


Civil and criminal proceedings cannot be taken against the Sovereign as a person under UK law, The Queen is careful to ensure that all her activities in her personal capacity are carried out in strict accordance with the law.


The website in Question.

http://194.203.40.17/output/Page4696.asp


User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13031 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3509 times:

Quoting BlackProjects (Reply 2):
Civil and criminal proceedings cannot be taken against the Sovereign as a person under UK law, The Queen is careful to ensure that all her activities in her personal capacity are carried out in strict accordance with the law.

To me, this only applies to the Queen herself (or King if the monarch at the time). All other members of the Royal Family, including Prince Charles, his children can be charged and convicted of a crime, for example if they were driving too fast to committed a sexual assault or robbed someone. It seems to me the Parliament could try the Sovereign for criminal behaviors if committed certain criminal acts such as the abuses of power of Henry VIII. More likely, they could cause the abdication of the throne by a Sovereign in such matters and replaced.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21406 posts, RR: 54
Reply 4, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3509 times:

And then there's always revolution as a fallback option... it should keep any monarch on their toes...!  mischievous 

User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3509 times:

In related news, President George W. Bush has set an Oct 31, 2007 deadline for HRH to step down. After that date, he will order the the US military to use "all available means to bring true democracy to the people of the United Kingdom who have lived under this tyrant or members of her family all of their lives."

He continued, "we're pretty sure that this time they have nuclear weapons."

Tomorrow he's going to the UN to form a coalition of the willing spearhead by Canada and Australia to support the US's efforts. France immediately volunteered to set up a naval blockage but the effort was short lived when the French fleet quickly surrendered to a UK flagged ferry crossing the English channel.


User currently offlineMbj-11 From Jamaica, joined Aug 2000, 386 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3509 times:

Quoting Pope (Reply 5):
In related news, President George W. Bush has set an Oct 31, 2007 deadline for HRH to step down. After that date, he will order the the US military to use "all available means to bring true democracy to the people of the United Kingdom who have lived under this tyrant or members of her family all of their lives."

He continued, "we're pretty sure that this time they have nuclear weapons."

Tomorrow he's going to the UN to form a coalition of the willing spearhead by Canada and Australia to support the US's efforts. France immediately volunteered to set up a naval blockage but the effort was short lived when the French fleet quickly surrendered to a UK flagged ferry crossing the English channel.

 Smile

So the monarchy is basically untouchable?



Jesus is the Christ and he alone saves
User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 7, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3509 times:

Quoting Mbj-11 (Thread starter):
Can The Queen And Monarchy Be Dissolved?

Absolutely! The sooner, the better.

Signed,
QANTASforever


User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24999 posts, RR: 85
Reply 8, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3509 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Mbj-11 (Reply 6):
So the monarchy is basically untouchable?

Not "untouchable" at all.

The monarchy exists by Act of Parliament, and, like any Act, it could be changed.

It was changed once, when Parliament, led by Oliver Cromwell, did away with the monarchy and executed the king - Charles I.

This led to the English Civil War and the English Republic - called "the unhappy times". When Oliver Cromwell died, Parliament restored the monarchy, with Charles II as king.

Charles' son was a Catholic, so there was a lot of fuss and bother, but he came to the throne, briefly, before being deposed by Parliament.

His son was also a Catholic so Parliament invited his daughter, Mary, to be monarch, ruling jointly with her husband, William, Prince of Orange.

A British - or an English - Republic may happen again, but I hope not. I'm a constitutional monarchist, I prefer a non-elected head of state

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 9, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3509 times:

Quoting Mariner (Reply 8):
Charles' son was a Catholic, so there was a lot of fuss and bother, but he came to the throne, briefly, before being deposed by Parliament.

James II was his brother, not his son. Charles had no legitimate children. Pity about James really. He was an outstanding naval officer, perhaps one of the greatest Admirals of the era - fairly unusual for a royal. Yet that's forgotten now.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 8):
His son was also a Catholic so Parliament invited his daughter, Mary, to be monarch, ruling jointly with her husband, William, Prince of Orange.

That's something of a polite British myth, actually (part of the "we've not been invaded since 1066" stuff). William's arrival was an invasion, pure and simple - the "invitation" from Parliament happening when he was already in London with rather large numbers of troops! Had James not fled in the way that he did, the armed forces may well have resisted what was a conquest. Mary being William's wife was something of a figleaf for the whole affair.

Back to the point of the thread, there is no specific mechanism in place for abolishing the monarchy, because in the British system there doesn't need to be. A government elected on the mandate to abolish it would get it through Parliament and the only potential stumbling block would be that the Queen would have to sign the Act abolishing her own position. If that was the will of the people through their government and Parliament, it's inconceivable that she'd refuse. And if she did then the resulting consitutional crisis would do the same job.

There's no appetite for this to happen though. People seem fairly content with their monarchy.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 24999 posts, RR: 85
Reply 10, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3509 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Banco (Reply 9):
James II was his brother, not his son.

You are right. Brain fart.

Quoting Banco (Reply 9):
William's arrival was an invasion, pure and simple

Yes. But perhaps all the Protestant/Catholic matters and the Glorious Revolution clouds the central question asked here.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3509 times:

Quoting Pope (Reply 5):
France immediately volunteered to set up a naval blockage but the effort was short lived when the French fleet quickly surrendered to a UK flagged ferry crossing the English channel.

Those that actually made it out to sea without propellors falling off, sinking, running aground, being blockaded by fishing boats etc.


User currently offlineTSV From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 1641 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3509 times:

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 7):
Absolutely! The sooner, the better.

Signed,
QANTASforever

Talk about slow - I expected that would have been Reply 1.



"I told you I was ill ..." Spike Milligan
User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10875 posts, RR: 37
Reply 13, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3509 times:

I would dissolve Camilla rather than the Monarchy.  Big grin


There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineLTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 13864 posts, RR: 50
Reply 14, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3509 times:

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 13):
I would dissolve Camilla rather than the Monarchy.

And include Charles to that. I'm all for William taking the throne and becoming William V, young blood is needed to revitalise modern day monarchies.

BTW: is it true that Charles, if he ever takes the throne, would not take the name Charles III but rather become known as George VII?


User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10875 posts, RR: 37
Reply 15, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3509 times:

Long Live the Queen. Maybe to 102? or 114?

I have no idea what or who will be after her.  Confused



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13165 posts, RR: 78
Reply 16, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3509 times:

Charles will follow her, but the Queen WILL perform her duties so long as she is able to.
Many will find it odd, but she takes the oaths of her coronation as seriously as can be imagined, she is absolutely committed to this, seeing it as her reason for being.

If the Queen is as genetically fortunate as her mother, she could still well be reigning for another 10 or even 15 years from now.
The possibility does exist then that Charles [i] could [i/] perhaps, if he's not so fortunate health wise, or of course by an accident of some kind , not succeed his mother as monarch.
If that happens, it's William as king.

Interesting to note that our one Republican leader, Cromwell, despite his overthrowing a terrible monarch, became in power an oppressor as bad as what he had replaced, powered by him being an extreme religious fanatic, not by today's standards either, but even by contemporary standards.
Centuries ago maybe, but it's not been entirely forgotten.
Perhaps that extra English, later British, distrust of revolutionary figures, right into the 20th Century, comes from this.

As has been stated, an elected government could dissolve the Monarchy and there is not a thing the monarch could do about it.
On the flip-side, there is the situation-unimagineable as it seems now, of a government that exceeded it's mandate, for example by not with good reason, holding a general election after the maximum 5 years from the previous one.

It did happen in 1940, but of course facing national defeat, even as feared at the time, of invasion, was a pretty good reason. But Churchill formed a 'National Government', much of the War Cabinet had senior figures from other parties-mostly the official Labour opposition, in high positions, Labour leader Clement Attlee-who would beat him in the 1945 election, was his wartime deputy.
But after Nazi Germany surrendered, as soon as was practical in the bankrupt armed camp with millions serving abroad that Britain was, an election was held, not waiting for Japan to surrender, since in 1940 it had been a European war of national survival that has postponed an election. Even then, a massive effort had to be made to ship literally millions of ballot papers from UK service personnel from everywhere abroad.
During this 'National Government' however, by-elections-when for whatever reason, a parliamentary seat became vacant, were held, local elections too, often the government got a bloody nose in these.

What would happen if there was no good reason for not holding an election after the maximum allowed time, or the government were being grossly criminal in other ways, well I'll let the more informed constitutional experts here speculate on that!


User currently offlineMadameConcorde From San Marino, joined Feb 2007, 10875 posts, RR: 37
Reply 17, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3509 times:

I wish she would live as long as her mother or even longer and still be in good health. To 102 or 114.
Maybe she can over-age Jeanne Calmant. Never know...

Quoting GDB (Reply 16):
If the Queen is as genetically fortunate as her mother, she could still well be reigning for another 10 or even 15 years from now.



There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
User currently offlineCtbarnes From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3491 posts, RR: 50
Reply 18, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3509 times:

Because Britain has no written constitution, technically dissolving the Monarchy would simply require act of Parliament. The Royal Family have also said repeatedly if there was a groundswell of republican sentiment in the country they would acquiesce to the popular will and step aside.

The actual process of transitioning Britain to a republic would, however, be easier said than done. For example, the Royal Family are the largest landowners in the country, which leads to questions about how those lands are to be disposed. There would also have to be thought given to what would replace the Monarchy, and how it would govern. Would Britain become a kind of Euro-republic similar to Germany or Italy where the presidential office is largely ceremonial? Or would a president have a stronger role ala France or the United States?

The reality though, is I don't see Britain becoming a republic any time soon. The vast majority of Brits can't be bothered to change the status quo, and the current Queen remains popular. And if her mother is anything to go by, she could end up outliving her eldest son.

Charles, SJ



The customer isn't a moron, she is your wife -David Ogilvy
User currently offlineAvek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4336 posts, RR: 19
Reply 19, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3509 times:

It's not as easy as you may think. Some points to consider:

1. The Queen is not merely a monarch, she is the sovereign of the UK and numerous Commonwealth realms. With sovereignty comes legal principles like sovereign immunity; changing the sovereign would require some extensive modifications to other laws.

2. Britain (and again, many of the Commonwealth realms) would be left without a defined chief executive. While the Queen's role is generally ceremonial in this regard -- especially in the UK, her representatives in the Commonwealth --- Governors General -- have at times had to exercise their executive authority to resolve domestic political crises. And even in the present time, it is not completely unimaginable for the Monarch to at least temporarily exercise direct executive authority in the UK, especially in the event of a extreme crisis.

Simply making the Prime Minister the chief executive is highly undesirable, as it would vest control of the legislature and control of the executive branch in a single person -- arguably a highly undemocratic move.



Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 20, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3509 times:

Quoting Avek00 (Reply 19):
2. Britain (and again, many of the Commonwealth realms) would be left without a defined chief executive

No, that wouldn't actually affect the other Commonwealth nations with the Queen as Head of State. That's contained in their laws, not ours.

It is true that there would be numerous practical obstacles to overcome, but the partially written nature of the British constitution means that it would simply be a case of writing new rules and regulations. The assumption is that nothing would have been put in place, whereas in reality, you could be fairly sure extensive plans for an alternative would have been put forward first, and voted upon.

But again, there is NO desire for such a change. Although there are certainly republicans in Britain, the vast, vast majority are content with the current system.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3509 times:

Quoting Banco (Reply 20):
the vast, vast majority are content with the current system.

Speaking as a vast, vast majority, I am not content. Any system that denies me the possibility of supreme regency over the planet is unacceptible.


User currently offlineRobertNL070 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2003, 4532 posts, RR: 10
Reply 22, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3509 times:

The gnashing of teeth in Sydney is almost audible  biggrin 


Youth is a gift of nature. Age is a work of art.
User currently offlineBanco From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 14752 posts, RR: 53
Reply 23, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3509 times:

Quoting JGPH1A (Reply 21):
Speaking as a vast, vast majority, I am not content. Any system that denies me the possibility of supreme regency over the planet is unacceptible.

Simply "vast" would have summarised you well enough. You must be content with remaining a minor queen, alas.



She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot.
User currently offlineJGPH1A From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (6 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3509 times:

Quoting Banco (Reply 23):
You must be content with remaining a minor queen, alas.

Off with his head !!


25 Post contains images Banco : No, that was this morning when I had the hangover from hell.
26 Mariner : I presume you mean Australia, when Governor-General Kerr sacked the (twice) popularly elected (Labor) government? I believe he should hot have had th
27 Joni : Both the monarchy and the monarch could of course be dissolved, although dissolving an old lady (in acid, for example) is a distasteful idea. Personal
28 MainMAN : Princess Anne has two convictions. The first in 2001 for driving at 93mph - fined £400. The second in 2002 when she was charged under The Dangerous
29 RobertNL070 : It's been done already. Charles the Great, a.k.a Charlemagne, was crowned by Pope Leo III in the beginning of the 9th century(?). Granted, it wasn't
30 Post contains images Banco : I believe the English were rather the Euro-sceptics at the time...
31 Joni : I know, that's where I got the idea from. It could be a nice touch now again, the EU would have a "face" that would help nationals of the member stat
32 Post contains images RobertNL070 : And have never stopped being so since ... Robert
33 Post contains images JGPH1A : The English at the time also still thought the Earth was flat and used dung as currency. Very little has changed
34 Post contains images RobertNL070 : Don't forget that Paul Kruger was of that mind as recently as 1898
35 Post contains images Banco : Au contraire, mon Afrikaner ami. The English at the time had the finest written culture in Europe. That is, until the bloody French turned up and bur
36 Post contains images Klaus : Sounds an awful lot like that "the dog ate my homework" excuse to me...!
37 Post contains images Banco : Outrageous! Calling your French friends dogs. Apologise, right now!
38 Post contains images JGPH1A : Yersss well our Boer brethren took a while to catch up, didn't they Ahem, I think you'll find that was probably the Irish and the Scots, led principa
39 Post contains images Banco : Silly boy. The Saxons were the English, a couple of centuries down the line from arrival. And funnily enough, it's all true about the written culture
40 Post contains images RobertNL070 : "Our"? "My" you mean. I am quitessentially British
41 JGPH1A : No I'm not. The Venomous Bede (early 8th century) was way before Charlemagne (late 8th Century)- and he wrote in Latin. And Anglo Saxon Chronics (lat
42 Post contains images Banco : Bede wrote in both Latin and English. Barely. Hair splitting. You merely being a boor Boer.
43 JGPH1A : I am not able to find any mention of Bede's work in English, apart from a single 5-line poem.
44 Post contains images RobertNL070 : Therefore ...
45 JGPH1A : I'd accuse Banco of splitting hairs, but as he has so little, that would be cruel.
46 Post contains images Klaus : What gave you that idea? Maybe your own classification of your esteemed literature as barely on the level of a school home assignment...?
47 Banco : Oh dear. I should have known better than to try to introduce Klaus to the world of humour.
48 Post contains images Klaus : You're so seriously full of yourself as the imaginary world reference for humour that it's actually getting funny!
49 BlackProjects : One thing most people forget about the Queen is she is still the queen after being crowned in 1953 how many other world leaders apart from Dictators c
50 Post contains images Banco : Klaus. It was a joke. Nothing more. Go back to talking about Macs.
51 Klaus : The trumpets and the flashing neon signs gave that away already.
52 Post contains images JGPH1A : You never learn, do you ? After all that time, I should think they'd have had to wire his head back on in the first place, just to chop it off - euww
53 Post contains images Banco : What can I say?
54 Post contains images Klaus : Nothing much original, when looking at your last remark...
55 Post contains images JGPH1A : I know, I know - this insatiable urge to educate and inform the demonstrably and lamentably inferior - it's a curse, really. But we struggle on.
56 Post contains images Klaus : The delusional counselling each other - it's heartwarming! (And could save a bunch on mental healthcare, actually...!)
57 Olle : As swedish it will be very interesting to see what appens the next 25 years. How many years will our current king survive and when he will be replaced
58 Avek00 : Canada has also had a couple of significant occasions where the Governor-General had to "govern" beyond a mere ceremonial role.
59 ExFATboy : I have to disagree with that - as the UK does not have a written constutition, there's no predefined legal basis for saying Parliament has the power
60 Joni : This "world of humour" of yours often involves racist rubbish like the above. You perhaps don't realize all the unfavourable things we could say of t
61 Banco : If you're going to call me a racist, you'd better back it up with something a bloody sight stronger than that.
62 Post contains images Kieron747 : Utter horseshit!
63 Post contains images Klaus : If a look in the mirror hurts, is it the mirror's fault...?
64 Banco : That's enough, Klaus. If you're going to make such serious accusations, you'd better back it up right now.
65 Klaus : There's a widespread tendency around here to base presumable "jokes" on "hilarious" ideas like, for instance, the french all being cowards or otherwi
66 Banco : For one, I don't do that. For another, that wasn't remotely a dig at the French. it was a play on words suggesting you were saying something that you
67 Post contains images Klaus : Indeed I don't remember such a case, but I've also been pretty much alone in raising any protest against it. Sure, that was clearly the primary inten
68 Banco : Klaus, I expect nothing better from Joni. But I do expect better from you. And you did say: A clear implication that you agreed with him. That's not
69 Joni : Well, it fooled me and I didn't find your "play on words" to be very funny. I also vaguely recall similar "plays on words" from you in the past, whic
70 Post contains images Gkirk : Only just realised that? Gonna have to side myself with Banco on this one Accussing him of being racist is as ludicrous as saying Hitler was a peace
71 Banco : Perhaps you could consider not writing grossly insulting and outright libellous remarks like calling people racist without the slightest of evidence.
72 Post contains images David L : Oh, for goodness' sake, it should be bleedin' obvious what happened: If that's racism then we might as well delete half of the posts in non-Av. Time t
73 Post contains images Kieron747 : Ahhh feel the love! Well done to Klaus and Joni for completely ruining and derailing a decent thread. Shame on you. And I'm gonna have to side with GK
74 Joni : Try replacing "the French" with "the Jews" (I'm using [ and ]) in the above and see if it sounds different to you: Banco: That is, until the bloody [
75 Post contains images Kieron747 :
76 Post contains images David L : Nope - you could insert any nationality you want in there. The only reason the French "got involved" is because that was what was in the original com
77 ME AVN FAN : but isn't the Monarch handing out honours and decorations on the basis of lists provided by the Premier ? - couldn'^t Prince Charles, when feeling to
78 Post contains images Klaus : I can't speak for Joni, but the only reason why I felt he had a point up there was because there is a consistent and rather vicious "tradition" of sl
79 Post contains images David L : WTF? The comment was clearly not meant to be aimed at the French for any reason other than the fact that it happened to be the nation mentioned in th
80 Post contains images JGPH1A : I would hope by now that most of us on these threads can see what is and is not meant to be humorous, including the use of dated stereotypical chestn
81 Banco : Me too. But the fact remains that two people on here have accused me of one of the worst things that a person can be accused of. And for all his weas
82 ME AVN FAN : interesting it might be, IF there was any probability of the Brits voting in favour of a republic. -
83 GDB : Join the club Banco, Joni accused me of racism once, and my better half has Indian parents! Joni, maybe you've never noticed, (though how I don't know
84 Post contains images Kieron747 : Don't be pissed off Banco. I think anyone reading this thread will see who is in the right and who is the bigger man in this debacle. And it ain't Jo
85 777236ER : Joni, before making such utterly ridiculous statements, it's worth pointing out that your own country was co-belligerent with Nazi Germany. I'm not at
86 ME AVN FAN : Well, just checked it through. "Klaus" heavily DISagreed with you about humour and about how to speak about the French and their glorious "Grande Arm
87 Post contains images David L : Yes, there's no chance of it happening in the near future but it's still an interesting subject. No need to stick our heads in the sand. Yes, people
88 Ctbarnes : Officially yes, but in practice withholding royal assent does not work in quite the same way as an American-style presidential veto. Three is a lot o
89 Post contains images Gkirk : Christ Banco, you've got me, 777236ER, GDB, DavidL and Kieron747 sticking up for you. You must feel privileged
90 Post contains images Aloges : Quite... this place isn't what it used to be. Depends... braces in or out? Blimey... I didn't read all of the thread before posting the reply, so I'l
91 Banco : It's about 300 years since the last time a monarch refused the Royal Assent. It's unthinkable for one to do so now. Grateful, actually.
92 Post contains images ME AVN FAN : - Simply imagine we had Reverend Ian Paisley as a poster on this board ! .... just for a tiny moment - - Banco apparently took it very seriously, and
93 Gkirk : You don't call anyone a racist without having proof to back your claim up. Doing that is libel (or slander?).
94 Banco : Aloges was referring to my piss-taking. Not the subsequent accusations of racism, which are anything but.
95 ME AVN FAN : NEITHER of them did do so. "Joni" just complained about "racist rubbish". "Banco" would lose any court-trial as no one said him to be "a racist" . To
96 Banco : Oh, for Christ's sake. If you're accusing someone of spouting racist rubbish, you're implying they're a racist. This isn't a court of law, it's a thr
97 ME AVN FAN : That thing with the mirror was rather strange, I however in your place had NOT taken the bait, and NOT taken it as an accusation - - Joni already in
98 ME AVN FAN : it was not me, it was Gkirk who spoke about "libel" and "libel" is a legal title in court, and has NOTHING to do with a discussion site. - and it was
99 Aloges : I did think that much was obvious.
100 Post contains images David L : I've no idea what the legal/constiutional position is but it seems to me that if there was clear evidence that the monarchy was no longer desired by t
101 Post contains images Kieron747 : Food for thought, If this did happen, and we booted out Liz, who'd we have on the front of the tenner? Noel Edmonds? Kieron747
102 Post contains images Gkirk : Me of course
103 Post contains images David L : Some Big Brother winner, no doubt.
104 Post contains images Kieron747 : Indeed! And after that the number of people buying Lotto tickets will surge to an all time high. So many folks wanting to be rich, with plenty of ten
105 Post contains images Banco : Cue massive run on the pound in the currency markets...
106 ME AVN FAN : - well, I do not want to tell YOU what "the British masses" want or desire, but my impression is that a majority of Brits simply regard it as practic
107 Banco : Entirely correct. However, David said "if". He was talking about what would happen *if* there was desire for change.
108 ME AVN FAN : - Not really, he said : - - "the monarchy desired by the masses" and my reservation exactly is that the monarchy is NOT "desired" by the masses but s
109 Banco : Look, that's just splitting hairs. The import of what he said is clear. Why feel the need to point out a difference that isn't really there? What he'
110 Post contains links and images JGPH1A : Ahem. Can there even be a debate ? I think the answer is obvious.
111 Post contains images David L : Conduct a survey and I'd bet much more than 50% would say they want it (in the UK as a whole). Nonsense. The reason you don't hear anyone being "acti
112 Post contains images Joni : I don't know what "taking the piss" means here, but if you mean the kind of snide remarks Banco sometimes makes of the French, no I haven't noticed t
113 Post contains images ME AVN FAN : true, but what I am saying is obvious enough as well - the Swiss Federal Council is not under threat actually. Few people find it ideal or are enthus
114 JGPH1A : Oh boo hoo. Of course it is, why not ? The dividing line is the point at which "making fun" becomes offensive - at no point I hope have any of the re
115 David L : Then that's probably a different situation. It was not aimed at the French in particular. It was aimed at whichever nationality had been referenced i
116 Post contains images ME AVN FAN : Those jokes, not just of Banco, but of many other "Anglo-Saxons" SOUND anti-French, LOOK anti-French, and appear anti-French, and so are perceived as
117 David L : Those "other" remarks and "other" people have nothing whatsoever to do with this thread. At least they didn't until Joni and Klaus mentioned them. I
118 Banco : Quite so. Hence earlier my point about saying I'm not party to them. The ridiculous thing is that British and French have teased each other merciless
119 Post contains images ME AVN FAN : it is a bit tiresome nevertheless, and the Anglo-Saxons from across the ocean do not improve it !
120 Banco : But it goes both ways, you know. And no, they don't. You see, the beauty with the Anglo-French relationship has always been that each nation secretly
121 Post contains images David L : For whom? The Swiss and the Finnish? As have the Scots and the English. I don't recall Joni "coming to anyone's rescue" in those discussions. Nor do
122 Banco : Good point, well made.
123 Post contains links 777236ER : No, you've never made fun of other European countries, have you? Reply 74: RE: Eurovision 2007: Who'll Win? (by Joni May 10 2007 in Non Aviation) Ger
124 Joni : This we'll never know, since it was the French that Banco first mentioned. Anyway, moving on... Please feel free to point some out. (aimed at British
125 Post contains images Banco : Yes, we will, dimwit. It's patently obvious to everyone except you.
126 Cornish : Frankly Joni, this is par for the course from Banco. Its not just the French either - he's also the same with uk minorities. His attitude towards the
127 Post contains images LTU932 : Not to mention that Joni has been a apologist for a certain dictator in the north of the Southern Cone...
128 Post contains images ME AVN FAN : Sure it goes both ways. Except that the Brits are more vocal and open about it, and so it is easier to tackle the matter with Brits, than with silent
129 Post contains images David L : Perhaps "from a Frenchman" was too specific but are you suggesting no-one ever has a dig at the British? No comments about bad teeth, ultra-socialist
130 Joni : If so, then keep it in mind in the future - and you could even refrain from making that sort of comments altogether, about any nationality. Indeed I
131 Post contains images Kieron747 : Care to elaborate? Signed BOE773
132 JGPH1A : Not at all. You're the least paraonid person I know. You are on the other hand, utterly paranoid. That's not racist. That's just true. Do you hear th
133 Post contains images Banco : What a dull world you must live in. Given that you now need to get the entire world to "refrain" from having a sense of humour, good luck. If you can
134 Post contains images Kieron747 : If I didn't know better I could make a jibe about the Finnish not having any concept of humour. Oh wait, thats the Germans! Feel free to put me on yo
135 JGPH1A : As I explained to Klaus, he now has a golden opportunity here to shift the "lumpen, humorless" stereotype elsewhere, but so far he has neglected to d
136 Joni : Those could be a topic of a thread of their own. Making fun of others' nationality isn't the only kind of humour there is. ME AV FAN (see reply 116)
137 Banco : It's an English speaking forum. If the three of you can't grasp the humour of native speakers, I would suggest you don't pass comment on it.
138 Post contains images David L : I'm quite sure I'm not. So, apparently, is everyone else, thank you. You remind me of a lecturer who had a go at the five of us who'd managed to turn
139 Banco : No, no, no! That's a national stereotype. It's an insult! You should be crying racism, you poor deluded fool. How could you think that he's even tell
140 Post contains images Kieron747 : No, but it's a time honoured tradition. Tell me you Finns don't take the piss out any of your neighbours. But I forgot, from the top of your high hou
141 Post contains images David L : Ooo... a personal attack. But, "seriously", at least JGPH1A 's comment was aimed at a specific race. (Oh, this thread's had it )
142 Post contains images Gkirk : Now then, now then... Damn it, I've forgot what I was going to say. Oh well, back to the pub
143 Post contains images ME AVN FAN : I can get that humour only too well. The point is NOT about language, the point is about A) humour and B) lame jokes . - If you canNOT live with the
144 Gkirk : SWOOSH!!!
145 Post contains images David L : Ah, one of those remarks did slip through - I'd forgotten about it in all the garbage that followed. But it was Banco who was accused of making a rac
146 Post contains images Toast :
147 Post contains images ME AVN FAN : Yes. And this was absolutely WRONG. There is no way around this point. It is wrong and everybody on here should have realized this. - - re : - a disc
148 Post contains images David L : And how! It probably wouldn't be that difficult if it were to happen by popular demand but it would be difficult to achieve without popular support.
149 JGPH1A : The defence rests, m'lud.
150 Banco : Makes a change from your usual "The defence wishes to change its plea, mlud"...
151 JGPH1A : I never plead...
152 Gkirk : Aye, we've heard the stories...bending over in court etc etc
153 Post contains images RobertNL070 : Has this question been resolved yet? All I've seen is an awful lot of very unwarranted mud-slinging in Banco's direction. That's not what I heard
154 JGPH1A : No mud-slinging at Banco is ever unwarranted. This is axiomatic.
155 ME AVN FAN : Yes it has. It is quite obvious that the monarchy could be terminated and be replaced by a republic quite easily in technical terms, but that such a
156 GDB : Don't come all 'I don't know what you're talking about' with me Joni, your command of English is easily good enough to understand my point. Guess what
157 Post contains images LTU932 : Because you were suggesting that German splits between East and West again. Are you even aware of our Nation's history and how the people in the East
158 Post contains images Gkirk : Saying that the Germans have a sense of humour is as stupid as saying thatEnglish football fans are not hooligans
159 Post contains images Kieron747 : Excellent!
160 Post contains images ME AVN FAN : - The "crime" of many of these jokes is NOT "racism" but that they often are most exceedingly boring and lame ! -
161 Joni : Then we appear to be basically in agreement, and no need to ramble on. FWIW, I also know the historical context of that comment (as does everyone). I
162 Post contains images David L : That's entirely a matter of opinion, of course - unless you can provide a definitive list of what's officially funny and what isn't. Perhaps the UN h
163 ME AVN FAN : The point is that a modern constitutional monarchy is a democracy, quite the contrary of an absolute monarchy of the past. It is to be mentioned that
164 ME AVN FAN : humour is always subject to personal opinion. mood of the moment, cultural background, etc --- just like music and arts -
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
"God Save The Queen" To Be Re-Released posted Sun Mar 3 2002 00:15:50 by KROC
Can Ray Allen And The Bucks Be Beat? posted Mon Oct 29 2001 20:19:48 by NUair
The Queen In The US And A! posted Fri May 4 2007 03:38:44 by QANTASforever
To Be A Intern On The Opie And Anthony Radio Show posted Sat Dec 2 2006 01:28:10 by AAFLT1871
Crewman Attacked (and Dies) On The Queen Mary 2 posted Sat May 13 2006 18:28:02 by BMIFlyer
Why Can't The Spark Plugs Be Easy To Get To? posted Tue May 9 2006 23:55:47 by DLKAPA
Firefox- Can The Password Manager Be Disabled? posted Mon Nov 14 2005 18:35:09 by LHMark
Why Can't The P.M. Be Head Of State? posted Thu Mar 31 2005 05:50:53 by ACAfan
Can't Have GF And Party With The Guys At The Same posted Wed Dec 8 2004 03:13:24 by Pilotaydin
Can The Literacy Guild Be Trusted? posted Fri Oct 8 2004 04:31:32 by MartinairYYZ