Apologies to DC. Nothing to do with North Cyprus

sloan



Joined: 24/02/2009
Posts: 808

Message Posted:
24/09/2010 13:45

I do apologise to all of you purists who like the forum to be kept for TRNC news. (Generally, I can see where you are coming from.) However, this article did tickle me:



http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/queen-tried-to-use-state-poverty-fund-to-heat-buckingham-palace-2088179.html?emv_mid=7982052&emv_rid=2878051668

DutchCrusader



Joined: 19/05/2008
Posts: 11281

Message Posted:
24/09/2010 14:13

Love this article! I support any article that one day may bring down the utmost anti-democratic institution ("Royals" in ANY country). A real democracy is a republic and has elections between several candidates for a freely chosen President. A "Royal" as head of state is medieval and doesn't belong in ANY modern state. Stuff for a serious debate here?

apc2010


Joined: 28/07/2010
Posts: 1689

Message Posted:
24/09/2010 14:19

so ,d/c if the article has nothing to do with cyprus But interests you it is ok then ???

yrret


Joined: 17/08/2010
Posts: 761

Message Posted:
24/09/2010 14:27

Good job that 'medieval' royals did exist though eh Hans or much of what interests you the most may never have existed, and there would likely have never been any crusades. Amazing that someone who spends so much time investigating and studying history denounces it.

As for attempts at 'democratic repulic elections' proving the way, lets start with the various areas of West Africa shall we, great improvement there.

Democracy is fine, just don't give it to the poeple.



And, does the Queen qualify for heating allowance?

DutchCrusader



Joined: 19/05/2008
Posts: 11281

Message Posted:
24/09/2010 14:33

RE msg 1 & 2: If you had read the message of moderator No1Doyen (a week or so ago) "sloan" should not have apologised and "apc2010" wouldn't have so poorly misfired.

Moderator No1Doyen, for your information, has clearly stated that ANY subject (and from ANY country) can be discussed on Cyprus44 - within the board rules and always pending the judgement of the moderators. Hope you both are now up tot date again.

DutchCrusader



Joined: 19/05/2008
Posts: 11281

Message Posted:
24/09/2010 14:41

RE msg 4, yrret: (...) Amazing that someone who spends so much time investigating and studying history denounces it. (...)

=> I'm also against torture, which like "Royals", was very common in every country in the Middle Ages also.



(...) And, does the Queen qualify for heating allowance? (...)

=> I think that's a subject for the British Government, Parliament and ultimately the British people.



I wrote about "Royals" in ANY country as a medieval institution and declared myself a republican.

DutchCrusader



Joined: 19/05/2008
Posts: 11281

Message Posted:
24/09/2010 14:55

It may help some on this board when I define "debate" for them: "To engage in argument by discussing opposing points." Mind you points, not persons.

Harold2555



Joined: 19/04/2008
Posts: 1139

Message Posted:
24/09/2010 15:35

Hans



Another thing the Brits and dutch have in common, we have a royal famly. Now both are constitutional monarchs but i don't know if the Dutch Head of state is the monarch or not. I could google but am sure you will know.



I am not anti the royals, largely they are irrelevant to my everyday life. The tradition and pomp is quite pleasing though and the tourists like it!





Harold

DutchCrusader



Joined: 19/05/2008
Posts: 11281

Message Posted:
24/09/2010 16:15

RE msg 8, Harold2555: (...) i don't know if the Dutch Head of state is the monarch or not. (...)

=> Queen Beatrix is. And - as is expected - her son Prince William will be the Dutch monarch and head of state within a year or so. Why does he qualify? The one and only reason is that he was born in the right place. Hardly convincing for the position as head of state, I think.

=> Pomp: a chosen head of state (President) can open your Parliament with the same pomp. But if he does a bad job, he can be voted out. (British history has some remarkable examples of Kings who should have been forced to abdicate, but how many times did that happen?).

=> Tourists: if all Royal palaces were nationalised (state owned) and fully open to the British public and foreign tourists, well, I think it would attract many more tourists than now!

Harold2555



Joined: 19/04/2008
Posts: 1139

Message Posted:
24/09/2010 16:38

Hans



I grant that there were some monarchs who needed replacing and we did twice remove monarchs but they had more of an important role in those days. Who we gonna get to attend the trooping of the colour President Blair? God help us!



At the moment our Head of State does nothing of real importance. An elected political president might actually want to interfere, something to be avoided at all costs even the civil list!





Harold2555

branwell



Joined: 09/08/2010
Posts: 141

Message Posted:
25/09/2010 21:18

Anyone preferring to be a citizen rather than a subject has to look for an alternative to monarchy, I suppose

LaptaMike


Joined: 07/10/2009
Posts: 1679

Message Posted:
25/09/2010 21:43

I'm a monarchist, always have been and always will be. I totally disagree with the comment from a certain person inferring that opening all the Palaces and Castles to the public will increase tourism. The majority of the American and Japanese etc etc visit to see things like trooping of the colour and other such traditional things.

DutchCrusader



Joined: 19/05/2008
Posts: 11281

Message Posted:
25/09/2010 21:53

RE msg 12, LaptaMike: (...) I'm a monarchist, always have been and always will be. (...)

=> Not a very substantial statement. WHY are you a monarchist and WHAT does it mean to you?

Blackpoolfan


Joined: 03/12/2008
Posts: 1568

Message Posted:
26/09/2010 00:33

I am a Monarchist, i am proud to be British and my heritage and its history bourne from the many rulers and kings and queens of this great land