[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Cherie

They are part and parcel of British heritage and culture

So was aggressive colonialism, theological conquest, slavery and indentured servitude... it doesn't mean they shouldn't have been abolished or should be brought back.

British Royalty will remain part and parcel of British heritage and culture whether it's active or not; just as it is in every other post-monarchy country. Just as Vikings are part of Scandinavian heritage and culture. Just as old-west cowboys and saloons are part of United States heritage and culture. Removing the active component doesn't change that in any way.

[Alf]

Extreme forms of government are prevented by having a monarchy.

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Alf

Extreme forms of government are prevented by having a monarchy.

Oh yes, because the Monarch really does have to approve the government forming, that's a real thing that happens still. Might as well replace her with a nodding dog; we have a full democracy like any other country, the Royal "approval" is purely ceremonial.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Oh yes, because the Monarch really does have to approve the government forming, that's a real thing that happens still. Might as well replace her with a nodding dog; we have a full democracy like any other country, the Royal "approval" is purely ceremonial.

Who told you this?

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Would we? I wouldn't and don't... many already do... some more I'm sure would... but you can't make such sweeping inclusive statements. Not everyone worships celebrity of any type.

I didn't make a sweeping statement though. I said, though one came beneath the other but was inclusive of what I was saying...

"If we weren't following the royals, we would be following someone else... the kardashians, Katy Perry or Justin Bieber.

"I think its human nature for a lot of people to have a fundamental need to look up to and admire someone we consider honorable or flawless or admirable."

As for Princess Diana, we all knew that she was unhappy because her husband couldn't keep his dick in his pants and was fawning after Camilla.
Diana was emotionally vulnerable long before she married Charles. She admitted to being a self harmer in her teens and though perhaps she grew out of that, she reverted back to her old ways when Charles made it clear she was nothing more than a marriage of convenience. Diana wanted love and a happy ending but all she got was a loveless relationship. She was a mockingbird in a guided cage.

Kate probably does say that to William but clearly Kate and William have a strong and stable relationship.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Oh yes, because the Monarch really does have to approve the government forming, that's a real thing that happens still. Might as well replace her with a nodding dog; we have a full democracy like any other country, the Royal "approval" is purely ceremonial.

God I hate emoticons in serious debates. Especially that bloody joker. If you're not doing well in the debate, TS, start the ridicule.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Alf

Extreme forms of government are prevented by having a monarchy.

That's not true. Look at Saudi Arabia.

[Livia]

Not sure we can hold our monarchy and government up against Saudi Arabia as a comparison.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Oh yes, because the Monarch really does have to approve the government forming, that's a real thing that happens still. Might as well replace her with a nodding dog; we have a full democracy like any other country, the Royal "approval" is purely ceremonial.

The queen does have the right to dissolve parliament.
Regardless of the pomp and ceremony she is still the head of state. Would you prefer a president?

[Livia]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

The queen does have the right to dissolve parliament.
Regardless of the pomp and ceremony she is still the head of state. Would you prefer a president?

NO!

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Livia

NO!

Me neither!

[Livia]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Me neither!

No... because we'd be more likely to get a Trump than a Lincoln.

[Tom4784]

It doesn't bother me one way or another so I guess that would make me a yes voter by default.

[Alf]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

That's not true. Look at Saudi Arabia.

Actually one of the most stable of the Arab countries.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

So was aggressive colonialism, theological conquest, slavery and indentured servitude... it doesn't mean they shouldn't have been abolished or should be brought back.

British Royalty will remain part and parcel of British heritage and culture whether it's active or not; just as it is in every other post-monarchy country. Just as Vikings are part of Scandinavian heritage and culture. Just as old-west cowboys and saloons are part of United States heritage and culture. Removing the active component doesn't change that in any way.

The Royal house has evolved, no one has been beheaded in years