Elizabeth II's diamond jubilee.

Well Radicalism is expensive for this days so no way people will try to take power on peoples hands.

 

And what if it were "true" democracy? Than it would be rule by majority. That's better? Two people robbing one person is no better than one person robbing two people.

 

Yep, that's the one.

 

I thought the Queen put on the show, not the government? might be wrong. I don't know UK finances. But it was a pretty cool boat parade, and unlike us, you managed to do so without people flashing for beads. So good show. I didn't hear much of the philarmonic, they needed something to people watching could hear the performance. All I heard was wind shear on microphones.

 

A system in which well educated and well informed people have more and eventually total say in their own destiny & affairs, yes, that would be much better than a plutocracy, thanks very much.

Glad I do not live in one.

Jack

 

I understand that that restrictions is slated to be removed in a constitutional overhaul throughout the common wealth? Along with the practice of giving male heirs precedence over female heirs.

 

That's individualist anarchy--at least for the well-educated and well-informed--not democracy. Under democracy, two uneducated people (or educated by evil people) can vote to enslave a third person.

 

I did not attend or watch, my impression is that british people enjoy a good spectacle and still hold a modicum of affection for their queen.

 

Actually, both male preference primogeniture and the prohibition on marrying Catholics was recently abolished. British monarchs still can't be Catholic, however.

 

It would be odd indeed if the Supreme governor of the church of England was not a member of the church of England wouldn't it?

 

You misunderstand.

First all people would be well informed and well educated, the whole society.

A more educated society is more intelligent and rational.

Yes, I would rather put trust in decisions made among informed people, perhaps people that can be vouched for, normal people, than some plutocratic elite, who kiss the ass of corporate and Zionist elites, were I American. I do believe that the state power has well overstretched what state is meant to serve. As have international banks. This is a large part of the reason why your democracy is a farce.

And most others in the modern age, but the US in particular, given that it's been the democracy most aggressively hijacked.

Jack

 

As a Catholic, I consider the Church of England nothing more than a concoction of the bloodthirsty tyrant, Henry VIII. I wouldn't mind if it were beheaded.

 

As a former catholic who has recently converted to the Church of Ireland I am very glad that Henry VIII fell out with the papacy, and happy to be a member of a catholic and reformed communion.

 

The education level of a people is different from the question of whether or not democracy is just. Coercive democracy is unjust because it allows a majority to coerce a minority. It doesn't matter whether its run by educated people or not or whether its been "hijacked" or not. Democracy in the ideal in unjust, as well as in practice.

Of course, coercive monarchy is unjust too. I just find it funny that people complain about a powerless queen because she's undemocratic, but perfectly fine with the existence of a Parliament that robs you, spies on you, locks you in cages for victimless crimes, and sends your children to die overseas...because its democratic. This is democracy worship as absurd as the worship of any god-king.

Parliament is responsible for any misery that the British people suffer under their government, not the Queen, but it's the Queen people say you should get rid of because she hasn't been stamped 'approved' by some fickle, greedy, bigoted majority. If you want my advice, you should abolish Parliament and keep the Queen around for decoration.

 

How can a Church of Ireland be catholic?

 

lol I had not considered irony, the church of Ireland is part of the anglican communion, the communion is catholic, as catholic as any religious organisation can be, the roman catholic church is hardly universal.

 

The Queen looks very healthy, she can live another 20 years. She may skip the throne to William, can't imagine how mad will Charles and Camila be.

 

I don't understand the desire to join a church founded because a king was horny, rather than the church descended directly from the apostles without rupture. But obviously, that's your choice.

 

I did not feel spiritual peace or calm during mass, I was conflicted and distracted. I feel an incredible peace during service, that is why I left one and joined the other, it is I think one of the best decisions I ever made.

 

I think which church more logically descended from the apostles is a more important consideration than how the church service makes you feel. I rarely feel anything; my religion is intellectual. But since this is not the focus of the thread, I'm not going to continue this line of discussion.

 

I find a church which furthers my relationship with and love of god is a more logical choice than a secretive cabal of old men whose claim of supremacy was fabricated by the vicars of St. Peter to further their political clout but that's just me, and I am not going to continue this line of discussion either.

 

I'm not a monarchist by any means, but I like the "Old Girl". Kinda reminds me of an old aunty. I remember the Queen's message to the Australian people the night before our republic referendum. Very gracious and supportive.

I find it quite extraordinary that both countries with the longest reigning monarch don't want the next in line to sit on the throne,, neither the people nor the monarch.

 

I am not a Royalist per se, I have little interest in the Royal Family, but I happen to like and admire our Queen. And I think I am that strange combination - a Socialistically inclined Monarchist.

Our particular form of government - a Constitutional Monarchy - is very possibly the best of all systems of governance, in which it is essential that the Monarch enjoy no real power, other than denying absolute power to Executive Government. Under our constitution, the Queen may advise and provide constructive comments and suggestions (as she does every week with the Prime Minister,) but she may not rule in any sense of the word. Nor may she espouse political views.

Royal Assent is much misunderstood - as it has never been withheld since 1708 (by Queen Anne) - with the possible exception of Queen Elizabeth II, acting on the advice of the government, refusing to signify her consent to the Military Action Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill, which sought to transfer from the monarch to Parliament the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq. The Monarch acts at all time upon the advice of Her Government, except under circumstances wherein the elected government acts unconstitutionally. In such cases, the Monarch is empowered to dissolve Parliament, and send the people to the polls. This has not happened in the UK since the Restoration.

Much has been made, by detractors of our system of governance, of the costs of maintaining the British Monarchy. There are two major elements which should be considered when making such allegations.

The first is the Civil List - the cost of maintaining the Royal household - the Guards, the Household Cavalry, and the costs of entertaining foreign dignitaries, etc. Only the Queen officially receives direct funding from the Civil List. The Queen's consort (Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh) receives £359,000 per year. The Queen, as head of state, receives £7,900,000 from the Civil List to defray some of the official expenditure of the monarchy.

The second is the Crown Estate - notionally the property of the reigning Monarch.
The Crown Estate is one of the largest property owners in the United Kingdom with a portfolio worth £7.0 billion, with urban properties valued at £5.179 billion, and rural holdings valued at £1.049 billion; and an annual profit of £230.9 million, as at 31 March 2011.

So the Queen and Her Consort receive a total of £8.3 million, while the Monarchy brings in £230.9 million to the Treasury in direct income from the Crown Estate, and this does not include the estimated millions which the British Monarchy generates in tourism.

And, LOL, even if one disregards the income from the Crown Estate, and tourism, it has been estimated that the Monarchy costs each British taxpayer 67p every year. Pretty good value - I would say.

As for Elizabeth II herself, she is a remarkable woman. This 86 year old grandmother carries out between 300 and 400 official engagements every year, meeting and greeting thousands of people. She stood, ramrod straight in the rain, on the moving Royal Barge for over three hours, then went on to a number of other engagements. My gran will be 60 this year, and she said she could not do that.

My parents met Elizabeth II, and said she is a very warm and kindly old woman, with an impish sense of humour, who makes everyone to whom she speaks, feel special. I think she is special, and 82% of the British population apparently agree with me.

 

Excellent post Leo

As much as I admire the Queen, it's about time Australia becomes a republic. We need to look very carefully at any models suggested to replace the monarchy as our head of state. A couple of things which need to remain are the Westminster system of government and close ties the the Commonwealth of Nations. One model that was rejected was one very close to the American model of government. Also, Australians generally have a problem with calling our head of state President.

Extraordinarily, countries like France, American and Russia had years of revolution to oust the monarchy. Australia, it was put to the vote and we still said no to a republic. If this wasn't the finest example of working democracy, then point me in that direction.

 

Well, string together a list of Australian prime ministers over the past sixty years and see if you can spot any Presidential material Imagine President Gillard ? Pie and sauce with Putin, anybody ? Watch yer backs.