After the deep fried snicker bars were done

[Mich the Tester]

Overthrowing Monarchies.

What do you do with the spoils? Can I bags Balmoral please?

[d000hg]

FTFY

Well that is a valid question. But if you do have one, wouldn't you rather they're good at it?

[Mich the Tester]

Is it really necessary to get rid of the monarchy? Wouldn’t it just cause an awful lot of fuss when there are more immediate and pressing issues to be addressed?

[shaunbhoy]

But if you do have one, wouldn't you rather they're good at it?

FWIW,
I think the Queen has done a pretty decent job. However, I do NOT believe that Charles will ever be properly accepted by the majority of the Public after the whole Diana/Camilla fiascos. It would make more sense to simply skip a generation and go to William, but constitutionally they would never agree to that. So I say, when the Queen passes away, we should simply allow it to phase out quietly.

[Mich the Tester]

FWIW,
I think the Queen has done a pretty decent job. However, I do NOT believe that Charles will ever be properly accepted by the majority of the Public after the whole Diana/Camilla fiascos. It would make more sense to simply skip a generation and go to William, but constitutionally they would never agree to that. So I say, when the Queen passes away, we should simply allow it to phase out quietly.

What on earth makes you so presumptuous as to think that you should have a say in such matters?

Anyway, I think Harry would be more of a laugh.

[shaunbhoy]

What on earth makes you so presumptuous as to think that you should have a say in such matters?

I DON'T have a say in such matters. Nor does anyone else. Therein lies a large part of the problem.

[Mich the Tester]

I DON'T have a say in such matters. Nor does anyone else. Therein lies a large part of the problem.

Ah, well you see my old chap, I would rather like to have a say in these matters, and I'm sure that you're an erudite fellow who deserves to have a say, but you must remember that under the current constitutional arrangements of most, if not all parliamentary democracies that have a monarch as head of state, the right to vote after the age of 18 is granted to the plebs as part of their birthright, and not gained by merit. A worthy, educated, hard working immigrant has no right to vote, even though he might use his vote in a most sensible fashion, while layabouts, scoundrels and cads may vote by virtue only of the rather narrow legal definition of 'citizenship'. This, to my mind, creates a monarchy of the masses, at the expense of a meritocratic democracy.

In other words, as long as dimwitted chavs have the vote, I'll support keeping the monarchy.

Move to a meritocratic system of ´citizenship´ and voting instead of a nationalistic system, where the merits of the individual are tested in some politically neutral fashion, such as intelligence testing or tests of reasoning, and I would feel happier entrusting power to the plebs.

I actually agree that a monarch is an anachronism, but it´s an anachronism that can be a protection against mob rule in turbulent times.

[shaunbhoy]

I actually agree that a monarch is an anachronism, but it´s an anachronism that can be a protection against mob rule in turbulent times.

Mob rule might have served us very well under NL.


Would have been a refreshing alternative to KNOB rule!!

[Mich the Tester]

Mob rule might have served us very well under NL.


Would have been a refreshing alternative to KNOB rule!!

I´m struggling to find a weakness in this argument, but give me time.

[Mich the Tester]

Anyway, I don't like those chairs with matching curtains. Not my taste at all.