| Greatguggly
|
So you'd rather have someone running the country who is there only because of blood than someone who was elected by the people? Do you have a reason for that preference?
Reply #1. Jun 10 12, 12:50 PM
|
Aussiedrongo 
|
I'm sure that in Canada, as it is here in Australia and the rest of the Commonwealth, the Queen's role as head of state is not to run the country. This is more a traditional title than anything. We too have elections to vote for a particular party to take care of political matters at both federal and state levels. In addition we have a Governor General who acts as the Queen's representative as well as State Governors. It is only in very rare and exceptional circumstances when the Queen makes any political decision concerning the Commonwealth countries, but even then it is done via the Governor General as her representative. The Westminster system has its oddities, but it is a good one.
It was only a few years ago that I was adamant Australia should become a republic. I seem to be mellowing as I get older though and my opinion has changed. I adore Queen Elizabeth II. She is a highly intelligent woman who, since her coronation, to her recent 60th jubilee, has probably seen the world change more than any other monarch and she has adapted to, and moved with these changes, from television to the world wide web, to communicate with her subjects. Now at the age of 86, she doesn't look like she will be leaving the throne anytime soon, she still gets around like a fifty year old. A remarkable woman.
God save the Queen.
Reply #2. Jun 13 12, 8:44 PM
|
slytherinwitch
|
Richard III (quite a recent fascination, so still reading a lot), Edward IV (still a Yorkist, but I like Richard better), Elizabeth I (never tire of reading about her) and quite possibly George III (just because).
Reply #3. Jun 13 12, 11:30 PM
|
Mommakat
|
I heartily agree with the comments of Aussiedrongo and as for politicians running the country, face it, they are a mob of idiots elected by a bigger mob of idiots.
Small example. Here they recently raised our utility charges several times and left a lot of people, particularly pensioners, battling to make both ends meet. So what do they do? Put a lump sum of several hundred dollars into our bank account with the latest pension to help us to meet the extra costs. Wouldn't it have been a lot simpler to leave the charges as they were? I am still scratching my head. After all is said and done they have taken it from us with the right hand and given it back with the left.
Reply #4. Jun 14 12, 2:00 AM
|
Mugaboo
|
I can't say how I could say anyone else other than the present Queen. Certainly when I was younger, I was drawn to Richard I, until I learnt a bit more of the history of the man.
And I would prefer a monarch as head of state rather than a President. A President might be fine if he/she was the same of the same political persuasion as me, but I would soon start complaining when they start to interfere and ruin, what I regard as sensible policies. So I'll keep my monach thank-you.
Reply #5. Jun 14 12, 5:29 AM
|
flopsymopsy
|
It never ceases to amaze me that so many Americans seem to think that the Queen actually runs the country. Greatguggly, I don't think she even runs her own bath.
Reply #6. Jun 18 12, 6:37 PM
|
| Greatguggly
|
She said she wanted the Queen to be the head of state with no politicians (wouldn't we all like to be rid of them?). Who then runs the country?
Reply #7. Jun 18 12, 10:03 PM
|
flopsymopsy
|
Cymruambyth said queen/king as head of state rather than a politician. Many countries split the role of head of state from the role of head of government, irrespective of whether they are monarchies or not. The head of government runs the country. Government and state are not the same thing and the leaders of the two entities need not be the same either.
Reply #8. Jun 18 12, 11:37 PM
|
SisterSeagull
|
Greatguggly writes "So you'd rather have someone running the country who is there only because of blood than someone who was elected by the people? Do you have a reason for that preference?"
Absolutely!... The Royal family are a constant. They provide stability and a continuation of this nation's great history and traditions. They provide this, contrary to the attempts of our recent politicians and their weasel words and in their attempts to socially engineer this nation for their own shallow ends. Don't be fooled by the likes of the slimy Tony Blair who has virtually bought this nation to its knees while, all the time, feathering his own nest and that of his wife... Her Majesty is above corruption and any ideas of self-service. She has devoted her entire life to the service of this nation.
I have served my Queen and country and would still gladly do so again...
God Save The Queen!
Reply #9. Jun 19 12, 6:59 AM
|
| C30
|
SisterSeagull..............100% in agreement..........GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!
From the evidence of the recent Jubilee, any person(s) wishing to turn this country into a Presidential Republic would gain little support - long may it be so.
Favourite monarch (other than current who would top my list)......not King of a united country, but one whom I have had a "soft spot".......King Raedwald of Anglia.
Otherwise Richard III who's "bad press" can be laid firmly as fault of one William Shakespeare, whom in fairness was living under a Tudor monarch, so slating the Tudor's probably not in his best interest.
King Harold.....how would the country have been had he defeated William?
Finally, the longest serving monarch, who was Queen of the largest Empire the world has ever known.......Queen Victoria.
Reply #10. Jun 19 12, 7:43 AM
|
sooz888
|
Has to be the only monarch of this country I have yet known - Queen Elizabeth II. She was crowned just before I was born and I've never heard a bad word about her, which is some record.
Reply #11. Mar 09 13, 8:45 AM
|
|
11 replies. On page 1 of
1 page(s).
1
|
Legal / Conditions of Use
|
Play Now! 
: