xenia   11 #97 Posted June 5, 2012 You have abjectly failed to shoot down the USA and France as examples of working republics though.  I have never suggested they dont function, I only suggest that our system is better. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
flamingjimmy   10 #98 Posted June 5, 2012 Here's a hypothetical for any monarchists out there who dare to entertain it:  Let's say hypothetically that every single person in line for the throne were unable to take it, and we had no heir to the throne.  Would you pick someone else to be the new king/queen? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
flamingjimmy   10 #99 Posted June 5, 2012 (edited) I have never suggested they dont function, I only suggest that our system is better. I have never suggested that you suggested that.  In fact I used your exact phrasing of 'shooting them down'.  If you didn't mean shooting them down metaphorically as examples or working republics then what did you mean? shooting them down literally? Edited June 5, 2012 by flamingjimmy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
xenia   11 #100 Posted June 5, 2012 You have abjectly failed to shoot down the USA and France as examples of working republics though. Your arguments have no consistency, you criticise France's republic for losing their empire yet exactly the same thing happened to Britain. You tried to contain comparisons within the years of Elizabeth's monarchy yet you had to jump back 100 years to find a bad word about Austria (and not one that speaks at all to the pros or cons of republics).  You're all over the place basically, all bluster and no substance.  We didnt really lose our Empire we gave it back. We never had the convulsions of Algeria or Indo China. This because domestically we were not in the confused situation that France was. This substantially due to the presence of the monarchy.  You put no time line on your assertions, merely stating that your examples showed that republics functioned better than monarchies, you have no evidence for this.  I am not all over the place, my position is perfectly static, it is you who are unable to provide any evidence at all. Just the envious meanderings of a mediocre posuer.  Do you need a lift to the airport? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
xenia   11 #101 Posted June 5, 2012 Here's a hypothetical for any monarchists out there who dare to entertain it: Let's say hypothetically that every single person in line for the throne were unable to take it, and we had no heir to the throne.  Would you pick someone else to be the new king/queen?  Once the line got to me I would take the job. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
xenia   11 #102 Posted June 5, 2012 It must be dreadful for her after lunch on a Friday when she has to take the helicopter ride from her weekday palace to her weekend castle.  You are right, I bet its noisy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
xenia   11 #103 Posted June 5, 2012 And what would happen if she weren't such a 'good egg' and were vile, corrupt, inept, hopeless etc? We couldn't vote her out. We'd be stuck with her unless she were forced to abdicate.  You really should study history a bit, amongst others we got rid of Charles 1st, James 2nd, also Edward 8th (had to put his arm up his back).  Parliament runs this country, the Monarchy is the figurehead. The partnership goes back a few centuries and although not perfect works pretty well.  If we get a bad un, we get rid of them. Elizabeth has been perfect. If every body had done thier job as good as her we would be the richest country in the world.  Be fair, she hasnt put a foot wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
flamingjimmy   10 #104 Posted June 5, 2012 We didnt really lose our Empire we gave it back. Oh wow, I've heard of rose tinted glasses but you don't even have the glasses, you're looking back through an entire bouquet. Sorry but that is absurd. Are you actually serious? We never had the convulsions of Algeria or Indo China. This because domestically we were not in the confused situation that France was. This substantially due to the presence of the monarchy.Any evidence for that assertion? In what way did having a monarchy make any difference whatsoever to these situations? You put no time line on your assertions, merely stating that your examples showed that republics functioned better than monarchies, No, I haven't done that, you are either lying or mistaken. You are the one making grand claims that you are unable to substantiate, for example the one above that I've put in bold. I have not made any factual claims of a similar nature. I am not all over the placeYour posts are. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
flamingjimmy   10 #105 Posted June 5, 2012 If we get a bad un, we get rid of them. Elizabeth has been perfect. If every body had done thier job as good as her we would be the richest country in the world.  Be fair, she hasnt put a foot wrong.  If everybody had a job as easy as hers then everyone would be able to do their job as good as she does.  I'll admit, she has quite the talent for standing around not saying much and occasionally reading out something written for her or waving to a crowd here and there.  You'd have to be a complete idiot to put a foot wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
flamingjimmy   10 #106 Posted June 5, 2012 Once the line got to me I would take the job.  Ah I see you are unable to handle the concept of a hypothetical situation, I had feared it would be too much for you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
xenia   11 #107 Posted June 5, 2012 Oh wow, I've heard of rose tinted glasses but you don't even have the glasses, you're looking back through an entire bouquet. Sorry but that is absurd. Are you actually serious? Any evidence for that assertion? In what way did having a monarchy make any difference whatsoever to these situations?  No, I haven't done that, you are either lying or mistaken. You are the one making grand claims that you are unable to substantiate, for example the one above that I've put in bold. I have not made any factual claims of a similar nature.  Your posts are.  Where in the dissolution of the British Empire did we experience a situation like Algeria or Indo China? Rather than call me a liar, come up with some evidence.  Monarchy provided the stability that was lacking in other post empire situations. No British government was thrown out because of what was happening in the Empire, France had countless changes.  The truth is out there, do a little research rather than rant on about something you clearly know nothing about. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
xenia   11 #108 Posted June 5, 2012 Ah I see you are unable to handle the concept of a hypothetical situation, I had feared it would be too much for you.  I see you are unable to handle the concept of a humourous suggestion. Obviously it is too much for you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...