|
|
Post by donald1941 on Apr 27, 2008 21:57:55 GMT
Going by your argument then why a monarchy at all? Today the monarchy is mostly pomp and circumstance, some would say just mummery, with the sovereign having no real powers to do anything, even being Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
A ceremonial elected head of state could perform the same functions and at far less cost, and it wouldn't matter what religion he/she was. Well, almost wouldn't matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by irshgrl501 on May 23, 2008 11:27:16 GMT
I wonder how James II was allowed to become King and head of the church of England when he was a catholic? England at that time was very anti catholic yet James had no problem at first as head of the Anglian church .So if he was allowed to become head of the church of England why cant it be allowed again.? The Act of Settlement was passed after James II was King. You're right, England was very anti-Catholic at the time King James reigned. That is why King Billy was allowed to get away with so many hideous orders. The Jacobites were still a very powerful group. Overall, IMO, (and I say this as a Catholic born in Bray Ireland) James II should have never been King. Scotland lost her independence, and the Battle of the Boyne was the incident that proved the Irish Catholics would never see their seized lands restored to them.  |
|
hovite
Member of the Court
Posts: 40
|
Post by hovite on May 24, 2008 20:32:59 GMT
Scotland lost her independence Scotland didn't lose her independence. Rather, Scotland merged with England to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain. There were a number of reasons why this happened: 1. a permanent end to border wars (there had been an ugly incident as recently as 1704 when Scots had seized an English ship, the Worcester, and had executed three crew members), 2. to protect the Church of Scotland by accepting the protestant George of Hanover as heir, 3. free trade with England (abolishing English tariffs on imports from Scotland), and (most importantly) 4. a large cash payment of £398,085 and 10 shillings was made by England to Scotland to allow long overdue government salaries to be paid (and to liquidate the insolvent Company of Scotland, which had rashly attempted to establish a colony in Panama, and compensate its shareholders). Among those who got their back pay, Lord Banff received £11 and 2 shillings, Campbell of Cessnock got £50, and the Earl of Marchmont £1,000. Had it not been for the Union, they would probably still be waiting for their money. On 16 January 1707 the Scottish Parliament voted for the Act of Union and the Act of Security for the Church of Scotland by 110 to 67, a majority of 43 out of 177 votes cast. So there was a clear majority in Parliament for Unification. There were Catholic Jacobite riots in Glasgow, but these were suppressed by dragoons sent from Edinburgh. (There was also a minor rebellion by Presbyterian Cameronians in Dumfries, who imagined that the Union would result in the reintroduction of Episcopalianism.) The Irish Parliament then petitioned the Queen to be allowed to join the Union, but this request was denied. Ireland had to wait until 1801 before obtaining equality with Scotland. |
|
hoard
Member of the Court
Posts: 2
|
Post by hoard on May 25, 2008 8:58:25 GMT
A ceremonial elected head of state could perform the same functions and at far less cost, and it wouldn't matter what religion he/she was. Well, almost wouldn't matter. That is the usual canard repeated by the republican minded. Alas, it is far from true. Count in all the actual costs of a presidential system and you come to very large figures. All the ex-presidents and vice presidents, their retirement benefits, official cars, offices, security, sometimes houses too. Then the same for their widows. Then the costs of their former staff, since they usually change every time a president changes. A monarch, on the other hand, is there for life. One simply has to look at the palaces in which some of these presidents live, Italy, Austria or Portugal, for example. Many of them far grander than anything our own dear Queen lives in. I also doubt if the gorgeously uniformed guards that stand outside these "presidential palaces" cost markedly less than the household cavalry. What would happen if the UK becomes a republic is what happens now with all the little palaces used by our wonderful "people's" ministers. Downing Street, Chequers, Carlton House Terrace, Lancater House, Chevening, Dawnay Wood, Admiralty House, Blair House, etc, etc. Open to the "people" on one day a year, if at all! |
|
|
|
Post by donald1941 on May 25, 2008 20:41:01 GMT
Far from being 'republican minded', whatever that means, that, if you check what it costs to maintain ceremonial presidencies, such as Germany, Italy, Greece, Austria, Romania, India, etc, you will find it costs less to maintain them than it does to maintain monarchies.
If you can compare the splendor of Windsor or Buckingham Palace to a small wing of the Hofburg or the Belvedere Palace in Berlin, fine. I fail to see much comparison.
The exception is the U.S. president whose costs are enormous. But that is only since the end of World War II and the establishment of an "imperial presidency." And the vast budget for the American president is for staff and administrative costs, not for ceremonial and residential costs.
I don't know what the figures are for the Russian or the French presidencies. But what one must keep in mind when comparing the costs of presidencies like the U.S, Russia and France, is that these presidencies are both ceremonial and executive presidencies.
If the Queen were to become head of the government as well as head of state, and run the country, the cost of the monarchy would soar to great heights.
As for tenure, it depends on which republic you are talking about. Some presidents have served in office longer than most the monarchs sitting on thrones today, except for Thailand and the UK.
The cost of maintaining the Household Cavalry isn't supported by the monarchy. It is supported by the budget of the Defense Ministry. It would be the same if the UK had a monarchy or a republic. The same is true for all ceremonial units. They are part and parcel of the defense establishment, not the head of state.
The institution of monarchy can be defended on many accounts.
Cost isn't one of them. Nor will the argument over cost bring about the end of the monarchy, if it ever comes. It will be something far more important.
|
|
|
|
Post by thequeenofcastile on May 26, 2008 7:16:51 GMT
The Act of Settlement was enacted in 1701, long after James II came and left the throne. This act was brought in to ensure that there would no longer even be a chance of another Catholic monarch.
This was in response to the handlings of Mary I (1553-1558) and James II (1685-1688), both proclaimed Catholic monarchs; and also Queen Henrietta Maria (Charles I), Queen Catherine (Charles II) and Queen Mary Beatrice (James II), all Catholic consorts.
Catholics themselves being banned is pretty self explainatory; you cannot have a Catholic as the Head of the Church of England (Protestant). Banning marriage to a Catholic can be put on the heads of the consorts above, particularly Henrietta Maria. It was even a part of her marriage contract that she would have educational and religious control over all children until the age of 13. Needless to say, Charles did not allow this once the children had been born.
Henrietta was not a popular queen either as she had been charged by the Pope to bring England and its King back to the 'true faith'; and she worked hard at that and refused to take part in all Protestant services, including her own husband's coronation. None of the other consorts were too popular either due to their faith and their quest to convert as many as they could.
These days, however, for the majority of people, religion is not too much of an issue and if anyone in line for the British throne was to marry a Catholic, I myself personally would not have a probelm with it. They would have to understand that for any children of the marriage to remain in line for the throne, they must be raised Protestant; if that's accepted and executed, no problem.
But to have a Catholic as the Head of a Protestant church is ridiculous! Might as well elect a Protestant as Pope; let's see if that happens. The only way to get around this one is to split the roles of monarch and supreme head of the church; only then will it not matter as much whether the monarch is Catholic or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by irshgrl501 on May 28, 2008 10:25:07 GMT
Going by your argument then why a monarchy at all? I do think there should be a monarchy; I did not think that a Catholic ruler in 1688, was suitable for England and two other countries which were directly affected by King James II's rule, Scotland, and Ireland. |
|
|
|
Post by irshgrl501 on May 28, 2008 10:37:07 GMT
Scotland lost her independence Scotland didn't lose her independence. Rather, Scotland merged with England to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Well, the Acts of Union in 1707, merged Scotland with the UK, and though their legal system is separate from the UK's, prior to 1707, Scotland was independent sovereign state. Maybe I used the word "independence" too loosely. Also, I did not intend to confuse the Acts of Union with the Act of Settlement. |
|
|
|
Post by Aidan Work on Jun 28, 2008 2:20:11 GMT
Northern Ireland also has a distinctive legal system as well,even though it is strongly influenced by the English legal system.Since 1999,3 out of the 4 British countries have now got their own local legislatures.The odd one out is England.There are even calls for Cornwall to have its own local legislature to continue the tradition of the Cornish Stannary Parliament,which was very distinctive from that of the English Parliament.
Scotland may have been an independent state between 1603 & 1707,but nothing will change the fact that the Scots monarch was also the English monarch as well.
Aidan.
|
|
