Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Monarchy

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

I am a monarchist, I love my Queen even if i dont serve her.

But what is the meaning of Monarchy today and is it all about yesterdays.

What makes an un crowned country better than a crowned one?

Would you rather have one or rather be without one?

@sometime sun,

You want to swap? They used to in centuries gone by. Can we have William? We also have a William!

@Pepijn Sweep,

Pepijn Sweep;129078 wrote:

You want to swap? They used to in centuries gone by. Can we have William? We also have a William!

where is Holland?

---------- Post added 02-16-2010 at 02:38 PM ----------

sometime sun;129076 wrote:

I am a monarchist, I love my Queen even if i dont serve her.

But what is the meaning of Monarchy today and is it all about yesterdays.

What makes an un crowned country better than a crowned one?

Would you rather have one or rather be without one?

Me to , many dont understand my love of royalty and my socialist politics. I have sworn allegiance to her, God bless her. I cant imagine not having a king or queen. The one constant emblem that joins us together as a nation.

@sometime sun,

The real function of the Monarchy, at least in Great Britain, is to separate the head of state from the head of government; this seems a very wise solution, at least from across the pond.

@Pepijn Sweep,

Pepijn Sweep;129078 wrote:

You want to swap? They used to in centuries gone by. Can we have William? We also have a William!

No William is our to be King, we cant give you our king, but if you want Edward you would be welcome to him. Smile

@jgweed,

Not in Holland. Q.B> is head of state council and head of government and Queen

---------- Post added 02-16-2010 at 12:58 PM ----------

So is ours! Is William married Yet?

@sometime sun,

Does anyone know the armed forces oath to the queen?

Britain has the best Army in the world, could this be in some part that their allegiance is for queen/king as well as country?

@sometime sun,

A monarch is a waste of money. (On the other hand, when I think of the Prime Ministers you have had in recent years, and the Presidents we have had, it rather makes it harder to argue against Elizabeth or her son Charles, as they seem like better people than many who were selected to rule democratically, so maybe you should give them back their power instead of having a pretend monarch like you do. But, of course, looking at the matter historically, kings and queens have often done terrible things.)

And as for nationalism, see:

http://www.philosophyforum.com/philosophy-forums/secondary-branches-philosophy/social-philosophy/7565-nationalism-olympics.html#post129045

Anyway, it is silly to give someone a job based on lineage. It is a gross form of discrimination. And it promotes the stupid belief that someone is better than someone else based upon lineage. That is why you should not have a monarch.

@Pepijn Sweep,

Pepijn Sweep;129083 wrote:

So is ours! Is William married Yet?

No not yet. In no rush. They do get married later and later it seems.

@sometime sun,

As long as the government is a liberal democracy, I don't see any problem with having a monarch.

@sometime sun,

sometime sun;129088 wrote:

...

Britain has the best Army in the world...

You must be joking. In what sense is the British Army the best in the world? How many countries do you suppose that the British Army could defeat?

At one time, it may have been true that the British Army was the best in the world, but you should know that the sun does set on the British Empire now.

@Pyrrho,

Pyrrho;129093 wrote:

You must be joking. In what sense is the British Army the best in the world? How many countries do you suppose that the British Army could defeat?

At one time, it may have been true that the British Army was the best in the world, but you should know that the sun does set on the British Empire now.

Maybe just th S.A.S then?
If not Britain then who?
And an army is not judged as best only on what or how much it can conquer.

@sometime sun,

First the Army has to find an enemy to attack

@sometime sun,

sometime sun;129095 wrote:

Maybe just th S.A.S then?
If not Britain then who?
And an army is not judged as best only on what or how much it can conquer.

Okay, if "an army is not judged as best only on what or how much it can conquer", then why not answer the original question: In what sense is the British Army the best in the world?

The natural thought I had about such a claim is that the best would be better at its basic function than any other, but as you have a different idea about this, I would like to know what you mean.

@Pyrrho,

Pyrrho;129093 wrote:

You must be joking. In what sense is the British Army the best in the world?

I think in terms of quality of training - of the individual soldier and soldiering units - it's up there with the best.

It's not the greatest War Machine in the world, however.

@Pyrrho,

Pyrrho;129102 wrote:

Okay, if "an army is not judged as best only on what or how much it can conquer", then why not answer the original question: In what sense is the British Army the best in the world?

The natural thought I had about such a claim is that the best would be better at its basic function than any other, but as you have a different idea about this, I would like to know what you mean.

If you are taking as much into account as possible which would be history and also the present expenditure, man power, training and equipment, you also need to look at the ratio of each soldier being secure dby their history, the expenditure alloted to each man, how much each soldier gets trained and the quality of their equipment.
I am sorry but i still think even going through all this that Britain is the number one Army in the world.
Just because you are the biggest does not make the best, just because you spend more money on fire power doe snot mean you can always shoot straight.
It also has to do with the opportunities your army afords you once you leave, not just paying for an education once you leave but giving you one whilst you are a part of it.

---------- Post added 02-16-2010 at 08:49 PM ----------

Pepijn Sweep;129101 wrote:

First the Army has to find an enemy to attack

First the army has to find an ally to defend.

@sometime sun,

sometime sun;129088 wrote:

Does anyone know the armed forces oath to the queen?

Britain has the best Army in the world, could this be in some part that their allegiance is for queen/king as well as country?

I swore that oath but I cant recall it in detail. It removes any political animosity.

@xris,

xris;129121 wrote:

I swore that oath but I cant recall it in detail. It removes any political animosity.

I think it is different for each regiment.:Glasses:

@Pepijn Sweep,

Pepijn Sweep;129124 wrote:

I think it is different for each regiment.:Glasses:

Not so. we all swear the same oath." I swear by almighty god that i shall defend .....

This is the code, I was in the best section of the best platoon of the best company of the best battalion of the best regiment of the best army in the world. We were the best. You become so close you know their smell, one for all. Sounds a bit silly now but ask a soldier, any soldier its more than family.

@xris,

I have the same. Not army though, but from schools.

Ha, ha! Summerschool in Kilkhampton...

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Monarchy

Quick Links

My Account

able2know