Her Majesty the Queen Turns 91!

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: CulturalResilience

Crap reason, there is no need for an unelected head of state if parliament is sovereign.

As I said you are entitled to your opinion, even if it is not a particularly well informed one.

a reply to: CulturalResilience

Which bit of my opinion is uninformed?
You are the royalist, explain why you think the head of state of the UK should be decided by birthright of one family.
Come on, sell your product to parliamentarians.

I've have explained my standpoint and why I hold it in the posts in this thread. So if you really want to understand them read back through. But I don't think understanding is your aim. So far you have given me every reason to believe that you just want to shout down any reasoned argument.
I joined this thread to add my wishes to those already expressed to a person I respect and admire. If you seriously wish to have a civil discussion regarding constitutional monarchy and the right of bloodlines I suggest you start a thread on that topic. A combination of ill manners and pig headed intransigence is beginning to tire me, and it is my wine drinking hour.
So I will bid you good evening, and wish you well.


a reply to: grainofsandt

a reply to: CulturalResilience

Do you reckon we would have fought in the civil war?
I would have been a parliamentarian for sure.
I kneel to no head of state determined by mere birthright.

*edit*
Lol, you have no argument to support a head of state determined by bloodline of a particular family.
Come on royalists, back your man up and convince us parliamentarian folk with reason and logic.

Royalists where are you?
I'm looking for reasons to support a constitution where the head of state is determined by accident of birth.
OP where are you?
I would love to learn why you think bloodline is the deciding factor for head of state of the UK.

a reply to: CulturalResilience

And manners meh, tell me why you support the head of state being from one particular family.
...being all butthurt because I disagree is irrelevant

Royalists challenge me!!!
I'm dissing our archaic constitution here, defend your queen and give me a good argument to get my teeth into

originally posted by: grainofsand
Royalists challenge me!!!

The only queen I recognize is Queen Zazz the Wicked.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

She's alright, she ain't head of state from birthright

a reply to: grainofsand

You have a point there.

I don't get the fascination with royalty, it seems a bit mental to me.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Royalty is people choosing to be peasants.
It's a #in shame.

Is it better to have an un elected monarch or someone like president tony blair running the roost for the next 50 years anyway and turning it into basically North Korea as he plans to pass on his death the power to his oldest kid?

There is also the question of the head of state and what powers do they have other than sign laws and turn up at events?

a reply to: Maxatoria

Is it better to have a 'Tony Blair' through birthright or democratic vote?
I choose vote, but ask why the need for a 'head of state' if parliament is sovereign.

*edit*
Come on royalists, defend your queen!!!

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: grainofsand

You have a point there.

I don't get the fascination with royalty, it seems a bit mental to me.

He said, while wearing an apron, with his trouser leg rolled up, and performing a series of strange hand movements and sacrificing chickens to the the Great Architect.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Royalty is people choosing to be peasants.
It's a #in shame.

I am grateful ,everyday, for my position in life, because I would have made a miserable peasant. Those born to peasantry are naturally suited to it, as we have seen in this thread.

originally posted by: CulturalResilience
He said, while wearing an apron, with his trouser leg rolled up, and performing a series of strange hand movements and sacrificing chickens to the the Great Architect.

Not really seeing the relevance to having a monarch.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: CulturalResilience
He said, while wearing an apron, with his trouser leg rolled up, and performing a series of strange hand movements and sacrificing chickens to the the Great Architect.

Not really seeing the relevance to having a monarch.

The bit where you said you thought such behaviour was "a bit mental" when you are a member of society that has a series of seemingly bizarre rituals and behaviours that could well be considered a bit mental, is the relevant bit.

a reply to: CulturalResilience

But they are optional, not hereditarily prescribed.

Perhaps, but it could also be termed as a bit mental.
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

a reply to: CulturalResilience

I never said we weren't mental.