The British Monarchy: Past and Present

[Richard the Lionheart]

except the time of what you like to call terrorising was over some 150 years ago.

(Although terrorising is not the word to use..)

Terrorizing is the perfect word actually. We Americans did the same things with the American Indians for example.

The English definitley did their share of terrorizing other countries and peoples.



This Thread is split from the Would you die for your country thread in the Ethos


this thread is about the british monarchy, whether the monarchy is a dictaotrship, (and has committed terrorism acts)? and also whether the monarchy still has that power


please stay on topic
tBP

[the Black Prince]

i'd fight for england regardless... i don;t have to make the difficult decisions of betraying my country, because i know my country can't won't and doesn't do those kind of things...

my country has only been unfder a dictoatrship once, and it didn't last that long...

[Tom Paine]

i'd fight for england regardless... i don;t have to make the difficult decisions of betraying my country, because i know my country can't won't and doesn't do those kind of things...

my country has only been unfder a dictoatrship once, and it didn't last that long...

Our country was under a dictatorship once? Is an absolute monarch not a dictator?
What about the 1806 laws, which are reminiscent of some laws of today?
Glorification of Terrorism et al?

Our country has done things I am ashamed of it for.

[Carach]

Our country was under a dictatorship once? Is an absolute monarch not a dictator?
What about the 1806 laws, which are reminiscent of some laws of today?
Glorification of Terrorism et al?

Our country has done things I am ashamed of it for.

1806 was during a time of war against a dengerous revolution which policies were to spread.

this couldnt be allowed.

The laws brought into place during this time were fine, the onesthat came after the war ended were dodgey (although there were still radicals to deal with so the response, in my view, was acceptable).

We had an abosolute monarch until we beheaded him, a few HUNDRED years ago now squeakus, even then, he wasnt a FULL despotic monarch, as we had the magna carta signed a few hundred years earlier than that.

we were the first to introduce a constitutional monarchy, and this combined democracy with it and resulted in the greatest example of working democracy the world has seen to date.

As you can see from this, we havent had 'dictators' in a long while.

[Tom Paine]

1806 was during a time of war against a dengerous revolution which policies were to spread.

this couldnt be allowed.

The laws brought into place during this time were fine, the onesthat came after the war ended were dodgey (although there were still radicals to deal with so the response, in my view, was acceptable)

And those sort of law are being revisited today, to my disgust, slowly but surely.

tBP, the whole Tudor period especially Mary? Or the Plantagenets? In fact most monarchs pre-Civil War... they ruled through fear and nothing else.

[Carach]

And those sort of law are being revisited today, to my disgust, slowly but surely.

tBP, the whole Tudor period especially Mary? Or the Plantagenets? In fact most monarchs pre-Civil War... they ruled through fear and nothing else.

and just like during the late 17/early 1800s, you have nothing to worry about unless your a bad guy.

Well from what I understand, the current Enlish monarchy doesn't have much power anyways. It's more of a symbol these days than anything else.

The royalty today have pretty much the same powers they had during the napoleonic wars.

[Carach]

Terrorizing is the perfect word actually. We Americans did the same things with the American Indians for example.

The English definitley did their share of terrorizing other countries and peoples.

give me some examples so i can argue back.

It's invading other countries, stealing, capturing, or swindling them out of large portions of land, then killing them in genocidal programmes or enslaving them then.

And then you complain when they come over here 'taking our jobs'.... at least they don't take our bloody country like we did to them!

are you agreeing with honor or are you arguing with him ? :/

genocidal programmes included in your quote so i dont think your talking about britain?

[Richard the Lionheart]

i'd fight for england regardless... i don;t have to make the difficult decisions of betraying my country, because i know my country can't won't and doesn't do those kind of things...

Well right, they don't do it anymore, but I was merely pointing out that most of English history involved plenty of injustice and terrorizing of other people.

give me some examples so i can argue back.

You've got to be kidding right? Just go read about the military history of England and how they treated the peoples of the lands they conquered.

A good example is how they treated the Scottish. The movie Braveheart, though historically inaccurate to some degrees, portrayed a perfect example of medieval English "hospitality".

[the Black Prince]

yes, uinder a dictator once.

a monarch is not a dictator, a monarch is a monarch, in this country, a ruler by the grace of god, whereas a dictator is merely someone who rules absolutely through fear force and oppression.

very few of our monarchs have ever been stupid enopugh to try and be dictators as well, and those that fell to that level were those who weren't good monarchs (obviously) and their barons set them straight (magna carta for instance)



and carach is talking about the UK not the USA

[Richard the Lionheart]

yes, uinder a dictator once.

a monarch is not a dictator, a monarch is a monarch, in this country, a ruler by the grace of god, whereas a dictator is merely someone who rules absolutely through fear force and oppression.

very few of our monarchs have ever been stupid enopugh to try and be dictators as well, and those that fell to that level were those who weren't good monarchs (obviously) and their barons set them straight (magna carta for instance)

Well from what I understand, the current Enlish monarchy doesn't have much power anyways. It's more of a symbol these days than anything else.

[Lord Kal]

No, i'm talking about British history.

[Lord Kal]

All monarchs are dictators. 'By right of god' doesn't make it any better just because a nonexistant deity supposedly approved them. And claiming 'no monarch has ever tried to be a dictator', they ALWAYS have been, even when there was parliament (ever heard of Edward IV?)

[Tom Paine]

It is now but that is a pretty recent phenomenon historically speaking.

Carach, Jean de Menenzes?

[Carach]

All monarchs are dictators. 'By right of god' doesn't make it any better just because a nonexistant deity supposedly approved them. And claiming 'no monarch has ever tried to be a dictator', they ALWAYS have been, even when there was parliament (ever heard of Edward IV?)

Monarchs have been the tradition of most of the world, kal.

we were the first to limit our monarch's power.

Give us some credit please.

We have, and have had the perfect combination for many many years.

You've got to be kidding right? Just go read about the military history of England and how they treated the peoples of the lands they conquered.

A good example is how they treated the Scottish. The movie Braveheart, though historically inaccurate to some degrees, portrayed a perfect example of medieval English "hospitality".

you are having a laugh mate, braveheart is where you get your information from?

'lol'

i refer backto my question, give me some named examples of us 'terrorising' people and i shall argue back or agree...

[the Black Prince]

a potent symbol...
with some strong residual power


mary was catholic, following the reformation, and therefore didn't rule with the grace of god, hence why she was such a bad monarch
elizabeth I by all accounts was quite a popular monarch (except witrh the catholics)

and most monarchs ruled through careful statesmanship, balancing the nolbes and proper application of the feudal system (to various extents depending upon time frames) there atre few monarchs who ruled by total force or fear of force...

[Lord Kal]

Rubbish. Case in point: Edward IV. Tried to run according to the fuedal system and keeping in with the nobles but they rebelled. When he came back he centralised and ruled as a dictator (the new monarchy) and was a more effective king for it.

[the Black Prince]

meh, politics, whats that got to do with having power?
till WWII the First Lord of the Admiralty "ruled" the navy, but the guy who was actually in charge was the First Sea Lord.

anyways, much as i love talking about this particular subject, we've very much drifted off topic here...

if you'd like to continue this debate, feel free to start a new thread


and Lord Kal - bad example
Edward IV spent his time fighting a sucession war with the House of Lancaster... its hard to control your nobles when half of them think their leader is actually the rightful king (and is, Edward IV took to the throne from Henry VI, son of Henry V)

[Tom Paine]

Yes, and that has been to a greater or lesser extent true for quite a while... maybe two hundred years? The last monarch to not sign a bill presented to them by Parliament was I believe Queen Anne...

[Carach]

Yes, and that has been to a greater or lesser extent true for quite a while... maybe two hundred years? The last monarch to not sign a bill presented to them by Parliament was I believe Queen Anne...

that doesnt mean they have no power.

which country is that?

Uk - it is a tragedy that the UK government continue to pres the armed forces into conflicts all over the world, while sticking a deep knife wound into its back in the form of severe cuts.

[Lord Kal]

And if they don't exercise it, it's worthless. The Queen couldn't do a thing in British politics and to suggest she could is absurd. I might be an anti-monarchist, but this is laughable.