Colin Firth: monarchy is 'a problem' for me

[phantomsuccour]

God Save the Queen.

[joesoap81]

Holy Fuck the man in the hat looks like Rupert Murdochs brother.

[JillAngie2]

Good for Colin Firth because he speaks the truth....he is right not to agree with an unelected power....Royals elected themselves because they are a bloodline going back thousands and thousands of years, back to the likes of Vlad the Impaler and before him a species of Reptilian that visited planet earth....and they work in a different frequency, they are not altogether human.

[mtheadedwally]

The best argument against elected leaders is two words - President Blair!

[tonguita]

Fuck the queen

[bobzilla211]

what sentimental americans or others don't understand about the monarchy is that if you live with it the 'charm' is completely lost. the best thing that can be said about the royals in the uk today - and is the only argument still used to defend them - is that they bring in tourism money.

this pathetic claim shows just how irrelevant and unnecessary they are in modern britain, reduced to an attraction. but in reality these 'figureheads' still enjoy far too much power, let alone public money.

[Hamilton7776]

@bobzilla211 Want some other Arguments! OK (1) Safeguards to Freedom

Too often the business of politics is a great pretense or game, a chance to strut and posture on parade for a while before retiring to directorships and lecture tours, while a monarch is for life and dedicates himself solely to his country.

[Hamilton7776]

@bobzilla211 (2) The fact that a hereditary sovereign lives above party politics, internal disputes and petty allegiances to those who put him into office, puts him into a position to see the big picture rather than be short-sighted or blinded by misguided loyalties. By occupying such high ground, a monarch can deny assess to more sinister forces and thus protect his people.

[Hamilton7776]

@bobzilla211 (3) While the Queen occupies the highest office of state, no one can take over the government. While she is head of the law, no politician can take over the courts. While she is ultimately in command of the Armed forces, no would-be dictator can take over the Army.  The Queen’s only power, in short, is to deny power to anyone else. Any attempt to tamper with the royal prerogative must be firmly resisted [because it provides a most important safeguard].

[bobzilla211]

@Hamilton7776 also you cannot have it both ways. either the royals have real, actual power and put the lie to any notion of democracy in this country, or they are mere figureheads who rubberstamp the decisions of elected politicians - in which case their ability to prevent a coup is nil. these people are not impartial or experienced - they are politically right wing, and numerous times in the 20th century they have demonstrated that they are willing to exercise this bias.

[Hamilton7776]

@bobzilla211 Your the one who wants to have it both ways. Real actual power is not Total power. You seem to think that the Queen should be a Dictator, or have no power at all. The beauty of our Constitution is that while the Queen can't use emergency powers herself the Prime Minister has to receive her permission to use them. She would only refuse if a potential tyrant wanted to use those powers to endanger the country. She is the Guardian of those powers but cannot use them herself.

[Hamilton7776]

@bobzilla211 (4)  In other words, the existence of a monarch with such powers is a guarantee of continuity. It is a mainstay of peace and security in a country. A former editor of The Times, Roger Stott MP in The Independent on September 7, 1997 summed it up very well when he wrote, “I ampersonally . . . convinced that there are safeguards in the constitutional monarchy that an elected head of state just would not possess.”

[Hamilton7776]

@bobzilla211 (5) Sir Winston Churchill said in April of 1945 that:

This war [World War II] would never had come unless, under American and modernizing pressure, we had driven the Habsburgs out of Austria and the Hohenzollerns out of Germany. By making these vacuums we gave the opening for the Hitlerite monster to crawl out of the sewer on to the vacant thrones.

[bobzilla211]

@Hamilton7776 bullshit. the monarchy in almost all countries is inherently conservative and reactionary. during the 1930s they supported to fascism in other countries - just look at edward VIII's friendship with hitler. did the italian monarchy prevent mussolini from gaining or consolidating power? no.

royals are not inherently noble or 'above' politics: prince charles loves to interfere in what should be the decisions of people accountable to the public. just look at the chelsea barracks case.

[Hamilton7776]

@bobzilla211 Your Full of Shit. If Monarchy is inherently conservative then why Was George Orwell a Monarchist? Why is Ben Pimlott, the Left Wing Political Scientist and member of a The George Orwell society before his death a Monarchist? Why did Even Alister Campbell write that she was impartial? What about Bill Clinton, who pulls no punches when it comes to other heads of state in his book. Most of the intellectual left and right can see the sense in having a Head of state who is impartial.

[Hamilton7776]

@bobzilla211 Explain, why did Hitler bomb Buckingham Palace, Why did her family encourage the people of Britain to adopt Jewish refugees during WW2 (George VI) Demand the release? of Mandela (Elizabeth II) Create Princes Trust to help Minorities in the inner cities (Prince Charles) Shelter Jews in Nazi occupied Greece (Princess Alice) Edward VIII was Pro peace, not pro Nazi. There has never been a single FACT to show otherwise. Just claims by Republicans

[Hamilton7776]

@bobzilla211 The Italian Monarchy had Mussolini arrested, only for Mussolini to declare a Republic with help from Hitler. Did Republican Spain prevent Franco from gaining Power? But just look what happened some years back when the same threat of Right-Wing Army Revolution threatened Spanish Democracy? Then it was the Restored King who put a stop to it, by calling on the Patriotic loyalty of the Army. Just as Elizabeth II could in an Emergency.

[Hamilton7776]

@bobzilla211 Royals are not supposed to be above politics, they are above PARTY-POLITICS. and it was Prince Albert who made that decision, its not a law passed by Parliament. the press love to spout on about how prince Charles interferes. The last time he interfered it was because the people of a small town wanted him to. The left Wing MP wanted him to. Why, because an architect sponsored by NEW Labor wanted to turf the locals out of there homes so that he could get the job of building new ones.

[bobzilla211]

@Hamilton7776 first off, there IS a connection with party politics. there are still many tory MPs and senior party figures who are connected to the royals and cameron himself is known to have got his first job at the party HQ because of a phone call from the palace. secondly he has a direct line to ministers, something ordinary people and many lobby groups even lack, and they have been forced to seek his permission for 12 government bills since 2005.

[Hamilton7776]

@bobzilla211 Cameron didn't get a job because of a Phone Call from the palace. if he did revel your source. Labor and left Wing monarchists: Ben Pimlot, Neil Kinnock, John Smith, Tony Blair, Limpic Opik, Andrew Marr, - Writer Simon Schema, and Ed Milliband, who, according to your logic must be a Raving Monarchist since his first Government position was as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

[bobzilla211]

@Hamilton7776 republicanism in the UK isn't necessarily about left wing vs right wing, even though most who support it tend to lean leftwards. its about living as a citizen or a subject, and personally i believe our society is unfair enough without it still being hugely influenced by a small group of otherwise ordinary people who are lucky enough to be born into publicly funded lives of wealth, luxury and power.

[Hamilton7776]

@bobzilla211 and yes he does have a direct line and its just as well since the Lobby groups where not about to stand up for the villagers who where about to lose there homes. But he did. and the Labor Backbencher who represented those villagers was glad he did.

[bobzilla211]

@Hamilton7776 excusing his interference because 'the people of a small town wanted him to' is making a joke of the whole democratic process. the fact that these people only have a small amount of power relative to the prime minister does not excuse the fact that they have it. they are all far more powerful than the majority of MPs. britain's 'constitution' has slowly evolved from a time when these safeguards were necessary and the influence of the royals today is an undemocratic remnant.

[Hamilton7776]

@bobzilla211 The point is that they had no voice and it was there lives that was being affected. Its not democratic to be forcefully removed from your home because a greedy architect wants you to be. and Prince Charles did nothing more than to ask the sponsor if he knew what was being done in his name. The architect was lying and got caught out.

[bobzilla211]

@Hamilton7776 its not just chelsea barracks - he is well known for his hatred of modern architecture. secondly, there are mechanisms to object to this sort of thing in britain that don't involve royal intervention, and they are also present in real democracies. protests, petitions, etc. but in any case, every time you make this argument you are essentially arguing in favour of benign tyranny. i have nothing much against the royals as people, but they have their power from an accident of birth.

[lilbeaveymac]

Im an american that supports the monarchy.id hate to see it disapear

[donpato03]

@popandlockify I can tell you (cause I live in a "democracy") voting is just a way to make people believe they can choose, but it is always arranged. And someone always loses, wich means a lot of people get angry and protest all the time. The monarchy is one of the things people in the world admire and mark as truly british. I hope you never lose it.

[bette1908]

He certainly didn't mind accepting a CBE from the Queen.

[ikillyouhahahalameo]

God, Piers Morgan is a twat...

[popandlockify]

Look at how popular Versailles is in France, and we all know what happened to their monarchy.

The Crown Estate is NOT the personal property of the monarchy. It exists to provide income for the adminstration of the country. It belongs to the nation. This includes the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall.

In other words, we're being robbed! If they disappeared, I certainly wouldn't miss them.

[Hamilton7776]

@popandlockify It IS the Personal Property of the Monarch which is why it is restored to the Monarch at the beginning of every reign. The revenue from the Crown Estate goes straight to the government. The Civil List was negotiated in exchange for the profits from the Crown Estates. It is a well known fact. If you have time, look it up.

[popandlockify]

The recent royal wedding actually cost the economy money. Tourism didn't make up for it.

Of the top 20 tourist attractions in the UK only one royal residence makes it:

Windsor Castle at number 17 (beaten comfortably by Windsor Legoland, in at number 7).

The success of the Tower of London (number 6 in the list) suggests that tourism would benefit if Buckingham Palace and Windsor castle were vacated by the Windsor family.

[david19835]

nah the monarchy is great. people need to stop being misery guts and just enjoy it. They bring in more money through tourism and the royal estates than they spend, theyre a bit of fun and pomp every now and again and they make us unique. look at all the hype in America about the royal wedding earlier in the year. its going to be a case of you dont know what youve got till its gone, if it ever gets abolished....which im pretty sure it wont for a good few decades at least.

[popandlockify]

I will say this again. The monarchy is a corrupt institution, which benefits only the politicians and the royal family. It needs to be abolished! Flagging this as spam means flagging the truth!

[mrlopez2681]

@popandlockify - I don't think the monarchy is corrupt. A person can bark about all sorts of things that are wrong with it, but lets not make things up - there are too many people watching its every move for it to even have the opportunity to be corrupt. This is actually a good thing, sense it makes it "walk the line" so to speak. Funny though, it always seems that, for the most part, young people are the ones to have a problem with it. Once they get older, they often change their minds!

[popandlockify]

@mrlopez2681 - The Murdoch empire is crumbling, and soon it will be the royal family's turn. : D

Besides, who the hell wants Prince Charles as King? Oh, and Queen Camilla?

[popandlockify]

My comments are not spam! Sheesh! Some people can't handle an opinion - or the truth...

[missineichen]

it would suck to pay taxes for an institution u didnt vote for, & for the sole purpose of giving a bunch of strangers a life of luxury, when ur slogging ur butt of earning a living

[popandlockify]

"I really like voting". Me too, but unfortunately we don't get that choice. We have so many outdated systems and institutions in this country. It really is about time we had major reforms.

[mrlopez2681]

@popandlockify - but what would you put in its place? It is not as simple as amputating it & then calling it a day. Once it goes, it will change everything, & not necessarily for the better. The thought of President Tony & 1st Lady Cherie in Buckingham Palace is to nauseating to consider. Also, Presidents divide people because they are political, whereas the Queen is more or less non-political (in public, anyway) & the ultimate check to keep politicians from becoming a Nixon or a Bush.

[popandlockify]

@mrlopez2681 The queen doesn't keep check of politicians. Type 'Adam Tomkins on the flaws of Britain's constitutional monarchy' on youtube search to find out what I mean. Btw, I would like a non-executive elected head of state, whilst still retaining a prime minister.

[mrlopez2681]

@popandlockify - I didn't mean that she "legally" or "constitutionally" keeps a "check" on them, or that her job requires it. What I meant was that, by virtue of her position, it is a way of keeping them in line. The monarchy is, in many ways, an absurd anachronism, but most republicans seem to really just nit-pick the monarchy for even more absurd reasons. The more one looks at it, the more it really makes sense.

[mrlopez2681]

@popandlockify - thanks for pointing me to that video. All the things Mr. Tomkins mentioned are true, & its likely that, in time, the monarchy will be stripped of these powers. But it will not go completely, & once the powers are gone it will likely survive merely as a ceremonial thing, which is actually not to shabby, as it is part of the our culture & can be beneficial in that regard. The monarchy does need to figure out a way to pay for itself though, at least w/ regard to living expenses.

[Hamilton7776]

@popandlockify Did you vote for your doctor, want to vote for the dentist or would you rather have a popularity contest which is all that voting is about. Monarchy offers experience. we have enough elected representatives as it is, and the monarchy is supported by more people than any political party is. I'd rather have someone who was taught the job from childhood for my head of state than a self-serving Politician who has risen due to special interests (Bankers, Media, Etc).

[mrlopez2681]

@popandlockify - be glads the UK has the system it does. The American system may not be out dated, but its ridiculous, not in theory, but certainly in practice. The president, elected though he may be, is nothing but a person who divides everyone. Having a non political hereditary head of state is, on the surface, ridiculous in theory, but in practice it works beautifully.

[mak34237]

@popandlockify If your referring to monarchy your mistaken, Democracy is actually older than monarchy, remember Rome was a republic before an empire, as were city states in ancient Greece, and in the Mid East thousands of years ago. The Monarch fulfills her role splendidly and she has never shirked her duties and always strives to do more for us, that is more than I can say about most politicians. If it isn't broke don't fix it and that pertains to our goverment and head of state!

[SuperEarther]

colin firth and his nazi agenda "the kings speech" should be exploited

[darkstar1345a]

@SuperEarther

nazi agenda ?

[SuperEarther]

@darkstar1345a google guardian kings speech nazi