TO CELEBRATE THE QUEENS JUBILEE

GOD SAVE OUR QUEEN!

[attachment=0]The Queen 7.jpg[/attachment

*facepalm*

I agree with that as well, which is why I wouldn't argue the non-democratic point too hard.

I think I've learned to accept that my views are a minority, and hope for the day when more and more people will stop believing all the rubbish they're spoon fed by the media, but sadly, we may have a long wait.

It's particularly cringeworthy in Celtic countries to see people waving these horrid union flags around (that don't even include Wales, as we're bound up as one with the Cross of St. George as part of England).

It will always be "the butcher's apron" to me.

Here here.

I've never liked the monarchy (although studying their history is enjoyable) and it seems that our 'cause' if you like will remain a minority view for some time. It's strange really, I just naturally detest the monarchy and the Union Jack, it's innate

I was exactly the same - always hated them since when I was about 4 or 5

The more I studied history, the more I realise how logical that initial feeling was as well.

Like you though, I love studying British history, especially the Civil War period, and 1649 is my favourite date in history (30th January to be precise)

GOD SAVE OUR QUEEN!

[attachment=0]The Queen 7.jpg[/attachment

*facepalm*

yeah, absolutely horrible wasn't it, all that pomp and circumstance

I agree with that as well, which is why I wouldn't argue the non-democratic point too hard.

I think I've learned to accept that my views are a minority, and hope for the day when more and more people will stop believing all the rubbish they're spoon fed by the media, but sadly, we may have a long wait.

It's particularly cringeworthy in Celtic countries to see people waving these horrid union flags around (that don't even include Wales, as we're bound up as one with the Cross of St. George as part of England).

It will always be "the butcher's apron" to me.

Here here.

I've never liked the monarchy (although studying their history is enjoyable) and it seems that our 'cause' if you like will remain a minority view for some time. It's strange really, I just naturally detest the monarchy and the Union Jack, it's innate

I was exactly the same - always hated them since when I was about 4 or 5

The more I studied history, the more I realise how logical that initial feeling was as well.

Like you though, I love studying British history, especially the Civil War period, and 1649 is my favourite date in history (30th January to be precise)

It's the royalist irony I suppose; the most fortuitous, esteemed and admired ancestry is one of the most bloody, criminal and abhorrent. Ridiculous when you think about it.

If only things had turned out differently after that! Republicanism actually occured for a short while, a true shame in my opinion. One day a blow of equal scale will be dealt to the monarchy, yet we can only hope.

If Cromwell had lived for another decade, or Ireton hadn't died in 1651 in Ireland, I suspect our history would now be very different, as I firmly believe that the commonwealth would then have had far more of a chance of surviving.

One of the great shames of British history.

At least the French still have their Republic.

A valid point, however you must (as I always do) remind them that hereditary public office goes against every democratic principle.

Either way, opinion polls are inconclusive until a full and informative debate has taken place. The monarchy spends millions of pounds on publicity and PR, the government too backs the monarchy and shields it from genuine scrutiny. They all work hard to perpetuate the myth that the monarchy is little more than a nice family living in a big house doing their 'duty' for their country. The truth is a little different.

Alas I agree, that is one of many ludicrous examples of the monarchy's protection from scrutiny and criticism; once again highly undemocratic.

Yes, I agree with all that and I think we're pretty much in agreement here

It would also be very interesting if we did actually have a referendum to really test the people's views on this, as I'm sceptical of how much support for the monarchy there really is - and could you imagine how the media would go into a frenzy if we were allowed this democratic right.

I completely agree, however I have little faith that the Republican cause would prevail for three reasons.

1) The mass majority are lulled into believing the cliche royalist arguments (tourism, trade etc) which would ultimately transcend into votes.

2) The Media are unashamedly royalist and control alot of pubilc opinion.

3) The Republican cause has not been widely publicised enough yet and is lacking in support. Thus a substantial campaign is required.

load of rubbish
first off the Queen is sworn to defend the democratic process in this country if it ever comes under threat from external or internal forces so she is a key figure in how we work
as for your points
1 lulled into believing the cliche royalist arguments? really they do bring tourism, they do represent this country with regards to trade. Also may I add the vast majority of the direct Royal Family have served this country including the Queen herself and many in direct conflict. The Queen served as a driver and mechanic in 1945 when she turned 18 in the Auxiliary Territorial Service. The Duke of Edinburgh served in the Royal Navy from 1939-1952 seeing active service throughout WW2. The Prince of Wales served in the Royal Navy. The Duke of York or Prince Andrew served 20 years in the Royal Navy and served during the Falklands. Prince William serves in the Royal Air Force as a search and rescue pilot. Prince Harry serves in the British Army in the household cavalry and is training to be an Apache pilot, he has also served in Afghanistan on the front lines. So dont say they dont do anything.
2 The media are unashamedly royalist? really I suppose youre too young to remember how they hounded the Royal Family after the death of Diana, the Royal Family had to bow to the nations wishes after that so no not very royalist.
3 The republican cause though im sure it has its valid points and as we all have the right to free speech, fails on every hurdle the masses are not interested in a republic. Take Australia with their 1999 referendum on becoming a republic 55% said NO and even 13 years later Australia find it hard to raise the question even with a republican PM. I cant see the British changing its stance on Monarchy.
God Save The Queen
Long Live The Monarchy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atQv5HEb ... re=related

A valid point, however you must (as I always do) remind them that hereditary public office goes against every democratic principle.

Either way, opinion polls are inconclusive until a full and informative debate has taken place. The monarchy spends millions of pounds on publicity and PR, the government too backs the monarchy and shields it from genuine scrutiny. They all work hard to perpetuate the myth that the monarchy is little more than a nice family living in a big house doing their 'duty' for their country. The truth is a little different.

Alas I agree, that is one of many ludicrous examples of the monarchy's protection from scrutiny and criticism; once again highly undemocratic.

Yes, I agree with all that and I think we're pretty much in agreement here

It would also be very interesting if we did actually have a referendum to really test the people's views on this, as I'm sceptical of how much support for the monarchy there really is - and could you imagine how the media would go into a frenzy if we were allowed this democratic right.

I completely agree, however I have little faith that the Republican cause would prevail for three reasons.

1) The mass majority are lulled into believing the cliche royalist arguments (tourism, trade etc) which would ultimately transcend into votes.

2) The Media are unashamedly royalist and control alot of pubilc opinion.

3) The Republican cause has not been widely publicised enough yet and is lacking in support. Thus a substantial campaign is required.

load of rubbish
first off the Queen is sworn to defend the democratic process in this country if it ever comes under threat from external or internal forces so she is a key figure in how we work
as for your points
1 lulled into believing the cliche royalist arguments? really they do bring tourism, they do represent this country with regards to trade. Also may I add the vast majority of the direct Royal Family have served this country including the Queen herself and many in direct conflict. The Queen served as a driver and mechanic in 1945 when she turned 18 in the Auxiliary Territorial Service. The Duke of Edinburgh served in the Royal Navy from 1939-1952 seeing active service throughout WW2. The Prince of Wales served in the Royal Navy. The Duke of York or Prince Andrew served 20 years in the Royal Navy and served during the Falklands. Prince William serves in the Royal Air Force as a search and rescue pilot. Prince Harry serves in the British Army in the household cavalry and is training to be an Apache pilot, he has also served in Afghanistan on the front lines. So dont say they dont do anything.
2 The media are unashamedly royalist? really I suppose youre too young to remember how they hounded the Royal Family after the death of Diana, the Royal Family had to bow to the nations wishes after that so no not very royalist.
3 The republican cause though im sure it has its valid points and as we all have the right to free speech, fails on every hurdle the masses are not interested in a republic. Take Australia with their 1999 referendum on becoming a republic 55% said NO and even 13 years later Australia find it hard to raise the question even with a republican PM. I cant see the British changing its stance on Monarchy.
God Save The Queen
Long Live The Monarchy

1. I'm sure that all those royals you mention who have been in the armed forces have really been in terrible danger more like good pr methinks

2. If there was ever a genuine referendum in this country, you'd soon see the full weight of our media fully behind the "keep them" campaign - the media just got carried away with the whole Diana thing, but that would not be representative of how they would be if there was a genuine chance of us getting rid of them.

3. Within our lifetimes, you're probably right about us not getting rid of them, as the majority do seem to swallow the propoganda hook, line and sinker.

But how on earth can you justify a situation where elected representatives are not allowed to take up their seats in Parliament to represent their people when they have stood on a Republican ticket and been duly elected - but are then forced to remain away from parliament or swear an oath against the very arguments they have been elected upon (i.e in places like Derry and West Belfast).

A valid point, however you must (as I always do) remind them that hereditary public office goes against every democratic principle.

Either way, opinion polls are inconclusive until a full and informative debate has taken place. The monarchy spends millions of pounds on publicity and PR, the government too backs the monarchy and shields it from genuine scrutiny. They all work hard to perpetuate the myth that the monarchy is little more than a nice family living in a big house doing their 'duty' for their country. The truth is a little different.

Alas I agree, that is one of many ludicrous examples of the monarchy's protection from scrutiny and criticism; once again highly undemocratic.

Yes, I agree with all that and I think we're pretty much in agreement here

It would also be very interesting if we did actually have a referendum to really test the people's views on this, as I'm sceptical of how much support for the monarchy there really is - and could you imagine how the media would go into a frenzy if we were allowed this democratic right.

I completely agree, however I have little faith that the Republican cause would prevail for three reasons.

1) The mass majority are lulled into believing the cliche royalist arguments (tourism, trade etc) which would ultimately transcend into votes.

2) The Media are unashamedly royalist and control alot of pubilc opinion.

3) The Republican cause has not been widely publicised enough yet and is lacking in support. Thus a substantial campaign is required.

load of rubbish
first off the Queen is sworn to defend the democratic process in this country if it ever comes under threat from external or internal forces so she is a key figure in how we work
as for your points
1 lulled into believing the cliche royalist arguments? really they do bring tourism, they do represent this country with regards to trade. Also may I add the vast majority of the direct Royal Family have served this country including the Queen herself and many in direct conflict. The Queen served as a driver and mechanic in 1945 when she turned 18 in the Auxiliary Territorial Service. The Duke of Edinburgh served in the Royal Navy from 1939-1952 seeing active service throughout WW2. The Prince of Wales served in the Royal Navy. The Duke of York or Prince Andrew served 20 years in the Royal Navy and served during the Falklands. Prince William serves in the Royal Air Force as a search and rescue pilot. Prince Harry serves in the British Army in the household cavalry and is training to be an Apache pilot, he has also served in Afghanistan on the front lines. So dont say they dont do anything.
2 The media are unashamedly royalist? really I suppose youre too young to remember how they hounded the Royal Family after the death of Diana, the Royal Family had to bow to the nations wishes after that so no not very royalist.
3 The republican cause though im sure it has its valid points and as we all have the right to free speech, fails on every hurdle the masses are not interested in a republic. Take Australia with their 1999 referendum on becoming a republic 55% said NO and even 13 years later Australia find it hard to raise the question even with a republican PM. I cant see the British changing its stance on Monarchy.
God Save The Queen
Long Live The Monarchy

Cringe

A valid point, however you must (as I always do) remind them that hereditary public office goes against every democratic principle.

Either way, opinion polls are inconclusive until a full and informative debate has taken place. The monarchy spends millions of pounds on publicity and PR, the government too backs the monarchy and shields it from genuine scrutiny. They all work hard to perpetuate the myth that the monarchy is little more than a nice family living in a big house doing their 'duty' for their country. The truth is a little different.

Alas I agree, that is one of many ludicrous examples of the monarchy's protection from scrutiny and criticism; once again highly undemocratic.

Yes, I agree with all that and I think we're pretty much in agreement here

It would also be very interesting if we did actually have a referendum to really test the people's views on this, as I'm sceptical of how much support for the monarchy there really is - and could you imagine how the media would go into a frenzy if we were allowed this democratic right.

I completely agree, however I have little faith that the Republican cause would prevail for three reasons.

1) The mass majority are lulled into believing the cliche royalist arguments (tourism, trade etc) which would ultimately transcend into votes.

2) The Media are unashamedly royalist and control alot of pubilc opinion.

3) The Republican cause has not been widely publicised enough yet and is lacking in support. Thus a substantial campaign is required.

load of rubbish
first off the Queen is sworn to defend the democratic process in this country if it ever comes under threat from external or internal forces so she is a key figure in how we work
as for your points
1 lulled into believing the cliche royalist arguments? really they do bring tourism, they do represent this country with regards to trade. Also may I add the vast majority of the direct Royal Family have served this country including the Queen herself and many in direct conflict. The Queen served as a driver and mechanic in 1945 when she turned 18 in the Auxiliary Territorial Service. The Duke of Edinburgh served in the Royal Navy from 1939-1952 seeing active service throughout WW2. The Prince of Wales served in the Royal Navy. The Duke of York or Prince Andrew served 20 years in the Royal Navy and served during the Falklands. Prince William serves in the Royal Air Force as a search and rescue pilot. Prince Harry serves in the British Army in the household cavalry and is training to be an Apache pilot, he has also served in Afghanistan on the front lines. So dont say they dont do anything.
2 The media are unashamedly royalist? really I suppose youre too young to remember how they hounded the Royal Family after the death of Diana, the Royal Family had to bow to the nations wishes after that so no not very royalist.
3 The republican cause though im sure it has its valid points and as we all have the right to free speech, fails on every hurdle the masses are not interested in a republic. Take Australia with their 1999 referendum on becoming a republic 55% said NO and even 13 years later Australia find it hard to raise the question even with a republican PM. I cant see the British changing its stance on Monarchy.
God Save The Queen
Long Live The Monarchy

1. I'm sure that all those royals you mention who have been in the armed forces have really been in terrible danger more like good pr methinks

2. If there was ever a genuine referendum in this country, you'd soon see the full weight of our media fully behind the "keep them" campaign - the media just got carried away with the whole Diana thing, but that would not be representative of how they would be if there was a genuine chance of us getting rid of them.

3. Within our lifetimes, you're probably right about us not getting rid of them, as the majority do seem to swallow the propoganda hook, line and sinker.

But how on earth can you justify a situation where elected representatives are not allowed to take up their seats in Parliament to represent their people when they have stood on a Republican ticket and been duly elected - but are then forced to remain away from parliament or swear an oath against the very arguments they have been elected upon (i.e in places like Derry and West Belfast).

what Sinn Fein their not banned they abstain BIG difference. Its a defiance against British Rule, but saying that their party has split so many times over this matter its hard to figure out what they are doing.

f**k me, labelling someone a Jack because the like the monarchy is cringeworthy. Grow up you soft twats.

Blazing paddles and Welshcitydragon. Your bitterness is enough to see me fall off my chair laughing, deal with it. The Queen doesn't interfere in politics at all, if we elected a president I guarentee you cunts would be the first to complain about the slowness of bills being passed and the cost of having another election to run.

I do not agree with the concept of it, but f**k me stop being so bitter

A valid point, however you must (as I always do) remind them that hereditary public office goes against every democratic principle.

Either way, opinion polls are inconclusive until a full and informative debate has taken place. The monarchy spends millions of pounds on publicity and PR, the government too backs the monarchy and shields it from genuine scrutiny. They all work hard to perpetuate the myth that the monarchy is little more than a nice family living in a big house doing their 'duty' for their country. The truth is a little different.

Alas I agree, that is one of many ludicrous examples of the monarchy's protection from scrutiny and criticism; once again highly undemocratic.

Yes, I agree with all that and I think we're pretty much in agreement here

It would also be very interesting if we did actually have a referendum to really test the people's views on this, as I'm sceptical of how much support for the monarchy there really is - and could you imagine how the media would go into a frenzy if we were allowed this democratic right.

I completely agree, however I have little faith that the Republican cause would prevail for three reasons.

1) The mass majority are lulled into believing the cliche royalist arguments (tourism, trade etc) which would ultimately transcend into votes.

2) The Media are unashamedly royalist and control alot of pubilc opinion.

3) The Republican cause has not been widely publicised enough yet and is lacking in support. Thus a substantial campaign is required.

load of rubbish
first off the Queen is sworn to defend the democratic process in this country if it ever comes under threat from external or internal forces so she is a key figure in how we work
as for your points
1 lulled into believing the cliche royalist arguments? really they do bring tourism, they do represent this country with regards to trade. Also may I add the vast majority of the direct Royal Family have served this country including the Queen herself and many in direct conflict. The Queen served as a driver and mechanic in 1945 when she turned 18 in the Auxiliary Territorial Service. The Duke of Edinburgh served in the Royal Navy from 1939-1952 seeing active service throughout WW2. The Prince of Wales served in the Royal Navy. The Duke of York or Prince Andrew served 20 years in the Royal Navy and served during the Falklands. Prince William serves in the Royal Air Force as a search and rescue pilot. Prince Harry serves in the British Army in the household cavalry and is training to be an Apache pilot, he has also served in Afghanistan on the front lines. So dont say they dont do anything.
2 The media are unashamedly royalist? really I suppose youre too young to remember how they hounded the Royal Family after the death of Diana, the Royal Family had to bow to the nations wishes after that so no not very royalist.
3 The republican cause though im sure it has its valid points and as we all have the right to free speech, fails on every hurdle the masses are not interested in a republic. Take Australia with their 1999 referendum on becoming a republic 55% said NO and even 13 years later Australia find it hard to raise the question even with a republican PM. I cant see the British changing its stance on Monarchy.
God Save The Queen
Long Live The Monarchy

1. I'm sure that all those royals you mention who have been in the armed forces have really been in terrible danger more like good pr methinks

2. If there was ever a genuine referendum in this country, you'd soon see the full weight of our media fully behind the "keep them" campaign - the media just got carried away with the whole Diana thing, but that would not be representative of how they would be if there was a genuine chance of us getting rid of them.

3. Within our lifetimes, you're probably right about us not getting rid of them, as the majority do seem to swallow the propoganda hook, line and sinker.

But how on earth can you justify a situation where elected representatives are not allowed to take up their seats in Parliament to represent their people when they have stood on a Republican ticket and been duly elected - but are then forced to remain away from parliament or swear an oath against the very arguments they have been elected upon (i.e in places like Derry and West Belfast).

and as for the royals not being in terrible danger Prince Andrew witnessed the Argentinian attack on the SS Atlantic Conveyor and was one of the first pilots to evacuate casualties.
as for Prince Harry during his service in Afghanistan was responsible for calling in air strikes at close range, fought with the Gurkhas to repel attacks from Taliban insurgents and performed many patrols in hostile areas.
as for The Duke of Edinburgh id have to write an essay on what he saw in WW2.

what Sinn Fein their not banned they abstain BIG difference. Its a defiance against British Rule, but saying that their party has split so many times over this matter its hard to figure out what they are doing.

You obviously haven't understood what I posted - I'll make it simpler :

1. The MP's I'm talking about have stood on a Republican manifesto
2. They have been duly elected by their constituents on that manifesto
3. They are happy to take up their seats to represent their constituents
4. They cannot do so without swearing an oath of allegiance to someone they were elected for opposing

Is that democratic?????????????

It doesn't only apply to Sinn Fein - it would apply to anyone who stood on a Republican manifesto in this country, and its fundamentally undemocratic. How can you possibly justify it?

what Sinn Fein their not banned they abstain BIG difference. Its a defiance against British Rule, but saying that their party has split so many times over this matter its hard to figure out what they are doing.

You obviously haven't understood what I posted - I'll make it simpler :

1. The MP's I'm talking about have stood on a Republican manifesto
2. They have been duly elected by their constituents on that manifesto
3. They are happy to take up their seats to represent their constituents
4. They cannot do so without swearing an oath of allegiance to someone they were elected for opposing

Is that democratic?????????????

It doesn't only apply to Sinn Fein - it would apply to anyone who stood on a Republican manifesto in this country, and its fundamentally undemocratic. How can you possibly justify it?

yes it is thats the joys of democracy, the ability to change things.
play the game, this is the process you got elected in, you have the ability to change it because you are the voice of the electorate
every Australian republican went through the same process and they managed to kick off a referendum, in fact I believe their Prime Minister is a republican but she still has to play the monarchy game until the republican movement can gain enough support to change things.

what Sinn Fein their not banned they abstain BIG difference. Its a defiance against British Rule, but saying that their party has split so many times over this matter its hard to figure out what they are doing.

You obviously haven't understood what I posted - I'll make it simpler :

1. The MP's I'm talking about have stood on a Republican manifesto
2. They have been duly elected by their constituents on that manifesto
3. They are happy to take up their seats to represent their constituents
4. They cannot do so without swearing an oath of allegiance to someone they were elected for opposing

Is that democratic?????????????

It doesn't only apply to Sinn Fein - it would apply to anyone who stood on a Republican manifesto in this country, and its fundamentally undemocratic. How can you possibly justify it?

yes it is thats the joys of democracy, the ability to change things.
play the game, this is the process you got elected in, you have the ability to change it because you are the voice of the electorate
every Australian republican went through the same process and they managed to kick off a referendum, in fact I believe their Prime Minister is a republican but she still has to play the monarchy game until the republican movement can gain enough support to change things.

And that is why this whole issue of monarchy is fundamentally so wrong - it even stops elected representatives being able to represent the people who elected them - I need make no further argument - you've already made it for me.

what Sinn Fein their not banned they abstain BIG difference. Its a defiance against British Rule, but saying that their party has split so many times over this matter its hard to figure out what they are doing.

You obviously haven't understood what I posted - I'll make it simpler :

1. The MP's I'm talking about have stood on a Republican manifesto
2. They have been duly elected by their constituents on that manifesto
3. They are happy to take up their seats to represent their constituents
4. They cannot do so without swearing an oath of allegiance to someone they were elected for opposing

Is that democratic?????????????

It doesn't only apply to Sinn Fein - it would apply to anyone who stood on a Republican manifesto in this country, and its fundamentally undemocratic. How can you possibly justify it?

yes it is thats the joys of democracy, the ability to change things.
play the game, this is the process you got elected in, you have the ability to change it because you are the voice of the electorate
every Australian republican went through the same process and they managed to kick off a referendum, in fact I believe their Prime Minister is a republican but she still has to play the monarchy game until the republican movement can gain enough support to change things.

And that is why this whole issue of monarchy is fundamentally so wrong - it even stops elected representatives being able to represent the people who elected them - I need make no further argument - you've already made it for me.

but the monarchy has no direct influence over parliament its called the house of commons for a reason. At the moment our democracy is based around our monarchy that can collapse after one vote if we decide to vote against the monarchy. It doesnt stop anybody from doing anything but if the majority wants the monarchy and the republicans are in the minority the monarchy will stand.
Id suggest you get a better understanding of how our democracy works before you start tearing it apart. The whole fact republicans are allowed to be represented in Parliament is a testament of how strong our democratic system works.
I havent made an argument for you ive just proved yet again how republicans are weak and dont have stomach for a fight.

what Sinn Fein their not banned they abstain BIG difference. Its a defiance against British Rule, but saying that their party has split so many times over this matter its hard to figure out what they are doing.

You obviously haven't understood what I posted - I'll make it simpler :

1. The MP's I'm talking about have stood on a Republican manifesto
2. They have been duly elected by their constituents on that manifesto
3. They are happy to take up their seats to represent their constituents
4. They cannot do so without swearing an oath of allegiance to someone they were elected for opposing

Is that democratic?????????????

It doesn't only apply to Sinn Fein - it would apply to anyone who stood on a Republican manifesto in this country, and its fundamentally undemocratic. How can you possibly justify it?

yes it is thats the joys of democracy, the ability to change things.
play the game, this is the process you got elected in, you have the ability to change it because you are the voice of the electorate
every Australian republican went through the same process and they managed to kick off a referendum, in fact I believe their Prime Minister is a republican but she still has to play the monarchy game until the republican movement can gain enough support to change things.

And that is why this whole issue of monarchy is fundamentally so wrong - it even stops elected representatives being able to represent the people who elected them - I need make no further argument - you've already made it for me.

but the monarchy has no direct influence over parliament its called the house of commons for a reason. At the moment our democracy is based around our monarchy that can collapse after one vote if we decide to vote against the monarchy. It doesnt stop anybody from doing anything but if the majority wants the monarchy and the republicans are in the minority the monarchy will stand.
Id suggest you get a better understanding of how our democracy works before you start tearing it apart. The whole fact republicans are allowed to be represented in Parliament is a testament of how strong our democratic system works.
I havent made an argument for you ive just proved yet again how republicans are weak and dont have stomach for a fight.

But what you've said is that unless Republicans swear an oath of allegiance to someone who they've said they oppose in their very mandate, they cannot actually represent their constituents - so Republicans who hold firm to their principles are not allowed to represent their constituents in the British Parliament.

This is why the people in Derry and West Belfast are not represented in the British Parliament - although this is then contradicted by the fact that Britain says its ok for them to serve their constituents in the Northern Irish Assembly, where no such oath is required!

It is fundamentally undemocratic if the majority say that the minority cannot be appropriately represented in a Parliament unless they swear an oath of allegiance to someone/thing they fundamentally oppose, and are elected for that opposition - that is tyranny masquerading as democracy, and the Queen is the heart of the problem, as if for example the oath was to appropriately represent the individual's constituents, then no one (Royalist or Republican) would have a problem with that.

what Sinn Fein their not banned they abstain BIG difference. Its a defiance against British Rule, but saying that their party has split so many times over this matter its hard to figure out what they are doing.

You obviously haven't understood what I posted - I'll make it simpler :

1. The MP's I'm talking about have stood on a Republican manifesto
2. They have been duly elected by their constituents on that manifesto
3. They are happy to take up their seats to represent their constituents
4. They cannot do so without swearing an oath of allegiance to someone they were elected for opposing

Is that democratic?????????????

It doesn't only apply to Sinn Fein - it would apply to anyone who stood on a Republican manifesto in this country, and its fundamentally undemocratic. How can you possibly justify it?

yes it is thats the joys of democracy, the ability to change things.
play the game, this is the process you got elected in, you have the ability to change it because you are the voice of the electorate
every Australian republican went through the same process and they managed to kick off a referendum, in fact I believe their Prime Minister is a republican but she still has to play the monarchy game until the republican movement can gain enough support to change things.

And that is why this whole issue of monarchy is fundamentally so wrong - it even stops elected representatives being able to represent the people who elected them - I need make no further argument - you've already made it for me.

but the monarchy has no direct influence over parliament its called the house of commons for a reason. At the moment our democracy is based around our monarchy that can collapse after one vote if we decide to vote against the monarchy. It doesnt stop anybody from doing anything but if the majority wants the monarchy and the republicans are in the minority the monarchy will stand.
Id suggest you get a better understanding of how our democracy works before you start tearing it apart. The whole fact republicans are allowed to be represented in Parliament is a testament of how strong our democratic system works.
I havent made an argument for you ive just proved yet again how republicans are weak and dont have stomach for a fight.

But what you've said is that unless Republicans swear an oath of allegiance to someone who they've said they oppose in their very mandate, they cannot actually represent their constituents - so Republicans who hold firm to their principles are not allowed to represent their constituents in the British Parliament.

This is why the people in Derry and West Belfast are not represented in the British Parliament - although this is then contradicted by the fact that Britain says its ok for them to serve their constituents in the Northern Irish Assembly, where no such oath is required!

It is fundamentally undemocratic if the majority say that the minority cannot be appropriately represented in a Parliament unless they swear an oath of allegiance to someone/thing they fundamentally oppose, and are elected for that opposition - that is tyranny masquerading as democracy, and the Queen is the heart of the problem, as if for example the oath was to appropriately represent the individual's constituents, then no one (Royalist or Republican) would have a problem with that.

how is it undemocratic? the majority rules its the whole basis of democracy, I didnt vote conservative but here we are with a conservative PM you dont see me kicking off its how the process works.
your asking for things to be changed before they have been democratically decided
your coming out with the biggest excuse republicans in this country and allow themselves to fall at the first hurdle give
'I cant represent you' funny how Australia dont have that problem or New Zealand or America before they became independent.
its an oath that says you will represent your constituents and defend what this country stands for and represents.
if you want to campaign for change you have a democratic right to do so and if you build enough support it will change and maybe this country will become a republic but at the moment its not and I hope it stays like that.
Ill ask you one question do you really want someone campaigning for your ideals who cant even be bothered to turn up to parliament because if their not there they are not representing you.

GOD SAVE OUR QUEEN!

[attachment=0]The Queen 7.jpg[/attachment

GOD SAVE OUR QUEEN
well said sam

how is it undemocratic? the majority rules its the whole basis of democracy, I didnt vote conservative but here we are with a conservative PM you dont see me kicking off its how the process works.
your asking for things to be changed before they have been democratically decided
your coming out with the biggest excuse republicans in this country and allow themselves to fall at the first hurdle give
'I cant represent you' funny how Australia dont have that problem or New Zealand or America before they became independent.
its an oath that says you will represent your constituents and defend what this country stands for and represents.
if you want to campaign for change you have a democratic right to do so and if you build enough support it will change and maybe this country will become a republic but at the moment its not and I hope it stays like that.
Ill ask you one question do you really want someone campaigning for your ideals who cant even be bothered to turn up to parliament because if their not there they are not representing you.

Ahhhhhh...cringe; you've missed the point entirely.

how is it undemocratic? the majority rules its the whole basis of democracy, I didnt vote conservative but here we are with a conservative PM you dont see me kicking off its how the process works.
your asking for things to be changed before they have been democratically decided
your coming out with the biggest excuse republicans in this country and allow themselves to fall at the first hurdle give
'I cant represent you' funny how Australia dont have that problem or New Zealand or America before they became independent.
its an oath that says you will represent your constituents and defend what this country stands for and represents.
if you want to campaign for change you have a democratic right to do so and if you build enough support it will change and maybe this country will become a republic but at the moment its not and I hope it stays like that.
Ill ask you one question do you really want someone campaigning for your ideals who cant even be bothered to turn up to parliament because if their not there they are not representing you.

Ahhhhhh...cringe; you've missed the point entirely.

I think he's deliberately trying to miss the point.

Let's try it in reverse for him :

If there was an abolition of the monarchy and we then asked everyone who was elected to Parliament to sign an oath of allegiance to Republicanism and against the restoration of the monarchy, would he be happy with that?

I would not, as there would doubtless be many Royalists still around, and I'm sure some would stand and probably be elected to parliament. I would then see it as an affront to democracy to enforce upon them an oath that clearly went against their principles.

Sadly, these Royalists don't have the same scruples with us, but then, when you look at the history of the British throne, they've always had their way by acting in this kind of tyrranical way - nothing will change until they're finally done away with.

how is it undemocratic? the majority rules its the whole basis of democracy, I didnt vote conservative but here we are with a conservative PM you dont see me kicking off its how the process works.
your asking for things to be changed before they have been democratically decided
your coming out with the biggest excuse republicans in this country and allow themselves to fall at the first hurdle give
'I cant represent you' funny how Australia dont have that problem or New Zealand or America before they became independent.
its an oath that says you will represent your constituents and defend what this country stands for and represents.
if you want to campaign for change you have a democratic right to do so and if you build enough support it will change and maybe this country will become a republic but at the moment its not and I hope it stays like that.
Ill ask you one question do you really want someone campaigning for your ideals who cant even be bothered to turn up to parliament because if their not there they are not representing you.

Ahhhhhh...cringe; you've missed the point entirely.

I think he's deliberately trying to miss the point.

Let's try it in reverse for him :

If there was an abolition of the monarchy and we then asked everyone who was elected to Parliament to sign an oath of allegiance to Republicanism and against the restoration of the monarchy, would he be happy with that?

I would not, as there would doubtless be many Royalists still around, and I'm sure some would stand and probably be elected to parliament. I would then see it as an affront to democracy to enforce upon them an oath that clearly went against their principles.

Sadly, these Royalists don't have the same scruples with us, but then, when you look at the history of the British throne, they've always had their way by acting in this kind of tyrranical way - nothing will change until they're finally done away with.

ok fine taking your view yes if I stood for election to re-instate the monarchy after a republic had been voted in I wood say whatever it takes to get my manifesto heard and fight to fulfill my promises to my constituents.
like ive said before the Australians dont seem to have a problem with it why does this country.
I understand what you are saying but look at the bigger picture if parliament decides to debate turning the UK into a republic and it goes to a vote, it will be voted out because all the republican mp's wont be there to cast their yes votes
but you still havent answered my question would you be happy not to have a voice in parliament because your elected official refuses to take his/her seat in parliament?
im not missing the point you just refuse to concede mine on a basic failure of the republican movement to do ANYTHING.

how is it undemocratic? the majority rules its the whole basis of democracy, I didnt vote conservative but here we are with a conservative PM you dont see me kicking off its how the process works.
your asking for things to be changed before they have been democratically decided
your coming out with the biggest excuse republicans in this country and allow themselves to fall at the first hurdle give
'I cant represent you' funny how Australia dont have that problem or New Zealand or America before they became independent.
its an oath that says you will represent your constituents and defend what this country stands for and represents.
if you want to campaign for change you have a democratic right to do so and if you build enough support it will change and maybe this country will become a republic but at the moment its not and I hope it stays like that.
Ill ask you one question do you really want someone campaigning for your ideals who cant even be bothered to turn up to parliament because if their not there they are not representing you.

Ahhhhhh...cringe; you've missed the point entirely.

I think he's deliberately trying to miss the point.

Let's try it in reverse for him :

If there was an abolition of the monarchy and we then asked everyone who was elected to Parliament to sign an oath of allegiance to Republicanism and against the restoration of the monarchy, would he be happy with that?

I would not, as there would doubtless be many Royalists still around, and I'm sure some would stand and probably be elected to parliament. I would then see it as an affront to democracy to enforce upon them an oath that clearly went against their principles.

Sadly, these Royalists don't have the same scruples with us, but then, when you look at the history of the British throne, they've always had their way by acting in this kind of tyrranical way - nothing will change until they're finally done away with.

ok fine taking your view yes if I stood for election to re-instate the monarchy after a republic had been voted in I wood say whatever it takes to get my manifesto heard and fight to fulfill my promises to my constituents.
like ive said before the Australians dont seem to have a problem with it why does this country.
I understand what you are saying but look at the bigger picture if parliament decides to debate turning the UK into a republic and it goes to a vote, it will be voted out because all the republican mp's wont be there to cast their yes votes
but you still havent answered my question would you be happy not to have a voice in parliament because your elected official refuses to take his/her seat in parliament?
im not missing the point you just refuse to concede mine on a basic failure of the republican movement to do ANYTHING.

I would rather die than swear an oath of allegiance to a foreign queen that I despise.

I am pleased that some of our elected Celtic representatives take a similar view and refuse to do so as well.

Their constituents also seem fine with this, as they keep electing them election after election - in fact their vote is growing, not falling.

It's just a shame that there are not similar men of calibre and principle prepared to do a similar thing in the rest of the country, and it only happens in the 6 counties of Ulster that England is still grasping on to.

England of course completely smashed the democratic will of the people of Ireland and Ulster when she refused to accept the overwhelming mandate given to Sinn Fein in the 1918 general election. She was then forced to partition not only the country of Ireland, but also Ulster itself - I'm sure you're aware that Ulster has 9 counties, but England partitioned off the 3 Republican counties to artificially create an orange statelet which would have a loyalist majority in the remaining 6 (although even that probably won't last for long as the demographic changes)

how is it undemocratic? the majority rules its the whole basis of democracy, I didnt vote conservative but here we are with a conservative PM you dont see me kicking off its how the process works.
your asking for things to be changed before they have been democratically decided
your coming out with the biggest excuse republicans in this country and allow themselves to fall at the first hurdle give
'I cant represent you' funny how Australia dont have that problem or New Zealand or America before they became independent.
its an oath that says you will represent your constituents and defend what this country stands for and represents.
if you want to campaign for change you have a democratic right to do so and if you build enough support it will change and maybe this country will become a republic but at the moment its not and I hope it stays like that.
Ill ask you one question do you really want someone campaigning for your ideals who cant even be bothered to turn up to parliament because if their not there they are not representing you.

Ahhhhhh...cringe; you've missed the point entirely.

I think he's deliberately trying to miss the point.

Let's try it in reverse for him :

If there was an abolition of the monarchy and we then asked everyone who was elected to Parliament to sign an oath of allegiance to Republicanism and against the restoration of the monarchy, would he be happy with that?

I would not, as there would doubtless be many Royalists still around, and I'm sure some would stand and probably be elected to parliament. I would then see it as an affront to democracy to enforce upon them an oath that clearly went against their principles.

Sadly, these Royalists don't have the same scruples with us, but then, when you look at the history of the British throne, they've always had their way by acting in this kind of tyrranical way - nothing will change until they're finally done away with.

ok fine taking your view yes if I stood for election to re-instate the monarchy after a republic had been voted in I wood say whatever it takes to get my manifesto heard and fight to fulfill my promises to my constituents.
like ive said before the Australians dont seem to have a problem with it why does this country.
I understand what you are saying but look at the bigger picture if parliament decides to debate turning the UK into a republic and it goes to a vote, it will be voted out because all the republican mp's wont be there to cast their yes votes
but you still havent answered my question would you be happy not to have a voice in parliament because your elected official refuses to take his/her seat in parliament?
im not missing the point you just refuse to concede mine on a basic failure of the republican movement to do ANYTHING.

I would rather die than swear an oath of allegiance to a foreign queen that I despise.

I am pleased that some of our elected Celtic representatives take a similar view and refuse to do so as well.

Their constituents also seem fine with this, as they keep electing them election after election - in fact their vote is growing, not falling.

It's just a shame that there are not similar men of calibre and principle prepared to do a similar thing in the rest of the country, and it only happens in the 6 counties of Ulster that England is still grasping on to.

England of course completely smashed the democratic will of the people of Ireland and Ulster when she refused to accept the overwhelming mandate given to Sinn Fein in the 1918 general election. She was then forced to partition not only the country of Ireland, but also Ulster itself - I'm sure you're aware that Ulster has 9 counties, but England partitioned off the 3 Republican counties to artificially create an orange statelet which would have a loyalist majority in the remaining 6 (although even that probably won't last for long as the demographic changes)

well I think you will find sinn fein agreed to the split and is just as responsible as was the British government, obviously many people wanted the whole of Ireland to be independent but both parties agreed to the split.
as for sinn fein not turning up to parliament their not forced out by any stretch of the imagination they refuse to turn up leaving large parts of northern ireland not represented in parliament which I find disgraceful.
as for calling republicans men of calibre and principle, I laugh at that because if they were principled they would be screaming in parliament for the republican vote but instead the republican voice goes unheard by the choice of the republicans. It took one man in America to start their republican movement 'no taxation without representation' and so the argument got stronger, Australia went the same way but failed after a referendum. Britain all the republicans do in this country is complain about the little things. The biggest thing you fail to understand is you declare allegiance according to the laws of this country there is nothing stopping you from changing the law now is there. Even Martin McGuinness figured that one out after he went to the European Court of Human Rights over the oath of allegiance and was kicked out rather quickly.

well I think you will find sinn fein agreed to the split and is just as responsible as was the British government, obviously many people wanted the whole of Ireland to be independent but both parties agreed to the split.
as for sinn fein not turning up to parliament their not forced out by any stretch of the imagination they refuse to turn up leaving large parts of northern ireland not represented in parliament which I find disgraceful.
as for calling republicans men of calibre and principle, I laugh at that because if they were principled they would be screaming in parliament for the republican vote but instead the republican voice goes unheard by the choice of the republicans. It took one man in America to start their republican movement 'no taxation without representation' and so the argument got stronger, Australia went the same way but failed after a referendum. Britain all the republicans do in this country is complain about the little things. The biggest thing you fail to understand is you declare allegiance according to the laws of this country there is nothing stopping you from changing the law now is there. Even Martin McGuinness figured that one out after he went to the European Court of Human Rights over the oath of allegiance and was kicked out rather quickly.

Without getting into the whole pro treaty / anti treaty 1921 debate here, you will surely accept that a massive amount of Republicans did not accept the partition of Ulster in 1921 - that is an historic fact, and led to the Irish Civil War.

I'm not going to repeat ad infinitum my points, but some of us who have principles would never swear an oath of allegiance to that woman - its why I would never be able to join the army or become an MP - and I think that is completely undemocratic .

I would also not support any Republican position that enforced a similar oath in reverse upon remaining Royalists if Republicanism were to be succesful - It's interesting as well that Republicanism never does try to enforce such an oath upon people - it seems a peculiar enforcing tactic of Royalists throughout the centuries to enforce their bullying ways.

I don't think we can take this debate much further - you are obviously happy with such an enforced oath (even upon people elected on a Republican manifesto), and I believe it to be fundamentally undemocratic - not much more that can be said.

There is however one final question I'd ask - do you feel that it's acceptable for Republican MP's to lie when they do swear the oath of allegiance, when they've obviously stood on a ticket saying that they would want to abolish the very person they're now having to swear loyalty to?

I've seen Royalists argue such people are hypocrites, but you seem to be saying that's acceptable - have I understood you correctly there? I have sympathy with what the Royalists are saying on this, as I would personally rather die than swear such an oath, and you'd be the first Royalist I've met/debated this issue with who has said it would be ok to lie in such a way.

well I think you will find sinn fein agreed to the split and is just as responsible as was the British government, obviously many people wanted the whole of Ireland to be independent but both parties agreed to the split.
as for sinn fein not turning up to parliament their not forced out by any stretch of the imagination they refuse to turn up leaving large parts of northern ireland not represented in parliament which I find disgraceful.
as for calling republicans men of calibre and principle, I laugh at that because if they were principled they would be screaming in parliament for the republican vote but instead the republican voice goes unheard by the choice of the republicans. It took one man in America to start their republican movement 'no taxation without representation' and so the argument got stronger, Australia went the same way but failed after a referendum. Britain all the republicans do in this country is complain about the little things. The biggest thing you fail to understand is you declare allegiance according to the laws of this country there is nothing stopping you from changing the law now is there. Even Martin McGuinness figured that one out after he went to the European Court of Human Rights over the oath of allegiance and was kicked out rather quickly.

Without getting into the whole pro treaty / anti treaty 1921 debate here, you will surely accept that a massive amount of Republicans did not accept the partition of Ulster in 1921 - that is an historic fact, and led to the Irish Civil War.

I'm not going to repeat ad infinitum my points, but some of us who have principles would never swear an oath of allegiance to that woman - its why I would never be able to join the army or become an MP - and I think that is completely undemocratic .

I would also not support any Republican position that enforced a similar oath in reverse upon remaining Royalists if Republicanism were to be succesful - It's interesting as well that Republicanism never does try to enforce such an oath upon people - it seems a peculiar enforcing tactic of Royalists throughout the centuries to enforce their bullying ways.

I don't think we can take this debate much further - you are obviously happy with such an enforced oath (even upon people elected on a Republican manifesto), and I believe it to be fundamentally undemocratic - not much more that can be said.

There is however one final question I'd ask - do you feel that it's acceptable for Republican MP's to lie when they do swear the oath of allegiance, when they've obviously stood on a ticket saying that they would want to abolish the very person they're now having to swear loyalty to?

I've seen Royalists argue such people are hypocrites, but you seem to be saying that's acceptable - have I understood you correctly there? I have sympathy with what the Royalists are saying on this, as I would personally rather die than swear such an oath, and you'd be the first Royalist I've met/debated this issue with who has said it would be ok to lie in such a way.

glad you dont want to get into the Irish debate we would be here for years and the original point to this debate would be lost.
personally if I was a republican and stood for election I would give the oath because its my way in to change things.
when Martin McGuinness went to the European Court of Human Rights to contest the oath he was told that declaring the oath was 'reasonably viewed as an affirmation of loyalty to the constitutional principles which support the workings of representative democracy in the respondent state'. Now that might really annoy you but if I was a republican id see hope in that because constitutional principles can be changed, basically the European Court of Human Rights told Mr McGuinness what do you need us for, you can change it yourself and nobody will stop you if you can muster enough support.
If you want this country to be a republic id say get your fight going instead of giving all this chatter, get your representatives to speak in parliament instead of standing their like living martyrs saying woe is me. America didnt have that problem neither does Australia I dont understand Britain's reluctance to stand up.
I hate this I cant join the military because I have to swear allegiance to the Queen who cares their just words to a republican.
I hate this I cant become an MP because I have to swear allegiance to the Queen who cares their just words to a republican.
Life isnt about the cards youve been dealt its about how well you play your hand. Now you can either throw your cards away on the first turn or you can keep playing and see what happens, but at the moment the republican movement throws its cards away at every opportunity.
I am a Royalist and always will be but that doesnt mean I dont understand the republican voice but you need to stand up more.

well I think you will find sinn fein agreed to the split and is just as responsible as was the British government, obviously many people wanted the whole of Ireland to be independent but both parties agreed to the split.
as for sinn fein not turning up to parliament their not forced out by any stretch of the imagination they refuse to turn up leaving large parts of northern ireland not represented in parliament which I find disgraceful.
as for calling republicans men of calibre and principle, I laugh at that because if they were principled they would be screaming in parliament for the republican vote but instead the republican voice goes unheard by the choice of the republicans. It took one man in America to start their republican movement 'no taxation without representation' and so the argument got stronger, Australia went the same way but failed after a referendum. Britain all the republicans do in this country is complain about the little things. The biggest thing you fail to understand is you declare allegiance according to the laws of this country there is nothing stopping you from changing the law now is there. Even Martin McGuinness figured that one out after he went to the European Court of Human Rights over the oath of allegiance and was kicked out rather quickly.

Without getting into the whole pro treaty / anti treaty 1921 debate here, you will surely accept that a massive amount of Republicans did not accept the partition of Ulster in 1921 - that is an historic fact, and led to the Irish Civil War.

I'm not going to repeat ad infinitum my points, but some of us who have principles would never swear an oath of allegiance to that woman - its why I would never be able to join the army or become an MP - and I think that is completely undemocratic .

I would also not support any Republican position that enforced a similar oath in reverse upon remaining Royalists if Republicanism were to be succesful - It's interesting as well that Republicanism never does try to enforce such an oath upon people - it seems a peculiar enforcing tactic of Royalists throughout the centuries to enforce their bullying ways.

I don't think we can take this debate much further - you are obviously happy with such an enforced oath (even upon people elected on a Republican manifesto), and I believe it to be fundamentally undemocratic - not much more that can be said.

There is however one final question I'd ask - do you feel that it's acceptable for Republican MP's to lie when they do swear the oath of allegiance, when they've obviously stood on a ticket saying that they would want to abolish the very person they're now having to swear loyalty to?

I've seen Royalists argue such people are hypocrites, but you seem to be saying that's acceptable - have I understood you correctly there? I have sympathy with what the Royalists are saying on this, as I would personally rather die than swear such an oath, and you'd be the first Royalist I've met/debated this issue with who has said it would be ok to lie in such a way.

glad you dont want to get into the Irish debate we would be here for years and the original point to this debate would be lost.
personally if I was a republican and stood for election I would give the oath because its my way in to change things.
when Martin McGuinness went to the European Court of Human Rights to contest the oath he was told that declaring the oath was 'reasonably viewed as an affirmation of loyalty to the constitutional principles which support the workings of representative democracy in the respondent state'. Now that might really annoy you but if I was a republican id see hope in that because constitutional principles can be changed, basically the European Court of Human Rights told Mr McGuinness what do you need us for, you can change it yourself and nobody will stop you if you can muster enough support.
If you want this country to be a republic id say get your fight going instead of giving all this chatter, get your representatives to speak in parliament instead of standing their like living martyrs saying woe is me. America didnt have that problem neither does Australia I dont understand Britain's reluctance to stand up.
I hate this I cant join the military because I have to swear allegiance to the Queen who cares their just words to a republican.
I hate this I cant become an MP because I have to swear allegiance to the Queen who cares their just words to a republican.
Life isnt about the cards youve been dealt its about how well you play your hand. Now you can either throw your cards away on the first turn or you can keep playing and see what happens, but at the moment the republican movement throws its cards away at every opportunity.
I am a Royalist and always will be but that doesnt mean I dont understand the republican voice but you need to stand up more.

Ok, thanks for clearing that up.

The key difference is that it wouldn't be just words to me, but we'll just have to beg to differ on that.

It's been an interesting debate, and thanks for debating it in a reasonable way - and your views are different to the majority of Royalists I've discussed this with before, so it's been genuinely interesting.

enjoy your Royalist week-end/Bank Holiday

I intend to go into work on tuesday

lol thank you it has been interesting and enjoyable debate
I will enjoy my weekend and bank holiday lol