If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
So you'd have Gordon Brown as the head of state as well as the head of the Anglican Church?
God help us all.
My question was merely that most of the republics in the world, certainly those in Europe where formerly there were monarchies, now have a prime minister - president set up.
I'm undecided as to which system I'd prefer- the American one with the One-figure-does-it-all approach, or the French 'President + Prime Minister' system.
I'd probably go for the American one. I really don't see much point in having President and Prime Minister.
Well since the Pope invited all Anglicans back to the Catholic fold, perhaps this isn't such a distant possibility. Church and State should be mutually exclusive. But I imagine that ditching the monarchy would not, at least in a practical sense, mean a dissolution of the Church of England. Would certainly be interesting to see what would happen as I genuinely have no idea.
I can't imagine everyone rushing to become a Catholic all of a sudden simply because it's the closest thing with a recognisable figurehead.
I was loathe to propose the American system as they've never had a monarchy so not really comparable. I was thinking a little closer to home, such as France and the Eastern European countries.
Incidentally, does anyone know if similar debates are / have gone on in places such as Belgium, Denmark, Holland and Spain regarding the abolition of the monarchy?
What levels are those exactly? Was I impolite? Rude? What?
I'm NOT saying the monarchy is the 'best system'. It would not suit most countries. But I think it does suit ours. Perhaps you can't have the same sympathy of British history because you have no heritage here, but I am proud of the Royal family. The Royals are human beings. It seems to me that your expectation on them is so high that they should be dumped because they're not perfect.
In my opinion, having a President who has had a career in politics, ought to discluded him/her from standing. Until such a stage that we have can have a President that is drawn from their careers and contributions to society, the arts, medicine, science, education etc, and is above politics, there is no acceptable alternative to the Queen. If the President's role is purely functional, why should a politician be allowed to stand? Perhaps a non-politician head of state will bring some sobriety to the international tensions that politicians seem all too capable of stirring up.
Im british and i am anti royal.
I dont think Aladdins nationality has anything to do with it
Perhaps your perspective on history and the royal family is different to mine. That's fair enough. What I am saying is that Aladdin possibly can't understand my perspective because he hasn't grown with a British experience and history. You might. I understand your perspective. I just don't agree with it.
Fair enough
Me neither, but then I think France > America, and change my mind.
++ Fury as Labour candidate calls Her Majesty a "parasite".
++ Praise as Stargalaxy responds by calling Peter White a "populist cunt".
++ EXCLUSIVE: Bears discovered shitting in the woods.
++ Scientists discover that night follows day...
UPDATE: It would appear the lard bucket in question is guilty of crimes against fashion as well.
Why did you write this you strange strange person?