Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
james546

Registered:
Posts: 2
Reply with quote  #1 
Hi everybody,

I'm a long time reader but I thought it was time I registered and posted this.

One of my course mates at university has decided to do a podcast against the monarchy for part of the course. As you can imagine I'm in the minority with my student colleagues as many of them are anti-monarchy.

Although I feel my colleague is wrong he is encouraging a debate and I was wondering if anybody would have a listen and apply your expert knowledge to the debate and comment on the post.


He is due to do a response podcast by the end of next week so the more we can do to stump his argument before then, the better.

KYMonarchist

Registered:
Posts: 4,853
Reply with quote  #2 
Welcome new member!

How would I go about downloading this podcast? Is it available on iTunes? Or is the only podcast available the anti-monarchy one, I was assuming there was a pro-monarchy podcast in response to it?.

__________________
"Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
james546

Registered:
Posts: 2
Reply with quote  #3 
You can play the podcast on the page and I think you can download it there as well. It's only about three minutes long.

There isn't a pro-monarchy counterpart but I think the idea is to spark the debate for the response podcast. Hopefully to prove him wrong.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,534
Reply with quote  #4 
When the young man writes ascension, he means accession and even that isn't the right word, succession is what was wanted. Also, there should be an acute accent on the second o of Revolucion, and an upside-down exclamation mark before Viva. Moving to the podcast, he presents it well and articulately. He is mistaken about Divine Right, however, which plays no part in the British monarchy and was consigned to history long ago. The Queen is Queen by the constitution and laws of Britain, as particularly enshrined in the Acts of Settlement and Union, not because God decrees it.

He objects to the money spent on the Queen's duties as Head of State, perhaps forgetting that a president would not volunteer to perform the duties for free and fund them from his or her own pocket. Almost invariably, a president of whom hardly anyone outside the country has heard and not a few of those in it have not costs more to fund than the British monarchy, which is world-famous and adds to the prestige of the country in a way no president could, not to mention being an enormous tourism draw in a way no president could be.

All members of the royal family perform public duties, so 'those who do work' was unkind and unfair. And none of them apart from the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh receive any public funds for the duties, except to cover transport expenses; the Queen covers the rest from what she receives. Saying that the Duke of Cambridge is 'at best a part-time emergency rescue pilot' denigrates the skills he has achieved and the difficult work he performs, while overlooking that the 'part-time' aspect is due not to him sunning himself on beaches the rest of the time, but to his working hard on royal duties in Britain and the Commonwealth. Nor was it Prince Harry's fault that news of his presence in Afghanistan was leaked, meaning that he automatically became the #1 target and had to be withdrawn. He would much rather have finished his tour of duty, but it was not possible.

The money spent on security for the marriage of the Duke of Cambridge was particularly attacked. Britain was totally in the world spotlight for a day, the eyes of the world on magnificent ceremony flawlessly performed. The economic benefits may be largely indirect and not easily quantifiable, but I will tale a punt that the security expenditure produced a more than decent return on investment.

And how could a republic ever stage such a thing? Who apart from family is interested in the president's son getting married? I have yet to see an argument for how Britain would benefit from having someone hardly anyone outside of his or her family had ever heard of before at the head of affairs (usually the case with ceremonial presidents, at least) instead of the world's most famous family, headed by one of the world's most admired women. I'm not saying there isn't one, just that I'm still waiting.

The royal family and the Queen did not work to get where they are, they just got born, They have however worked to justify where they are. And it is the ostensibly unfair fact that they just got born to the position that is the strongest thing about it, because it means we have a Head of State who is above party and faction and owes her position to no one, and can therefore concern herself, within constitutional limitations, solely with the interests of Britain, not with those of this or that party, and be a unifying and binding force for the whole nation, not just those who subscribe to a particular set of political beliefs.

An excellently presented podcast, and I would mark it down only for the emphasis on Divine Right, which was actually pretty ignorant and shows that he has not properly understood the institution he is attacking. I still think he was wrong about everything else too, but those were perhaps more matters of opinion. He gave his, and these were mine. The singers by the way were dreadful.
BaronVonServers

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 11,993
Reply with quote  #5 
Where is the 'like button' Royal Cello?
I could really use on for the above post.....


__________________
"In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas"

I am NOT an authorized representative of my Government.

Learn more about the Dominion of British West Florida at http://dbwf.net
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,534
Reply with quote  #6 
Thanks, Baron. I realise that James wanted comment there, not here, but I didn't want to do that, not wishing to get into argument with a bunch of strangers; been there, done that enough in my life. However if he or anyone else also likes some of the above and wants to use it, be my guest. Welcome, James, by the way.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,534
Reply with quote  #7 
One thing that I didn't cover was the objection that the royal family fails to reflect the diversity of Britain. Presumably Mr Crowther would be happy if we had a couple of black princesses and an Asian princess or two. I wouldn't mind it in the least myself, but until the required number of princes happen to fall in love with and marry women of those ethnicities it won't happen, and I presume he doesn't propose compulsion on the question. In the meantime the royal family will continue to all be white people of European stock. Which is after all an aspect of Britain's diversity, and is in fact the main strand of it.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,534
Reply with quote  #8 
Ubi caritas et amor from the wedding complained of. It was what the world was watching, and I can't help feeling that apart from being sublime itself it did Britain some good.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.