The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

Should Prince Charles (HRH) be the next king?

It is obvious that all of the opinions stated here stem from one's position on the monarchy.

Either you want to keep them; get rid of them; or couldn't care less.

I, being a fervent monarchist, accept the fact that the country pays for the benefit of having a royal family.

Those anti-monarchy will always consider that it costs us too much and I consider their arguments completely valid.

Those who don't care less have just read this thread and not bothered posting. ;)

From any stand point one should be able to agree on the fact of whether a monarchy should be hereditary or passed on to the person most apt to do the job. In my opinion it should be hereditary and therefore Charles must wait until the death of the Queen before taking up the crown, as William must also wait.
 
JohnnyAnger said:
It's true, no one ever goes to Versailles or Potsdam - as I have said elsewhere the monarchy does not provide tourism. More people go to Legoland Windsor than Windsor Castle (the only money spinner they have).
Click to expand...

Speak for yourself buster. You might be local, but I'm a tourist, what else is there in London you can't see elsewhere in Europe? ;)
 

"Oh yeah we have a royal, but they are more figureheads than anything. And you go, that's even worse - you carry these fucking leeches around like golden ticks in your beard. And you roll out read carpets and knell down before them. And your excuse is "but they don't really do anything"! What? That is fucking dumb. Ms America is a figure head, but we don't have to buy her a 100 castles on the tax payers dime"
Click to expand...
 
Scotland, Ireland, Wales, and England had its fling with republicanism under Oliver Cromwell's Commonwealth...with the British Republic self destructing sufficiently to encourage the restoration of the monarchy under Charless 11, and return to a happier society....Cromwell's Commonwealth was a military dictatorship, ruthlessly efficient in its determination to impose a puritanical regime on a people that wanted nothing more than the freedom to live life as they determined...not as Cromwell, or the later generals deemed fit for the masses...

...It was no accident that after the restoration of the monarchy most people were happy to see the back of the Puritans, when they sailed to the New England colonies....

I repeat that the most advanced democracies on this planet are also constitutional monarchies....The Netherlands, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Spain, Denmark, Norway, Sweden et al.....
 
dpnice said:
It is obvious that all of the opinions stated here stem from one's position on the monarchy.

Either you want to keep them; get rid of them; or couldn't care less.

I, being a fervent monarchist, accept the fact that the country pays for the benefit of having a royal family.

Those anti-monarchy will always consider that it costs us too much and I consider their arguments completely valid.

Those who don't care less have just read this thread and not bothered posting. ;)

From any stand point one should be able to agree on the fact of whether a monarchy should be hereditary or passed on to the person most apt to do the job. In my opinion it should be hereditary and therefore Charles must wait until the death of the Queen before taking up the crown, as William must also wait.
Click to expand...

True.

But, now that I'm here; ;)

I can't help wondering if public opinion of the monarchy will change once the gender changes.

For many years, it seems, England's monarchy has had/enjoyed it's 'fairy princess' appeal. Will a male 'star', a king, change the ambiance of it all?
 
What is it that makes people so in favour of monarchy? I am interested honestly - what is it about that family that makes you feel they should been born to such a position of wealth and respect?

kallipolis said:
Scotland, Ireland, Wales, and England had its fling with republicanism under Oliver Cromwell's Commonwealth...with the British Republic self destructing sufficiently to encourage the restoration of the monarchy under Charless 11, and return to a happier society....Cromwell's Commonwealth was a military dictatorship, ruthlessly efficient in its determination to impose a puritanical regime on a people that wanted nothing more than the freedom to live life as they determined...not as Cromwell, or the later generals deemed fit for the masses...

...It was no accident that after the restoration of the monarchy most people were happy to see the back of the Puritans, when they sailed to the New England colonies....

I repeat that the most advanced democracies on this planet are also constitutional monarchies....The Netherlands, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Spain, Denmark, Norway, Sweden et al.....
Click to expand...

Be honest though - do you think the return of Greece's monarchy would make you join this group?
 
William, and Kate may just be the fairy princess appeal that encourages more support for the continuation of the monarchy....and in this respect, I repeat that the succession laws can be amended by parliament, were the will of people supportive of William assuming the crown, on the demise of his grandmother....
 
JohnnyAnger said:
What is it that makes people so in favour of monarchy? I am interested honestly - what is it about that family that makes you feel they should been born to such a position of wealth and respect?



Be honest though - do you think the return of Greece's monarchy would make you join this group?
Click to expand...

I am not a supporter of our former royal family, and there is no prospect...as matters stand today....of the royal family being voted back into their former role...although there is a precedent for this in the twenthieth century...I believe that Greek society has become much, much less deferential....having said that our current economic crisis is provoking much debate on the failings of our democratically elected politicians who have made such a disaster...my crystal ball needs cleaning...

Princess Sophia, sister of our last King, Constantine married Juan Carlos, former King of Spain....that marriage has ended, and Sophia spends much of her time living on the family estate in Greece, visiting her brother, Constantine living in London, or visiting her son Felipe, King of Spain.

Never, saying, never is probably the wise answer...
 
Is being deferential to a royal family whose position was established in history through violence and control (and now just coasting on the good will of having a history) a good thing though?

The democratic failing of the politicians is something else really - it is not like having a royal family has saved Spain in the current crisis.
 
I consider the commonwealth monarchy like a living museum. I would no more get rid of it than I would accept tearing down the British Museum or the National Gallery in Canberra or the Museum of Civilisation in Ottawa. I wouldn't whine about the cost for the same reason.
 
JohnnyAnger said:
Is being deferential to a royal family whose position was established in history through violence and control (and now just coasting on the good will of having a history) a good thing though?

The democratic failing of the politicians is something else really - it is not like having a royal family has saved Spain in the current crisis.
Click to expand...

King Juan Carlos intervened to subdue the efforts of the Spanish military to make an illegal seizure of power in Spain...in this respect it can be said that a monarch protected a nation's democratic institutions simply by appearing on television and ordering the Guardia Civile back to barracks...there is precedent for believing that a monarch can protect a nation against its military, or even its government from subverting the will of the people...

Here in Greece in 1967 King Constantine failed to resist a military take over....possibly because of his age...21....and lack of experience....and he paid the price...when the people voted through a referendum to end the monarchy...

The Cromwell period, for all its efficiency proved to the peoples of the British Isles that a fascist dictatorship was not the remedy that they were seeking...

My British republican friends agree that Queen Elizabeth has made an ideal head of state since her accession to the throne in 1952

Here's Princess Elizabeth demonstrating her war time service as an ambulance driver, and mechanic..

 
bankside said:
I consider the commonwealth monarchy like a living museum. I would no more get rid of it than I would accept tearing down the British Museum or the National Gallery in Canberra or the Museum of Civilisation in Ottawa. I wouldn't whine about the cost for the same reason.
Click to expand...

Some people would like to 'clone' a woolly mammoth just to keep in captivity.

That seems freakishly cruel, to me.
 
bankside said:
Good point but Edward 8.0 was able to go his merry way.
Click to expand...

Edward V111 is a fine example of a legally mounted coup by the British establishment removing a king, just before his coronation for the state, within the state had understood that Edward was less, than ideal to lead the British nation...fortunately, the replacement, George V1 proved to be better than ideal....
 
JohnnyAnger said:
That figure only works on what they publicly from the treasury. The real figure they receive is five times higher than they normally quote (things like local grants, heating bills, security costs). It's not much more but they do confuse it by never stating the full amount they take from the government annually.
Click to expand...

Have you any articles that cover this?
 
I would find it difficult to put up a reasoned out argument for why I am a fervent monarchist, especially when I know that most of the reasons could be easily refuted. Also I can easily understand the arguments against a monarchy which being logical makes one wonder why we keep up the tradition.

Obviously I could live with them being abolished but would be disappointed; it would seem that Britain was missing something essential which you couldn't quite put your finger on.
 
dpnice said:
I would find it difficult to put up a reasoned out argument for why I am a fervent monarchist, especially when I know that most of the reasons could be easily refuted.
Click to expand...

For me, it's my age. I grew up when the Queen was very relevant here in Canada. Our Governor-General was much more than a ceremonial symbol. We didn't even have our own constitution and we sang God Save the Queen every morning in school.

The monarchy was a huge part of my youth. Not so much these days for the younger people. They know the Queen only as someone who lives thousands of kilometres away in England and parachutes out of helicopters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top