Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-15-2013, 12:45 AM
 
1,481 posts, read 2,152,291 times
Reputation: 888

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone View Post
I would think that would depend on the culture of the nation in question. In South Africa, for example, I would suspect such a division of roles would not work out well (unless the figurehead was Nelson Mandela, but he won't be around for eternity).

Not that I've ever been there, but South Africa seems like a nation with an uglier past and brighter future. With the still powerful white minority and, from what I've heard, a lingering potential for incidents of genocide, I would think that the populace would view a figurehead negatively. I would think the populace would not want a person who represents what it means to be a South African to be a member of their government at all. A white figurehead might be associated with the old apartheid. A black figurehead might be viewed as a puppet of the government, used for propaganda.

Some peoples might remember old wounds well enough, or be heterogeneous enough, that they will not be willing to accept a head of state who has not already done real actions to assist the populace....Or perhaps such peoples have histories they desire to forget, rather than remember through a figurehead symbolizing their history or the history of their oppressors.

Anyway, apologies for the following mentality:


http://interculturalmeanderings.file...-america-2.png

But you must understand, we must defend our lands from the redcoats, or they will cross the sea, and force us to drink tea and use the metric system, rather than using whatever our current system of measurement is called....Perhaps we should ask the redcoats....They're good at remembering that type of thing.

We don't know why we use our system of measurement (whatever it's called) and we don't know we like coffee so much. None of us like the taste of it, and it's unhealthy. Presumably we drink it because it's addictive...but that's not the point.
With South Africa being in the Commonwealth the head of the same is of course the Queen.
But it is far too late for South Africa to join the countries that are still royal realms.
Measurement in the USA, now this is head scratching because the US uses the old British Imperial system of miles gallons inches etc etc etc.
But, it means that any apprentice in the metal trades needs to learn the metric system as well.
I cannot see why the USA does not want to move to a simpler system which the Metric system is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-15-2013, 05:37 AM
 
4,434 posts, read 6,958,419 times
Reputation: 2261
Quote:
Originally Posted by nzrugby View Post
It is a pity that so many Americans forget or are not taught that George Washington held a commission in His Majesty's army.
It is noticeable that European countries that have a Monarchy tend to do well, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Luxemburg all have high standards of living.
Even though Spain has it's difficulties King Carlos is the glue that holds the country together.
In addition the monarchy is popular in those countries. Even in the UK. Yes there are people critical yet most people in those countries don't see that a republican system can be better.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2013, 05:49 AM
 
25,024 posts, read 27,837,510 times
Reputation: 11790
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruSan View Post
The "norm"? Canada being...? That other American nation, larger than yours, sitting smack dab on top of you in what we're used to calling North America.

I may however, be confused in what you're trying to say here. Minus ~ plus wise.
I said that only a small handful of countries in the Americas, those being exclusively the English speaking islands, Belize, Canada, and Greenland, are constitutional monarchies. The rest, from the US to Argentina, have presidential systems.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2013, 08:48 AM
 
4,684 posts, read 4,558,474 times
Reputation: 1588
Quote:
Originally Posted by nzrugby View Post
With South Africa being in the Commonwealth the head of the same is of course the Queen. But it is far too late for South Africa to join the countries that are still royal realms.
The Union of South Africa (1910-1961) was a constitutional monarchy, as a "dominion" on the same model as Canada, Aus & NZ (and the Irish Free State and India, briefly). It even used a version of the Red Ensign for the first couple of decades. In 1960, a referendum which of course was limited to whites only, of whom Afrikaners were the majority, voted in favor of a republic, which was proclaimed in 1961. So for about a decade Elizabeth II was Queen of South Africa (1952-61).


Quote:
I cannot see why the USA does not want to move to a simpler system which the Metric system is.
Bah - it's a French conspiracy! Good old Anglo-Saxon dozens and scores, that's the ticket. Who says counting in base-12 is intrinsically harder than counting in base-10: our ancestors managed to make change in shillings and pence, measured beer by the pint, sold eggs by the dozen, built the Forth Bridge by the feet and yard, all without causing their heads to explode.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2013, 12:51 PM
 
Location: Missouri, USA
5,671 posts, read 4,332,464 times
Reputation: 2610
Quote:
Originally Posted by squarian View Post
Bah - it's a French conspiracy! Good old Anglo-Saxon dozens and scores, that's the ticket. Who says counting in base-12 is intrinsically harder than counting in base-10: our ancestors managed to make change in shillings and pence, measured beer by the pint, sold eggs by the dozen, built the Forth Bridge by the feet and yard, all without causing their heads to explode.
The U.K. didn't begin focusing on converting to the metric system till four decades ago. The U.S. is considerably larger, more populous, and more isolated. The U.S. also has quite a number of landlocked states like Kansas, where the citizens hardly ever see minorities, much less foreigners.

White, non-Latinos whose ancestors have long been in America are the most powerful racial group. They have a low birth rate...about two children per couple, over the course of that couple's lives, I believe. They're getting older, and they likely desire to continue doing things as they have been doing them for the length of their lives, rather than make changes they will not see benefits from until their last years.

Most population growth in the U.S. comes from immigration. Ideally, the younger immigrants, with higher birth rates, will eventually help push things along...That's my hypothesis anyway.

I believe that there's a similarly low birth rate among U.K. citizens whose ancestors have long lived within the U.K. I believe a large percentage of births in the U.K. come from immigrants too. The U.S. is still more isolated and larger though.

Last edited by Clintone; 03-15-2013 at 02:02 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2013, 07:56 PM
 
Location: NC
9,984 posts, read 10,362,245 times
Reputation: 3086
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
You might have identified which cites were "bad law" or incorrect, before attempting to distract the reader from the SCARY DANGEROUS THOUGHT that Americans were sovereigns UNLIKE THE REST OF THE WORLD who are subjects of their governments.
Chisholm v. Georgia. There was something called the 11th amendment you know.

With that said I agree with Theunbrainwashed. Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2013, 10:11 PM
 
3,846 posts, read 2,376,194 times
Reputation: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by stiffnecked View Post
Who would ever want to call anyone "Your Majesty"? That whole thing is a joke. Pompus ingrates.
Well, I'm a monarchist when I'm the monarch.

When I'm not, I'm a nonarchist.

I'm just a run-of the-mill egoist sovereignist.

Last edited by Nonarchist; 03-23-2013 at 10:21 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2013, 10:45 PM
 
Location: Boise
4,426 posts, read 5,904,816 times
Reputation: 1701
a monarch is not elected by the people.. so it's $hit...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2013, 03:59 AM
 
4,684 posts, read 4,558,474 times
Reputation: 1588
Quote:
Originally Posted by boiseguy View Post
a monarch is not elected by the people.. so it's $hit...
All modern constitutional monarchies in the West exist only by the will of their peoples. As Prince Philip has said, "if they want us to go, we'll go". Do you suppose the Dutch or Danish sovereigns could possibly under any circumstances remain if the majority of their people wanted them gone? Of course not - monarchy exists in the modern age because the people want it to exist, because it's a better answer than the alternatives, not because it is imposed on them by force.

And in the case of Australia, at least, Queen Elizabeth II expressly received the endorsement of the people in the 1999 referendum asking the nation whether to retain the monarchy or adopt a republic. The Australians chose their monarchy by a margin of 10% on a turnout of 95%, a landslide by most standards. So, H.M. has the unique distinction of being the world's only elected hereditary monarch.

Edit: And, lest I slight the good people of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, let it be noted that they also have elected their Queen, voting by a margin of nearly 12% in 2009 to retain H.M The Queen as their head of state rather than trust any mere politician to do the job.

Last edited by squarian; 03-24-2013 at 04:12 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-24-2013, 11:20 AM
 
14,903 posts, read 8,516,490 times
Reputation: 7328
Quote:
Originally Posted by English Dave View Post
The old girl works real hard for an 87 year old. Most days she is travelling round England opening some new hospital or unveiling a statue or two. She is one of the richest people in the world, she could just put her feet up, and scream to a servant, "bring me a whiskey!"

Everywhere I go, I see plaques saying Queen Elizabeth opened this building on ........ 1972, 73, 74, 92.... whatever. Doesn't have to do it. Could just say, "for gawds sake, I'm 87 years old. Go find someone else to do it." Gotta admire that dedication.
It is only human nature to want certain things, and we are compelled to seek and strive toward those desires, which surely includes the "Old Girl", be they material possessions, comfort, love, admiration, recognition, fame, glory, authority, power, control ... only dead people are satisfied with nothing ... wanting nothing, doing nothing, and achieving nothing.

That surely holds true as we advance in age, and for some, a motive in itself, to convince others, if not ourselves that we still have what it takes to keep up ..... the alternative, as you all say over there, is to be "put out to grass". Do you really think that isn't a driving motivation for "Her Majesty" to delay being put out to pasture, relegated to staring at a calendar, counting the days she has left before the inevitable, all while watching as those adoring masses bow and curtsy to her successor?

But I must say I find it rather interesting what some people consider "hard work" ... but who really is expending the greater effort? Is it the Queen enjoying the adoration of her faithful subjects, offering a wave and a partial smile, or all of those who for some God awful strange reason have continued to bow and curtsy at the feet of these self anointed bloodline superiors for the past several hundred years, who's status was never earned, but granted as a birthright?

Those who apparently celebrate the very idea of being an inferior to Royal Blood are cut from different cloth than those of us who find it altogether impossible to understand. But to actually allocate a healthy stipend from the public troth for upkeep of massive castles and a staff that constitutes a small army of servants to some of the wealthiest people on planet earth, is altogether an entirely new level of obnoxiousness ... not just for those agreeing to provide it, but for those shameless "superiors" who believe they deserve it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top