Monarchy has had it's day bye bye

[HVYMTL]

... Let's break his comments down piece by piece and translate them shall we?...

we are already subjugated by EU. british citizens have to abide by rules set out by the EU, even some absurd rules about the size and shape of our vegetables. why british citizens should be ruled by people from a different country is beyond reasoning.

Wrong. The UK PLC has a treaty with the EU and the EU is directing the Government in the production of contractual policy which applies to the Government and it's agents and only the Government and it's agents. Go watch John's Videos again, and buy a copy of Blacks law dictionary to verify the terms given.

The method of fooling and controlling ignorant people into contracting as if they are agents of the government is entirely our own invention and nothing to do with the EU.

nope, impossible since the people would recognise this and higher numbers of people would enter into a form of lawful rebellion against the dictatorship. as it is, most people are under the illusion that there is no dictatorship... yet politicians have to take an oath to serve the queen. Serve the queen and not the people!

Any would be dictator, would simply use direct intimidation, mass arrests and other time honoured methods of tyranny to quell any dissent from their rule. The principle reason for having a Consitutional Monarchy as opposed to an Absolute Monarchy, a republic or democracy is that the person at the top of the pile is bound and constrained by the law. This notion, that law comes from the people and is binding upon everyone all the way to the top, is unique to our island and millions of people have laid down their lives in many wars to uphold and protect this most important of principles.

Despite the drug induced paranoia we see in people like llewop we do not in fact live in a tyranny or a dictatorship. We live in a big stage show which only works on ignorant and stupid people or people who are too blinded by their own petty jealously and bigotry to actually investigate the truth objectively.

There is an old saying, "THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE". This statement is 100% accurate and correct.

The agents of the government do indeed serve The Queen, who herself bound by her coronation Oath is duty bound to uphold the Sovereignty of the British people in accordance with the law. She is constitutionally bound to this duty and she cannot break the law, nor is she above the law. Her duties do not include making sure that you "get it" or convincing you of anything when your own ignorance, stupidity and apathy prevent you from finding out the truth out for yourself by availing yourself of the many great works of literature available for free at the local library, books which totalitarian dictators would definitely have burnt.

The Queen is not your mum, your nanny, your personal saviour or your personal tutor. She does not owe you anything as a human being and she has no contract with you personally as one sovereign being to another.

Another old saying that everyone knows; "IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO DEFENCE". If you can't realise the opposite of that statement would be "Knowledge of the law is the only defence you need", then your daft and you don't deserve the protection the law affords to all those who bother to educate themselves.

THE LAW IS THE SAFEST HELMET. The processes of law have been developed and honed over centuries to serve and protect the people, the constitution of the UK is respected and admired around the world as a model of civilised society and a cornerstone in the development of human rights and freedom.

it is not neutral at all. politicians oath is to serve the queen and not the people.

Politically neutral. As in, the Monarch cannot take sides in the political process. She is not a Tory or a Labourite, nor a Green or a Yellow, the Constitutional Monarchy is the over-arching framework which these parties are required to operate within and under the rule of law. The Monarch serves the principles of upholding the law and keeping the peace, it is not the monarchs responsibility or duty to molly coddle you and make sure your having a good time. You are expected to do your own duty to the best of your ability to obey the law and look after your own interests whilst remaining at peace with your neighbours. If you can't or won't do that your either insane or a criminal. If your insane that's not your fault and a plea of insanity to criminal charges is a strong defence in law.

people who do not take the oath to serve the queen are not allowed in parliament.

And damn right that should be the case too. The last thing the country needs is politicians in power who have no Oath to measure their behaviour against and hold them accountable to by law. The rampant Oath breaking which has been going on in the last 30 years or so is adequate proof that not only is the system breaking down after all these centuries of operation, but also that we need to hold our politicians to their Oaths more sternly, not release them from those shackles entirely!

From that principle it is possible to derive the argument, as some do, that our Monarch has failed us and is guilty of the crime of treason by failing to hold accountable for their actions those who have broken their oaths. I find it highly unlikely that the Queen would be complicit in the destruction of her own position and standing, and therefore at this time I cannot endorse the accusation. It is a requirement of law that motive for a crime be established. Since the law applies to the Monarch just as much as anyone else and the accusation of misconduct is a lawful argument, the law must be adhered to in the mounting of any form of prosecution. Clearly until the prosecution has clearly established motive the case cannot be heard.

we vote for the politicians who then in turn serve the queen. not the people.

Politicians only ever serve one person, themselves. This is a near universally understood principle, mentioned and referenced throughout popular literature and movie media.

For example;

Quote : "I'm a politician, and when I'm not kissing babies, I'm stealing their lollypops" - The Hunt for Red October.

See also the comedy shows, "Spitting Image" and "Yes, Minister".

the royals have not refused any parliament laws for over 300 years.

Correct. For over 3 centuries they have not meddled or interfered with the decisions made by the lawmakers and politicians in parliament through the accepted democratic process. I.E, they have not been dictatorial during that time.
It's only the last few decades when things appear to have really gone wrong.

they are snobbish, elitist and out of touch with modern day society.

Llewop, I'm sure, has never met or spent any time in the company of any of the Royal family, and I also sincerely doubt he would behave in their company as he does with others he has not already pre-judiciously condemned within his own mind. He claims they are out of touch with society, and yet offers no insight into what he believes an "in touch" Monarch would do.

its necessary for them to have a massive public relations team in order to keep the illusion up eg recently the queen attended a wedding of one of her subjects. nothing other than PR since it was plastered all over the media.

Everything the Royals do is always plastered all over the media, the Royals apparently HATE that fact, and William and Harry appear to hold a sincere wish for a normal life, as do many famous people with the exception of those who have narcissistic personality disorders, who crave constant attention and behave like spoilt children when they are upstaged by a new act. I see no reason to believe that the Royals also suffer from such needs or desires, since typically people with those problems have acquired them through traumatic experiences in childhood such as abusive parents or school bullies. Concluding they love media attention would be completely inconsistent with their behaviour, the way they sneak out of the back of buildings to avoid paparazzi, and the fact that Lady Diana lost her life apparently (but not for certainty), in a car accident speeding to get away from the media scum-bags who were hounding her every waking moment.

the monarchy is bad for democracy

In his own words on this very comment I am responding to, he just complained that the Royals have NOT interfered with the process of democracy for over 300 years, and now here he claims the monarchy is bad for democracy.

and also bad for our own money! the tax payer is forced to pay for the upkeep of the royal family (only slaves pay taxes!) and nothing of any value is shown to the very people who are forced to pay for the royal family lifestyle.

It has been calculated that the upkeep of the Royal family costs each person in the UK in the order of £3 annually. This figure would not be significantly reduced by the removal of the Monarchy in favour of a partisan President, since all of the diplomatic functions and state visits would remain on the schedule, as would the upkeep of the castles and palaces which are already owned by the public and not the Royals and which will fall into ruin if not maintained. The Queen basically lives in the countries biggest council house, check the facts if you do not believe this to be the case. A President would also receive a handsome salary, as would his entourage of staff and all of the people involved in the day to day running of his office.

The royals give parliament and the government power, the queen gives most of her power to the PM. this is done as a disguise... a smokescreen as it were... because if the queen made laws, the citizens nowadays would revolt. as it is, it is disguised in the fact that parliament make laws... but such laws are made not for the benefit of the british citizen, but are made for the benefit of the monarchy and to keep the entire family in a lifestyle to which they are accustomed.

In some countries of the world, for instance the United Arab Emirates, the political system is one of Absolute Monarchy. In that country the King directly controls the government and oddly enough (to people with no insight), during the Arab spring there was no uprising in the UAE. As a nation, the multicultural population made up of over 200 nationalities go about their lives in peace and harmony, and nearly universally admire the leadership of their King who has transformed their society from a primitive desert backwater into a bustling and prosperous modern society in a mere 40 years by ruling with wisdom and making laws which keep the peace and promote individual property rights and commerce. I heartily recommend visiting the place to see what a properly run lawful kingdom really looks like without the corrosive and destructive influence of the corrupt political class.

council tax, tax on your wages, all the stupid laws that nobody wants.... if such laws were to come from the royals, then most people wouldn't want the royal family. as it is, it is disguised in a way so that even though the queen does not make the laws, she benefits from such laws in the way the royal family is paid for through taxes.

I have no doubt that the majority of the people who read this will be aware that the vast majority of taxation collected goes directly to pay the ridiculously huge national debt which itself is an artefact of the viciously predatory and deceptive fiat currency banking system. Removing the Royals will not solve that problem. Failing to make our payments would be disastrous for the economy which supplies our material needs, and for the other economies which are locked into the same system with us who we owe billions of pounds to. It might even be considered an act of war.

If the Queen was to dissolve parliament and retake absolute sovereignty in the same fashion as the king of the UAE, we could massively slash the level of taxation whilst still retaining the key public services such as hospitals and fire-brigades, however doing that without the full backing of the people is likely to result in civil war, the execution of the Royals and the plunging of the country into the same sort of military dictatorship as existed the last time this sort of thing happened when Cromwell took over. The politicians would then have free reign on producing law, devoid of constitutional restraint and the rule of law, which would plunge us instantly back into a new dark ages undoing many centuries of progress. Only a complete fool or a lunatic would actively want a civil war to take place, as the cost in lives and people's livelyhood's would be staggering.

taxpayers can not fully see how much the royals cost since the royals are not under any obligation to provide this info.

Wrong, the accounts are public information.

there is a spin on the info that their total cost divided between every person in britain is quite cheap... yet this figure is questionable. government does not base its figures on the same way as the monarchy, showing that the monarchy kind of makes it up as it goes along, under secrecy and pretence.

Oh right yes... some secrecy, the information and a complete financial report for the 2010-2011 tax year can be found right here :

http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHousehold/Royalfinances/AnnualFinancialReports/Annualfinancialreports.aspx

It took all of 2 seconds to do a Google search for this information.

the monarchy is unelected. undemocratic. and totally unfair.

If the monarchy was elected they would be subject to the political whims of the electorate and therefore biased and partisan and completely unable to maintain the most important aspect of political neutrality.


In the UK, which is still one of the wealthiest nations in the world, the poverty line for a single adult with no children is considered to be around £124 per week, or about £17.71 per day. Over half the world's population, some 3 billion people live on less than $2.50 (£1.56) a day. It is an absolute sick joke to say that the poverty experienced by anyone in the UK is anything like the absolutely desperate situation endured by over half the worlds people. Globally around 5 million people starve to death each year, but here in the UK a single death by starvation would be headline news and result in a public enquiry.

As previously established the accounts for the expenses for the Royals are a matter of public record. If we are talking about lawful accountability that is a constitutional matter and the subject of the ongoing debate on the matter of treason, and if that case should be proven by law the Queen is accountable for her actions by the authority of her Oath.

there has never been a vote as to whether we want the monarchy or not.

Sure there was, right after Cromwell took over and showed the people what life is like without a Monarchy, the people DEMANDED it's return. They would do so again if it was removed, however since the politicians are very unlikely to put those constitutional handcuffs back on their wrists, restoring the Monarchy after having thrown it out of the pram with the rest of the toys will likely require another civil war against a military armed with 21st century weaponry on the digital battlefield.

the monarchy is essentially an unelected head of state. parliament are clearly puppets, with their suport for the queen.

The politicians are puppets, but their strings are being pulled by the Banksters not the Royals. The system of Oaths through which control over the politicians actions was traditionally maintained has fallen apart and become pretty much unenforceable over the centuries.

Part of treason act: any person whatsoever, within the United Kingdom or without devise or intend to deprive our most gracious Lady the Queen from the style, honor or Royal Name of the Imperial Crown of the United Kingdom

only one good thing about the monarchy is that it can use its powers to get everyone out of the awful mess imposed on us by parliament and the EU. but it would never do this because it is both parliament and the EU that is keeping the monarchy in a lifestyle to which its accustomed.

The EU does not give a hoot about the monarchy and is actively destroying it by requiring that Parliament create thousands of new legislations which are turning the people away from the Sovereign with the ultimate endgame goal of reducing parliament down to a local branch of the administrative power in Brussels, and the once proud United Kingdom to a mere province of the EU under the jackboot control of the unrestrained system of power in Brussels which is the creation of the bankster empire.... joy.

The real reason the Queen has not dissolved parliament is probably as stated above, the people have democratically elected representatives who decided to join it, and overriding them is counter-democratic and is likely to lead to civil war, something which the Queen is sworn to try avoid in the sake of maintaining the peace.

Right, stick a fork in me, I'm done.

[llewop]

its quite simple simon.

your last post says a lot of things, but says absolutely nothing that contradicts my post.

the monarchy came into power through battles. opression. modern day monarchy has given its power to parliament in an effort to create a smokescreen, ie - parliament now makes the laws so the subjects are given an illusion that everything is fair and just. but its not. members of parliament have to take an oath to support the monarchy.

now cant you see the irony there? we vote for lots of people - and these people support the monarchy and not the people who put them into power.

in your lengthy post, you attempt to criticise my post, but all you have done is confirm it to be correct.

Simon says:
This is yet another display of the idiocracy and mentally retarded view point adhered to by Llewop. In his own words on this very comment I am responding to, he just complained that the Royals have NOT interfered with the process of democracy for over 300 years, and now here he claims the monarchy is bad for democracy. This simpleton is clearly incapable of maintaining consistency of his arguments even across the spread of a few paragraphs.

again, its quite simple simon. the monarchy is bad for democracy since how can there be true democracy when the citizens who vote for the MPs are in the belief that the MPs will act for them, yet the reality is that the MPs have to take an oath to serve the queen - not the people. Now, if the MPs had to take an oath to serve the people and not the queen, then things would be quite different to what they are now.

Simon says:
It has been calculated that the upkeep of the Royal family costs each person in the UK in the order of £3 annually. This figure would not be significantly reduced by the removal of the Monarchy in favour of a partisan President, since all of the diplomatic functions and state visits would remain on the schedule, as would the upkeep of the castles and palaces which are already owned by the public and not the Royals and which will fall into ruin if not maintained. The Queen basically lives in the countries biggest council house, check the facts if you do not believe this to be the case. A President would also receive a handsome salary, as would his entourage of staff and all of the people involved in the day to day running of his office.

lol it has been calculated... calculated - not proof. infact, there is no proof since royal finances are a closely guarded secret and they are under no obligation to show the financial side of things.

Simon says:
The agents of the government do indeed serve The Queen, who herself bound by her coronation Oath is duty bound to uphold the Sovereignty of the British people in accordance with the law. She is constitutionally bound to this duty and she cannot break the law, nor is she above the law.

LOL so here we have the queen bound by her oath which is:
"Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?"
Can you not see the irony and unfairness in this oath?

"Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?"

This part of the oath uses religion, Anglican / Church Of England... How many other religions in UK are there?
How can it be said that the Queen is maintaining the laws of God when the Queen has the power to get rid of statute laws that go against the laws of God, yet the queen does not use such power? (Hint - if she used her power to get rid of certain laws, that would cause her and her family to not be kept in a lifestyle in which they are accustomed)


The queen / monarchy, in an attempt to cling onto their power has given the power to parliament. This is done IMO to keep the subjects under the illusion that they are being governed in a fair manner. Yet, more people are seeing that they are not being governed in a fair manner. The queens subjects (us) can vote for people to govern us, to make laws. However, the people we vote for take an oath to serve the monarchy, not serve the people.

In summary....

Simon says:
The real reason the Queen has not dissolved parliament is probably as stated above, the people have democratically elected representatives who decided to join it

The democratically elected representatives have to take an oath to SERVE or bear true allegiance to the monarchy, not the people....

So, the British system of democracy is to elect people who then have to serve the monarchy and not serve the people that elected them in the first place.

Without the monarchy, there would be a possibility of a true democracy whereby the people who are voted into power have to serve the people who voted for them - and not serve some out of touch, elitist and unelected head of state, aka the monarchy

[dukes4monny]

In the UK we have a Parliamentary Democracy (an oxymoron?). Democracy literally means 'majority rule' but through the Parliamentary system this actually equates to 'minority rule'.
What is needed is a 'Direct Democracy' system which is perfectly feasible nowadays with most people having access to the internet.
Parliaments role would be to publicly debate topics given to them by the electorate and to monitor the voting procedures for robustness.

A figurehead was traditionally an ornamental figure fixed at the prow of a ship. The queen is simply a figurehead. Modern ships do not have one.

PS. I know that we will never have a Direct Democracy system because Parliament likes the power it has. As Terence Mckenna said "We are lead by the least amongst us"

[HVYMTL]

There hasn't been a democracy in history which has succeeded in not collapsing into a despotic tyranny, through the simple and direct action of the public voting for what they actually want, and not what actually keeps society stable in the long term.

If we concede that monarchy has failed, because oaths without stern penalties being applied for breaking them are toothless, and we acknowledge history to see that both democracy and republicanism are recipes for the rise of corporatist tyranny empire, then what is needed is a completely new paradigm.

I'm open to hearing suggestions as to how exactly such a new paradigm would work. The best I've heard is from Stephan Moleneux of freedomain radio. His design for anarchism at least sounds plausible, but there is no way in hell I would ever subscribe the either the notion of representative democracy without constitutional restraints, or direct democracy (aka communism) since both of these are so completely and tragically flawed we would be better off with no political system what so ever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbLjwVZEYyU

[HVYMTL]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvKIWjnEPNY

[HVYMTL]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ

[HVYMTL]

your last post says a lot of things, but says absolutely nothing that contradicts my post.

I contradicted nearly everything you said.

the monarchy came into power through battles.

True, the struggle to establish the rule of law lasted thousands of years and was long and hard battle. Prior to that mankind existed in a state of primitive savage and chaotic anarchy for approximately 175,000 years, warlike tribes like the Vikings and Vizigoths raped looted and pillaged the land with impunity, before the dawning of civilisation which came about through many hard battles, uprisings, rebellions and wars. Millions and millions of people fought and died to bring about the state of things which you not only take for granted, but also reject because it doesn't suit you. You insult and defame everyone who has ever stood for what is right and just .

opression.

In medieval times people didn't stop to argue, they did whatever wanted or believed was right, including destroying anything or anyone that stood in their way. Back then there was little difference between any given warring tribe, anyone with access to sufficient resources of iron and other metals and the knowledge to forge it into weapons, built empires using those resources and knowledge. The very early ancient kings of this island were no different at all from any other chieftains of medieval groups which established dominance in the early dark ages after the fall of the Roman Empire. They were brutal, primitive and savage, they lived in a dark lawless time of kill or be killed, dominate or be dominated. It's very easy to look down on them now from our vantage point of living in a peaceful society under the rule of law, as primitive savage killers bent on supremacy, but judging them by the standards of their times they were no different and behaved no differently to any other group which knew the secret of forging iron into steel.

modern day monarchy has given its power to parliament in an effort to create a smokescreen, ie - parliament now makes the laws so the subjects are given an illusion that everything is fair and just. but its not. members of parliament have to take an oath to support the monarchy.

You have no idea how Parliament came to be formed do you?

In 1066, William of Normandy introduced a feudal system, by which he sought the advice of a council of tenants-in-chief and ecclesiastics before making laws. In 1215, the tenants-in-chief secured Magna Carta from King John, which established that the king might not levy or collect any taxes (except the feudal taxes to which they were hitherto accustomed), save with the consent of his royal council, which gradually developed into a parliament.

Over the centuries, the English Parliament progressively limited the power of the English monarchy which arguably culminated in the English Civil War and the trial and execution of Charles I in 1649. After the restoration of the monarchy under Charles II, the supremacy of parliament was a settled principle and all future English and later British sovereigns were restricted to the role of constitutional monarchs with limited executive authority. The Act of Union 1707 merged the English Parliament with the Parliament of Scotland to form the Parliament of Great Britain. When the Parliament of Ireland was abolished in 1801, its former members were merged into what was now called the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

Under a monarchical system of government, the monarch usually must consult and seek a measure of acceptance for his policies if he is to enjoy the broad cooperation of his subjects. Early Kings of England had no standing army or police, and so depended on the support of powerful subjects. The monarchy had agents in every part of the country. However, under the feudal system that evolved in England following the Norman Conquest of 1066, the laws of the Crown could not have been upheld without the support of the nobility and the clergy. The former had economic and military power bases of their own through major ownership of land and the feudal obligations of their tenants (some of whom held lands on condition of military service). The Church - then still part of the Roman Catholic Church and so owing ultimate loyalty to Rome - was virtually a law unto itself in this period as it had its own system of religious law courts.
In order to seek consultation and consent from the nobility and the senior clergy on major decisions, post-1066 English monarchs called Great Councils. A typical Great Council would consist of archbishops, bishops, abbots, barons and earls, the pillars of the feudal system.

When this system of consultation and consent broke down it often became impossible for government to function effectively. The two most notorious examples of this prior to the reign of Henry III are Thomas Becket and King John.
Becket, who was Archbishop of Canterbury between 1162 and 1170, was murdered following a long running dispute with Henry II over the jurisdiction of the Church. John, who was king from 1199 to 1216, aroused such hostility from many leading nobles that they forced him to agree to Magna Carta in 1215. John's refusal to adhere to this charter led to civil war.

The Great Council evolved into the Parliament of England. The term itself came into use during the early 13th century, deriving from the Latin and French words for discussion and speaking. The word first appears in official documents in the 1230s. As a result of the work by historians G. O. Sayles and H. G. Richardson, it is widely believed that the early parliaments had a judicial as well as a legislative function.

Initially, parliaments were mostly summoned when the king needed to raise money through taxes. Following Magna Carta this became a convention. This was due in no small part to the fact that King John died in 1216 and was succeeded by his young son Henry III. Leading nobles and clergymen governed on Henry's behalf until he came of age, giving them a taste of power that they were not going to relinquish. Among other things, they ensured that Magna Carta was reissued by the young king.

Once the infancy of Henry III ended and he took full control of the government of his kingdom, many leading nobles became increasingly concerned at his style of government, specifically his unwillingness to consult them on the decisions he took and his perceived willingness to bestow patronage upon his foreign relatives in preference to his native subjects. Henry's decision to support a disastrous papal invasion of Sicily was the last straw. In 1258, seven leading barons forced Henry to agree and swear an oath to the Provisions of Oxford, which effectively abolished the absolutist Anglo-Norman monarchy, giving power to a council of fifteen barons to deal with the business of government and providing for a thrice-yearly meeting of parliament to monitor their performance. Parliament assembled six times between June 1258 and April 1260, its most notable gathering being the Oxford Parliament of 1258.

The French-born noble Simon de Montfort emerged as the leader of this characteristically English rebellion. In the following years, those supporting Montfort and those supporting the king grew more and more polarised. Henry obtained a papal bull in 1263 exempting him from his oath and both sides began to raise armies. At the Battle of Lewes on 14 May 1264, Henry was defeated and taken prisoner by Montfort's army. However, many of the nobles who had initially supported Montfort began to suspect that he had gone too far with his reforming zeal. His support amongst the nobility rapidly declined. So in 1264, Montfort summoned the first parliament in English history without any prior royal authorisation. The archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls and barons were summoned, as were two knights from each shire and two burgesses from each borough. Knights had been summoned to previous councils, but the representation of the boroughs was unprecedented. This was purely a move to consolidate Montfort's position as the legitimate governor of the kingdom, since he had captured Henry and his son Prince Edward (later Edward I) at the Battle of Lewes.

A parliament consisting of representatives of the realm was the logical way for Montfort to establish his authority. In calling this parliament, in a bid to gain popular support, he summoned knights and burgesses from the emerging gentry class, thus turning to his advantage the fact that most of the nobility had abandoned his movement. This parliament was summoned on 14 December 1264. It first met on 20 January 1265 in Westminster Hall[1] and was dissolved on 15 February 1265. It is not certain who actually turned up to this parliament. Nonetheless, Montfort's scheme was formally adopted by Edward I in the so-called "Model Parliament" of 1295. The attendance at parliament of knights and burgesses historically became known as the summoning of "the Commons", a term derived from the Norman French word "commune", literally translated as the "community of the realm".

Following Edward's escape from captivity, Montfort was defeated and killed at the Battle of Evesham in 1265. Henry's authority was restored and the Provisions of Oxford were forgotten, but this was nonetheless a turning point in the history of the Parliament of England. Although he was not obliged by statute to do so, Henry summoned the Commons to parliament three times between September 1268 and April 1270. However, this was not a significant turning point in the history of parliamentary democracy. Subsequently, very little is known about how representatives were selected because, at this time, being sent to parliament was not a prestigious undertaking. But Montfort's decision to summon knights and burgesses to his parliament did mark the irreversible emergence of the gentry class as a force in politics. From then on, monarchs could not ignore them, which explains Henry's decision to summon the Commons to several of his post-1265 parliaments.

Even though many nobles who had supported the Provisions of Oxford remained active in English politics throughout Henry's reign, the conditions they had laid down for regular parliaments were largely forgotten, as if to symbolise the historical development of the English Parliament via convention rather than statutes and written constitutions.

There is far more to the story, which can easily be found by doing a Google search and reading. Suffice to say that once established Parliament has successively taken more and more control away from the Monarch, seeking for itself to be in the position of absolute sovereignty, without the constraints that Constitutional Monarchy, places upon it. The final step in the process will be to get the people to demand by popular vote that the Monarchy be dissolved, and along with it the system of Oaths and duties which have served as part of the system of checks and balances throughout the length of time parliament has existed so far. Once that is removed, parliament will have complete executive power, complete control of the courts and will be answerable to no one. The path will then be open for a would be dictator to take office and never leave, and be beyond the reach of the people and the law, remaining dictator until removed by violent revolution.

Adolf Hitler was democratically elected to power, never forget that.

now cant you see the irony there? we vote for lots of people - and these people support the monarchy and not the people who put them into power.

No,

If I was only having the conversation with you, then I would of written off trying to explain anything to you a long time ago, however there are others who are reading, and it is for their contemplation and enlightenment to truth and reality that I continue to engage in this "discussion".

again, its quite simple simon. the monarchy is bad for democracy since how can there be true democracy when the citizens who vote for the MPs are in the belief that the MPs will act for them, yet the reality is that the MPs have to take an oath to serve the queen - not the people. Now, if the MPs had to take an oath to serve the people and not the queen, then things would be quite different to what they are now.

Your concept of true democracy is a recipe for disaster, you would know that if you had studied history at all.

Once again, let's do your homework for you... (this thread is becoming a remedial political theory class for llewop lol)

Democracy was created in ancient Athens over 2500 years ago, it has proven itself to be an extremely volatile and unstable way to organise a society, such that great effort has to be undertaken to keep as much of the principle of democracy in place as possible, whilst restraining it's pure action with a system of checks and balances, because the pure action of democracy inevitably leads to class warfare, civil unrest and the destruction of any society which tries it. There have been many societies which have gone that route, and it has always failed miserably resulting in the destruction of the society and massive casualties in both life and property.

Republics and Constitutional Monarchies are two methods which are implemented to try and keep democracy on the straight and narrow, each has their own strengths and weaknesses. Republics in their early days are the best places to live and are the most egalitarian, however over time they have historically always eventually collapsed into Empires.

Constitutional Monarchy is, once again historically speaking, the most reliable, stable and long term way to organise a society which implements the core tenets of democracy whilst also providing a basis for the rule of law and the restraint of democracy.

lol it has been calculated... calculated - not proof. infact, there is no proof since royal finances are a closely guarded secret and they are under no obligation to show the financial side of things.

I gave a direct link to the published accounts. Parliament knows EXACTLY how much it pays the monarchy through the civil lists, this is not secret information it is right there in public display.

LOL so here we have the queen bound by her oath which is:
"Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?"
Can you not see the irony and unfairness in this oath?

No, infact it is a rare thing indeed in this world that a leader of a people takes such an honourable pledge. Throughout history most rulers have dominated their subjects with the simple methodology of having superior fire power. Clearly your brain is not sufficiently refined to understand the difference between a Constitutional Monarch, and a blood thirsty vicious dictatorial emperor.

"Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?"

This part of the oath uses religion, Anglican / Church Of England... How many other religions in UK are there?
How can it be said that the Queen is maintaining the laws of God when the Queen has the power to get rid of statute laws that go against the laws of God, yet the queen does not use such power?

As you yourself pointed out no monarch has exercised that right in over 300 years, because the last time they meddled with the power thirst of parliament the King's head rolled for it. Without the will of the people to support the action it cannot be taken, and whilst the majority of the people are still voting for the main political parties, the main political parties will remain in control.

(Hint - if she used her power to get rid of certain laws, that would cause her and her family to not be kept in a lifestyle in which they are accustomed)

If the Queen had the backing of the people and was successful in dissolving parliament without losing her head, then She would be immensely more powerful and wealthy as a result. The Royals, as John's affidavit suggests, are LOCKED in a guilded cage, the bars are made out of the strongest substance known to man; the people's ignorance.

The queen / monarchy, in an attempt to cling onto their power has given the power to parliament.
This is done IMO to keep the subjects under the illusion that they are being governed in a fair manner. Yet, more people are seeing that they are not being governed in a fair manner. The queens subjects (us) can vote for people to govern us, to make laws. However, the people we vote for take an oath to serve the monarchy, not serve the people.

Read and study some history it is the only way you will understand the reality of the situation and become qualified to give a reasoned and logical opinion on it. Unless or until you do that, your doing nothing at all to help the situation and you are in fact contributing, in a very small and largely pointless way, to the cause of the treasonous scum that have screw us over.

So, the British system of democracy is to elect people who then have to serve the monarchy and not serve the people that elected them in the first place.

Without the monarchy, there would be a possibility of a true democracy whereby the people who are voted into power have to serve the people who voted for them - and not serve some out of touch, elitist and unelected head of state, aka the monarchy

Once again, you put the concept of "true" democracy up on a pedestal as if it is some all signing all dancing solution to everything, when that is the exact opposite of the truth.
It's just a shame that your far to far gone down the rabbit hole to actually take on board anything I am saying. I say it merely for those others who may read this who actually do have the ability to see the truth and understand actual cold hard reality where things like "facts" are the only reasonable basis for arguments.

[llewop]

simon, all my facts are displayed in the relevant posts. you can not assume that your opinions are correct as they are just that, opinions.
The only argument you seemed to have gone against is the royal finances.. so ill explain how this is shrouded in secrecy. they are not under any obligation to disclose the complete system of finance, the only disclosure is what it costs each individual, i think 62p a year. but that figure doesnt take into account what local councils pay for them, their security. they also receive money from property to which they believe is theirs (fought by war and violence in history) yet, this should be national property and not the property of a family who have secured it through violence. again, the figures do not take into account property that is given to the monarchy on the death of a british citizen, eg - if someone does not leave a legally binding will, then the property assets is given to the monarchy. most people know that government figures and statistics are twisted to suit the government, the same with the monarchy.

[HVYMTL]

Ho Hum, at least others reading the thread will have had the chance to hear a reasoned argument.
If anyone want's to debate based on facts, and has any ideas how important things like the rule of law and the system of checks and balances can be implemented without the monarchy and without ending up going down the same road as America, then please do feel free to contribute, I'm all ears tbh.

[HVYMTL]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hi_G9k64deQ