National Anthem

[supsim96]

Who can see themselves singing:

God save our gracious King!
Long live our noble King!
God save the King!

when old "Chuck" makes it to the top job?

[one eyed jack]

Not me!

I dont sing

...and why not? Would he be any worse than our beloved Queen?

Of course not. Its not as if they walk around town ordering the lopping of of heads is it?

The Royal Family are alright in my book

[jj]

one eyed jack wrote:
> The Royal Family are alright in my book

They're better than the alternative.
President Blair, anyone?

Mind you, the lyrics could do with a bit less of the old 'forelock'
stuff- look at the way the German anthem has been altered [i.e.
dragged into the 21st c.].

[spider]

You always hear this arguement that the Royal inbreeds are better than President Blair, President Thatcher, Coe, Hague etc.

The thing is though that with Blair, Thatcher, Coe, Hague etc, etc if they don't cut the mustard they get the big E after five years.

With the Windsor mob we are stuck with them, and their children and their children's children for ever and ever amen.

[jj]

Better the devil you know, true. It's a case of a weak cause against
a worse. 'Small c' conservatism is sometimes our only defence against
irreparable social damage.

Consider: Blair as a president, with absolute power over our
constitution- what's to stop him changing same, and making himself
president-for-life? See Russia for a recent, pernicious attempt...
now that the monarchy has been strippped of any real power it seems
to me a relatively small price to pay to prevent a dictatorship, or,
God help us, a US-style system which [see Ted Kennedy this week;
the Bushes and Clintons, all the time] already exhibits disturbing
signs of dynastic ambition.

[Sam Slater]

And remember, you go to almost any other country in the world and they know her as 'The Queen'. Not 'The British Queen' but 'THE Queen'. If a Russian tells a Japanese man that he's going to see 'The Queen', the Japanese man doesn't have to ask which one. And neither are, or ever have been, commonwealth nations.

Says a lot really.

[spider]

Sam, you quote Thomas Paine.

Didn't he have a view on the right to be able to elect your head of state ?

[Sam Slater]

I'm in no way suggesting the Queen have more powers than she currently has. My post was just to point out that on an international scale the Royal Family can be influential and helpful.

I've no problem with becoming a republic but we'd need a written constitution like the US to protect us from Russian-style presidents.

As for the royals: Again, they can be helpful to the nation and be it PMs or Presidents, I don't think the general public have much to gain by ridding ourselves of the monarchy. We don't live our lives around them and so what's the problem?