Would the Dutch/Swedish/English or the Danish accept a black king?

Or you can just look at the standard of living index. All the worst countries are not monarchies, most of the best ones are.

 

I don't care about skin colour. Not one little bit.

 

they're not democratic because they're constitutional monarchies, but they're democratic and constitutional monarchies because they're been historically successfull and stable. get my point? maintaining a monarchy signals that the country has been managed well through out history, that (*)(*)(*)(*) never hit the fan so that they had to go through a bloody revolution to get a president. and because of this success and stability they tend to be democratic also.

 

I agree with you.

 

jolly good then!

 

BS, france or USA is just as stable and democratic as any monarchy.

Kings in western countries dont rule anymore, havent done for a very longtime. At best they might have some influence, but this is more a cause for instability then aything else.

 

Constitutional monarchy and I wouldnt call Cambodia, Lesotho, bhutan,... such great countries

 

you went dutch on being Dutch?

 

France is certainly NOT as stable as "ány monarchy'' France has had 5 separate republics since 1789 due to massive instability -the last was in 1956
the USA has not even lasted 250 years. WHen you have done 1000 years then please come back and show off how stable you are

- - - Updated - - -

Yes -constitutional monarchy.

As for Cambodia its (*)(*)(*)(*) because anti monarchist Khymer rouge over threw the monarchy and (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up the state and now they are trying to recover. Bhutan is an excellent little country

 

Not historically, which you'd understand if you'd try to understand my position. Had francebeen stable and successful it would still have been a monarchy. The US, is a different matter because it rebelled against the UK. But that's more a failure on behla fof the UK; had they managed things better the US would just be part of the commonwealth today, like canada, still under the crown. I'll add that this isn't about monarchy per se, but continiuity and conservatism. It often tends to be monarchy because most old countries started out that way, but the US, starting as a republic, is seen as successful because it has kept it's republic.

K? Have I ever said it matters?

- - - Updated - - -

Evidently, as they have managed to keep their old forms of government, which requires stability and a level of success and stability, I'd bet that they're better off than their nieghbors, or atleast have historically been. Bhutan is worse off than india, but they did on the other hand not get colonised like india did. (and if they did it was a much looser protectorate agreement). Get me point?

 

In the case of Britain, it represents a continuation of the class system. We're subjects, not citizens. Can that be stabilising? I suppose so. Its "know your place" stuff. However, one can achieve the same thing with advertising and the lottery

 

Except that you can't. The magic lies with the king/queen having royal blood and a descendant of some fancy guy that lived hundreds of years ago. A lottery takes away that.

 

Its about compliance dear boy. The idea of royalty can keep the working class rabble at bay. If they buy the ponce and prance they will accept the situation (and ignore, for example, royal land ownership to the detriment of the British peoples). However, US shows the alternative (i.e. the fake American Dream). It would be easily achieved in a republic

 

No, not really. it's about having a neutral figurehead that binds the nation together in a way that an elected official cannot, and which binds them together with their past.

Some deep thinking going on here I see. Don't let me bother you.

 

Cobblers! Beckham bound the nation more. Oasis versus Blur bound the nation more. A class ridden country needs a figure to serve.

Bother me? Who are you?

 

Be under no allusion if they can murder princess Diana, there will never be a Muslim, black or any other than a wasp king or queen of England.

Regards
Highlander

 

Frankly it sounds like a good premise for a Tyler Perry movie.

Queen Madea anyone?

 

How can a Muslim become the British monarch? The British monarch is Supreme Governor of the Church of England (the Head of the Church of England is Jesus Christ) so, obviously, the British monarch has to be Church of England.

I don't want a Muslim - or anyone who isn't Church of England - to be Head of the Church of England.

 

Bhutan was an Absolute Monarch until very recently when it became a Constitutional Monarchy.

Cambodia was a republic when the Khmer Rouge were in power and, since they have gone, it's now a Constitutional Monarchy. So what does that tell you?

 

The British are citizens, not subjects, and haven't been subjects since 1983.

On 1 January 1983, upon the coming into force of the British Nationality Act 1981, every Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies became either a British Citizen, British Dependent Territories Citizen or British Overseas Citizen.

The use of the term "British subject" was discontinued for all persons who fell into these categories, or who had a national citizenship of any other part of the Commonwealth. The category of "British subjects" now includes only those people formerly known as "British subjects without citizenship" and people born in Ireland before 1949 (when Ireland, which seceded from the UK in 1922 - except Northern Ireland, which is still part of the UK, of course - became a republic). In statutes passed before 1 January 1983, however, references to "British subjects" continue to be read as if they referred to "Commonwealth citizens".

British Citizens are not British Subjects under the 1981 Act. The only circumstance where a person may be both a British Subject and British citizen simultaneously is a case where a British Subject connected with Ireland (s. 31 of the 1981 Act) acquires British citizenship by naturalisation or registration. In this case only, British Subject status is not lost upon acquiring British citizenship.

The status of British Subject cannot now be transmitted by descent, and will become extinct when all existing British Subjects are dead.

British Subjects, other than by those who obtained their status by virtue of a connection to the Republic of Ireland prior to 1949, automatically lose their British Subject status on acquiring any other nationality, including British citizenship, under section 35 of the British Nationality Act 1981.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_subject#After_1983

 

I'm going with the obvious: a class-based monarchy system is subject based. Glad to see that you're convinced otherwise mind you. Mind you, makes me want to pat you on the head and say "there there"

 

That is because mere facts never convince an ideological leftist.

 

class based? please do elaborate on that. what laws puts any heed to your class? apart from tje onbvious welfare directed at poor people of course. and evwn if it wasclassbased that woulnt in itself make it subject based

 

Check out the social immobility (obviously created through a history of wealth inequality, coupled to a neo-liberal long term stance engineered to maximise economic rents from the workers)

 

So you obviously haven't read my post on the British Nationality Act 1981 which states that Britons are citizens, not subjects.

Why don't you go to post number 45 and read it?