Well, yes. I was writing specifically about his impact on England - perhaps I should have been clearer. I don’t think what I said detracts from that. In any case, Cromwell was not the only person committing atrocities in Ireland; I daresay they would have taken place under a different Lord Protector.
A bushel of the craic. Also we get the BBC without paying for it. Booyah!
Could you not find a better one?
While it is true that Noraid raised most of their money in the US, they also were present in Britain. No question.
I would say that any money they raised in Britain was from people who were doing exactly what you say no one was.
I think part of the problem over here is the idea that although most in the UK support the monarchy ans almost everyone loves the Queen, we keep hearing the the day she oversteps her bounds by actually doing something like withholding Royal Assent on A Bill Requiring Recompence of Purloined Pussies she’d be out on her arse in a heartbeat. Seems kind of dichotomous to us Colonists.
Royal Assent still serves a purpose, but it’s no longer anything like the presidential veto in the US, which is where I think the confusion lies. We no longer expect the Queen to refuse Assent, unless, say, it were an Act that undermined the democratic nature of the constitution (such as, say, doing away with regular elections, or allowing the government to set tax without the consent of the Commons).
Royal Assent has instead evolved on a day to day basis as a means of certification, really - it signifies that said Act has been through due process and passed all the proper procedures in Parliament, and is therefore given the force of law. A bit like a director signing off on a project.
If the Queen ever forget the day to day purpose of Royal Assent, and tried to use it like a presidential veto, then we’d eject her.
I think some UK posters in this thread have overstated the degree of reverence in which the monarch is held. The truth is that, for most British people, the monarchy, royalty and all that are of little consequence. Expressing a dislike for the queen is no more unusual or controversial than a US citizen criticising the president, except that a US president is also a political figure, and so takes the flak that is delegated to the prime minister in the British system.
There is, however, widespread support in the UK for the institution of monarchy, but only on the current model, of a head of state who represents the nation but is apolitical. The idea of the monarch being involved in decision making, let alone actually vetoing bills that have been approved by parliament, is alien to the way the people view the role of the monarch. The monarch is a figurehead, no more, no less.
It’s a super, duper, emergency thing. Like if Hitler tried to come to power.
Were assent refused, then the government of the day would be rendered entirely illegitimate. Of course were it tyrannical enough then that is not going to stop it but it completely prevents stealth tyranny (except of the usual kinds such as tax).
Furthermore please be aware that the monarch and those in line to the throne do a LOT behind the scenes. There is currently a big foo fa about FOI requests to see what Prince Charles said to ministers during a certain period of time. I say certain period of time because when it became clear what he was writing was subject to the FOI, at least potentially, the act was modified. So we still have these letters from that period of time with very much argy-bargy going on - to the extent that government ministers used the opportunity to overrule the courts.
Plenty about it if you want to google, almost none of it remotely objective.
You mean whiskey? We’ve got some nice stuff ourselves from the north coast. Although apparently that’s “protestant” whiskey and according to America I should feel as bad for drinking that as Catholics here said I should be for going to school with protestants :rolleyes:
The Irish, north and south. I sure don’t hold the property title… and it’s not my fault if distinguishing different "you"s is a bitch in English.
Sorry, my fault, I just don’t tend to eye up people with their ethnic purity in mind. Which Irish is it? The Irish up North don’t seem to be quite the same Irish I see on the TV down south, or when I go to the North West to buy petrol.
Not sure I’m so keen on either type to be honest.
Agreed. There are quite a few people in line to the throne: Succession to the British throne - Wikipedia
This Wiki article on British republicanism might be of interest: Republicanism in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia. See the section “21st century.”
I like Blackbush but the standard Bushmills is pretty harsh going by Mexican standards. It’s like a cross between an Irish and Scottish whiskey in flavour imho. A Dal Riata? 
I only ever heard of that Protestant whiskey thing from The Wire. It was a pretty funny line. Bushmills has been calling itself Irish (whatever that means ) for centuries as far as I can see.
Yes.
The interesting bit in the second link is the list of supporters of the abolition of the Monarchy. Looking at that list I absolutely convinced the Monarchy must be a GOOD THING. If Tony Benn, Michael Mansfield, and Will Self are against it I’ve got to be in favour 
Sorry, but I take issue with the idea that when I move to a country I am no longer allowed any critical thought about that country. I come from one monarchy (The Netherlands) and have lived in another (the UK) and am strongly against the two groups of upper-class eejits who call themselves the monarchy having as much as a nominal say in either place. For the record, I’ve also lived in two republics (Ireland and Italy) and have rather a lot to say about how those were governed too.
A country is never a homogeneous hive mind of one opinion and even within a country the natives might disagree and they might also benefit from an outsider offering a different perspective. I don’t believe in anyone teaching hatred and I always aim to discuss things in a reasonable way, but I don’t think the right to an opinion on any given topic should depend on where you come from.
Feeling on this subject divides largely on party lines here. If you hold conservative views, you are for monarchy. You don’t get Conservative republicans here.
I don’t think that’s strictly true. I haven’t got any specifics but I have encountered a fair number of anti-monarchist (or even just not caring) conservatives. One in particular was hateful of the monarchy as an example of contradicting meritocracy.
There’s also plenty of leftwing monarchists. Many of the classic leftwing politicians were quite proud of the monarchy, and even George Orwell had kind things to say about it.
No sorry me old mucker you’re completely wrong.
We wouldn’t consider slagging off the Queen as inoffensive as as an American slagging off the President.
As I said earlier you’d to have to be a very brave man indeed to try slagging her off in any public place.
As there seems to be some confusion about the Queens role as head of state, I’ll expand.
The monarch is the nearest thing that you can get as an “Honest Broker”, any where in world politics.
Independantly wealthy, with every noble title you can think of and holding high military ranks, she can not be bribed with money, position or power.
OR with the threat of losing her position by politicians wheeling and dealing.
She is not a member of any political party, is not allowed to be and is not allowed to express any political opinions, or campaign for anyone.
When a bill goes through Parliamentary process it only becomes law when the monarch signs it.
The monarch does not refuse to sign it because of her/his opinions or on whimsy.
If a government decided to stay in power after losing an election, or didn’t call for elections within the customary period,or called a State of Emergency for no good reason, or decided to do something radical that wasn’t in their election manifesto, like nationalising the banks, or putting all Jehovahs Witnesses in work camps etc
Then the Leader of the opposition would go to the Queen , the Queen would consult with constitutional lawyers, and then dissolve Parliament until elections had been held.
The Queen then effectively goes on strike.
She will not give Royal Assent to ANY bill put before her until a new government has been elected.
This means that Civil Servants will not be punished individually or in groups for failing to put the bill through process, members of the Inland Revenue will not institute new taxes, H.M. Customs will not collect new duties, the Police will not enforce new laws, or the Armed Forces engage in new military actions, all without any of them being subjected to any form of disciplinary action, individually or as a a group, until a government voted for in free and fair elections with a secret ballot has been elected and THEN put the bill/s though the Parliamentary process.
The beauty of the system is, that as politicians, high or low are fully aware of this, nobody even bothers to try and usurp the democratic process.
Whats the point of stealing a gold bar if you know that its going to turn to dust in your hands ?