Starkey vs the Queen

Hi all,

I've been away for some time, and I hope everyone has had a fantastic
Christmas. I'm afraid the nearest thing I got to Ricardiana in my
stocking was a DVD of That Play. . . .

On to lighter matters. About a week ago I read in one of the tabloids
over here that our old 'friend' David Starkey had launched a verbal
attack on the Queen as uneducated and in some sense resembling one of
Hitler's cronies (don't ask me now which one it was, but apparently
he attributed the quotation to the wrong Nazi, just showing the
cracks in his own education).
Anyway, why? Because when he showed the Queen round the exhbition for
the 400th anniversary of the death of his heroine/ gay icon,
Elizabeth I, she didn't show a lot of interest. And apparently HRM
committed the cardinal sin of telling DS she didn't really identify
with her Tudor ancestors and didn't feel she had much in common with
Elizabeth I, 'who had no husband, no family and ruled like a despot'.

I know there will be arguments about Elizabeth I, but I for one was
rather heartened to discover that the current monarch is not entirely
of the Tudor persuasion.
And, if Queen Elizabeth II isn't as well educated as David Starkey,
she is a good deal more polite. I hope she snatches back his CBE.
Elizabeth I would probably have snatched off his head, so perhaps
that would be his preferred option.

I for one am a great Tudor/Elizabethan l person. I have no use whatsoever for any of the present royal family. I am also now growing more in my knowledge of The Plantagenet family, (Richard lll and such) and have a great respect them also. They were all rulers in their own right, The present family are only wealthy figureheads in mine eyes and not worthy of their titles. I have enough room in my heart to enjoy the English Royalty of the past, and not to put the others down, with exception of the presant day family. I enjoy reading and learning about them all.

mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote: Hi all,

I've been away for some time, and I hope everyone has had a fantastic
Christmas. I'm afraid the nearest thing I got to Ricardiana in my
stocking was a DVD of That Play. . . .

On to lighter matters. About a week ago I read in one of the tabloids
over here that our old 'friend' David Starkey had launched a verbal
attack on the Queen as uneducated and in some sense resembling one of
Hitler's cronies (don't ask me now which one it was, but apparently
he attributed the quotation to the wrong Nazi, just showing the
cracks in his own education).
Anyway, why? Because when he showed the Queen round the exhbition for
the 400th anniversary of the death of his heroine/ gay icon,
Elizabeth I, she didn't show a lot of interest. And apparently HRM
committed the cardinal sin of telling DS she didn't really identify
with her Tudor ancestors and didn't feel she had much in common with
Elizabeth I, 'who had no husband, no family and ruled like a despot'.

I know there will be arguments about Elizabeth I, but I for one was
rather heartened to discover that the current monarch is not entirely
of the Tudor persuasion.
And, if Queen Elizabeth II isn't as well educated as David Starkey,
she is a good deal more polite. I hope she snatches back his CBE.
Elizabeth I would probably have snatched off his head, so perhaps
that would be his preferred option.






---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.

norma vieweg wrote:

>I for one am a great Tudor/Elizabethan l person. I have no use whatsoever for any of the present royal family. I am also now growing more in my knowledge of The Plantagenet family, (Richard lll and such) and have a great respect them also. They were all rulers in their own right, The present family are only wealthy figureheads in mine eyes and not worthy of their titles. I have enough room in my heart to enjoy the English Royalty of the past, and not to put the others down, with exception of the presant day family. I enjoy reading and learning about them all.
>
>
**I must be somewhere in the middle. :-) I don't hate or love the
present family; they seem to be what the English people want so more
power to them. But, of course, my favorite are the Plantagenets,
Richard, of course again, leading the list. And while there's much of
Elizabeth I to admire, I loathe both her father and grandfather.

Gilda

>mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote: Hi all,
>
>I've been away for some time, and I hope everyone has had a fantastic
>Christmas. I'm afraid the nearest thing I got to Ricardiana in my
>stocking was a DVD of That Play. . . .
>
>On to lighter matters. About a week ago I read in one of the tabloids
>over here that our old 'friend' David Starkey had launched a verbal
>attack on the Queen as uneducated and in some sense resembling one of
>Hitler's cronies (don't ask me now which one it was, but apparently
>he attributed the quotation to the wrong Nazi, just showing the
>cracks in his own education).
>Anyway, why? Because when he showed the Queen round the exhbition for
>the 400th anniversary of the death of his heroine/ gay icon,
>Elizabeth I, she didn't show a lot of interest. And apparently HRM
>committed the cardinal sin of telling DS she didn't really identify
>with her Tudor ancestors and didn't feel she had much in common with
>Elizabeth I, 'who had no husband, no family and ruled like a despot'.
>
>I know there will be arguments about Elizabeth I, but I for one was
>rather heartened to discover that the current monarch is not entirely
>of the Tudor persuasion.
>And, if Queen Elizabeth II isn't as well educated as David Starkey,
>she is a good deal more polite. I hope she snatches back his CBE.
>Elizabeth I would probably have snatched off his head, so perhaps
>that would be his preferred option.
>
>
>
>

Please don't include all of us English in that!

I believe Starky is pals with the Prince of Wales so he should get
his knighthood one day.

But really, if the Queen was a complete Moron would we know it?
Since they never give proper interviews and are served by an army of
spin doctors for their public appearances it's difficult to judge
what the Oldenbergs, sorry "Windsors" are really like.

Personally I've nothing against them as people would prefer a
Republic as I think the quality of politicians would improve from
it's present all-time low. The present system encourages and rewards
sycophancy and sterility.

Many people are still in awe of Royalty however; it's less than 100
years ago that the majority of British citizens believed that the
King was descended from God. Many Freemasons seem to hold this view
today, if you accept that Jesus was the son of God (literally as
opposed to the original Judaic meaning).

--- In , Gilda Felt
<gildaevf@...> wrote:
>
> norma vieweg wrote:
>
> >I for one am a great Tudor/Elizabethan l person. I have no use
whatsoever for any of the present royal family. I am also now
growing more in my knowledge of The Plantagenet family, (Richard lll
and such) and have a great respect them also. They were all rulers
in their own right, The present family are only wealthy figureheads
in mine eyes and not worthy of their titles. I have enough room in
my heart to enjoy the English Royalty of the past, and not to put
the others down, with exception of the presant day family. I enjoy
reading and learning about them all.
> >
> >
> **I must be somewhere in the middle. :-) I don't hate or love the
> present family; they seem to be what the English people want so
more
> power to them. But, of course, my favorite are the Plantagenets,
> Richard, of course again, leading the list. And while there's much
of
> Elizabeth I to admire, I loathe both her father and grandfather.
>
> Gilda
>
> >mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote: Hi all,
> >
> >I've been away for some time, and I hope everyone has had a
fantastic
> >Christmas. I'm afraid the nearest thing I got to Ricardiana in my
> >stocking was a DVD of That Play. . . .
> >
> >On to lighter matters. About a week ago I read in one of the
tabloids
> >over here that our old 'friend' David Starkey had launched a
verbal
> >attack on the Queen as uneducated and in some sense resembling
one of
> >Hitler's cronies (don't ask me now which one it was, but
apparently
> >he attributed the quotation to the wrong Nazi, just showing the
> >cracks in his own education).
> >Anyway, why? Because when he showed the Queen round the exhbition
for
> >the 400th anniversary of the death of his heroine/ gay icon,
> >Elizabeth I, she didn't show a lot of interest. And apparently
HRM
> >committed the cardinal sin of telling DS she didn't really
identify
> >with her Tudor ancestors and didn't feel she had much in common
with
> >Elizabeth I, 'who had no husband, no family and ruled like a
despot'.
> >
> >I know there will be arguments about Elizabeth I, but I for one
was
> >rather heartened to discover that the current monarch is not
entirely
> >of the Tudor persuasion.
> >And, if Queen Elizabeth II isn't as well educated as David
Starkey,
> >she is a good deal more polite. I hope she snatches back his CBE.
> >Elizabeth I would probably have snatched off his head, so perhaps
> >that would be his preferred option.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

I'm not overly fond of Henry Vll or Vlll myself, but they were interesting and led interesting lives to read about, especially #8, with all his wives. I find his wives much more interesting than himself. Anne Boleyn in particular is the more interesting of the lot then Katherine Parr. Both highly intelligent well rounded females ahead of their time. Anne must have been such a threat to Henry's fragile ego after he had his way with her to finally see just how much more educated she was than he, even in theology where he thought he knew it all.

Gilda Felt <gildaevf@...> wrote: norma vieweg wrote:

>I for one am a great Tudor/Elizabethan l person. I have no use whatsoever for any of the present royal family. I am also now growing more in my knowledge of The Plantagenet family, (Richard lll and such) and have a great respect them also. They were all rulers in their own right, The present family are only wealthy figureheads in mine eyes and not worthy of their titles. I have enough room in my heart to enjoy the English Royalty of the past, and not to put the others down, with exception of the presant day family. I enjoy reading and learning about them all.
>
>
**I must be somewhere in the middle. :-) I don't hate or love the
present family; they seem to be what the English people want so more
power to them. But, of course, my favorite are the Plantagenets,
Richard, of course again, leading the list. And while there's much of
Elizabeth I to admire, I loathe both her father and grandfather.

Gilda

>mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote: Hi all,
>
>I've been away for some time, and I hope everyone has had a fantastic
>Christmas. I'm afraid the nearest thing I got to Ricardiana in my
>stocking was a DVD of That Play. . . .
>
>On to lighter matters. About a week ago I read in one of the tabloids
>over here that our old 'friend' David Starkey had launched a verbal
>attack on the Queen as uneducated and in some sense resembling one of
>Hitler's cronies (don't ask me now which one it was, but apparently
>he attributed the quotation to the wrong Nazi, just showing the
>cracks in his own education).
>Anyway, why? Because when he showed the Queen round the exhbition for
>the 400th anniversary of the death of his heroine/ gay icon,
>Elizabeth I, she didn't show a lot of interest. And apparently HRM
>committed the cardinal sin of telling DS she didn't really identify
>with her Tudor ancestors and didn't feel she had much in common with
>Elizabeth I, 'who had no husband, no family and ruled like a despot'.
>
>I know there will be arguments about Elizabeth I, but I for one was
>rather heartened to discover that the current monarch is not entirely
>of the Tudor persuasion.
>And, if Queen Elizabeth II isn't as well educated as David Starkey,
>she is a good deal more polite. I hope she snatches back his CBE.
>Elizabeth I would probably have snatched off his head, so perhaps
>that would be his preferred option.
>
>
>
>






---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

At 12:40 PM 12/28/2007, mariewalsh2003 wrote:

> And apparently HRM
>committed the cardinal sin of telling DS she didn't really identify
>with her Tudor ancestors and didn't feel she had much in common with
>Elizabeth I, 'who had no husband, no family and ruled like a despot'.

"Ruled like a despot'" Ha! Definite point for the ruling
Queen in my book. If our Richard is one of the most underrated
monarchs in English history, Liz I is one of the most OVERrated. Not
marrying might have endeared her to me if there weren't so many other
things about her that I found far from admirable.


Take care,
Rogue

--- In , Rogue <roguefem@...>
wrote:
>
> At 12:40 PM 12/28/2007, mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> > And apparently HRM
> >committed the cardinal sin of telling DS she didn't really identify
> >with her Tudor ancestors and didn't feel she had much in common
with
> >Elizabeth I, 'who had no husband, no family and ruled like a
despot'.
>
> "Ruled like a despot'" Ha! Definite point for the ruling
> Queen in my book. If our Richard is one of the most underrated
> monarchs in English history, Liz I is one of the most OVERrated.
Not
> marrying might have endeared her to me if there weren't so many
other
> things about her that I found far from admirable.
>
>
> Take care,
> Rogue


I must say I tend to agree with you. I thought Gloriana woud get her
defenders, but I am rather of the opinion that it is she, rather than
the present queen, who has benefited from spin-doctoring. There is
nothing new about spin doctors. Control of information is as old as
the hills. Elizabeth I had a very effective publicity machine, and
for obvious reasons she didn't have to contend with a hostile press.


>

It is always interesting to me to observe the love/hate relationship
the Brits have with their monarch.

Granted, the royal family today are basically figureheads, but I recall that
they were well-thought of for

their courage and fortitude during WW II. Times have changed and now they
don't really have much to do.

Whatever their personalities, the "office" deserves some respect. David
Starkey seems like the kind of fellow

who would sell his own mother for a bit of publicity. He would obviously
"diss" his Queen for some. What

a lowlife!



L.M.L.,

Janet



PS If you folks had a Republic, you'd be under Sharia Law in 10 years.
I hear Mohammed is the most

popular boy's name in Britain this year.

Television's equivalent of Alison Weir! And both love the Tudors.
Ghastly!
Paul


On 29 Dec 2007, at 21:24, Janet Trimbath wrote:

> David
> Starkey seems like the kind of fellow
>
> who would sell his own mother for a bit of publicity. He would
> obviously
> "diss" his Queen for some. What
>
> a lowlife!

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

But Prince Charles wants to become a Muslim, so Sharia law could
come even sooner if we stay a monarchy. He is a descendent of the
Prophet after all...

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
> Television's equivalent of Alison Weir! And both love the Tudors.
> Ghastly!
> Paul
>
>
> On 29 Dec 2007, at 21:24, Janet Trimbath wrote:
>
> > David
> > Starkey seems like the kind of fellow
> >
> > who would sell his own mother for a bit of publicity. He would
> > obviously
> > "diss" his Queen for some. What
> >
> > a lowlife!
>
> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>

There are a lot of rumours about a lot of things, much as there were in 1483. We don't take those at face value otherwise there would be no point in the Society!

----- Original Message -----
From: theblackprussian
To:
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 4:16 PM
Subject: Re: Starkey vs the Queen


But Prince Charles wants to become a Muslim, so Sharia law could
come even sooner if we stay a monarchy. He is a descendent of the
Prophet after all...

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
> Television's equivalent of Alison Weir! And both love the Tudors.
> Ghastly!
> Paul
>
>
> On 29 Dec 2007, at 21:24, Janet Trimbath wrote:
>
> > David
> > Starkey seems like the kind of fellow
> >
> > who would sell his own mother for a bit of publicity. He would
> > obviously
> > "diss" his Queen for some. What
> >
> > a lowlife!
>
> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>

richard also descends from mohammad via maria de padilla, his great great grandmother.
maria
/
isabella m. edmund of langley
/
richard of conisbrough m anne mortimer
/
richard of york m. cecily neville
/
richard iii
====
as a canadian, i fully and totally support the monarchy. it is primary factor that most distinguishes us from being american. i don't mind paying taxes to the queen. i would like her and her family to work more for it. but, hey CEO's are notorious for riding free on the fat of the corporation.

here's another reason i support the monarchy. our prime minister has to have the governor general's authority to convene or disolve parliament, and more over the gov gen has the ability to declare or end war. our pm has to request the gg to declare war. the gg's power is derived from the monarch. the monarch has the royal perogative. check out wikipedia for more info on the r.p.

too many people are unaware of the monarch's true power. they see our current queen as a figurehead. window dressing. this is our fault as much as the monarchy's.

we the people of the british commonwealth have power over our elected and appointed officals. we simply have to lobby the queen to do our bidding.

she does provably bend to the people's will.
something to think about.
roslyn

theblackprussian <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
But Prince Charles wants to become a Muslim, so Sharia law could
come even sooner if we stay a monarchy. He is a descendent of the
Prophet after all...

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
> Television's equivalent of Alison Weir! And both love the Tudors.
> Ghastly!
> Paul
>
>
> On 29 Dec 2007, at 21:24, Janet Trimbath wrote:
>
> > David
> > Starkey seems like the kind of fellow
> >
> > who would sell his own mother for a bit of publicity. He would
> > obviously
> > "diss" his Queen for some. What
> >
> > a lowlife!
>
> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>

Very interesting - I imagine that van der Pas was a principal source here and I shall have a look later.

----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 5:43 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Starkey vs the Queen


richard also descends from mohammad via maria de padilla, his great great grandmother.
maria
/
isabella m. edmund of langley
/
richard of conisbrough m anne mortimer
/
richard of york m. cecily neville
/
richard iii
====
as a canadian, i fully and totally support the monarchy. it is primary factor that most distinguishes us from being american. i don't mind paying taxes to the queen. i would like her and her family to work more for it. but, hey CEO's are notorious for riding free on the fat of the corporation.

here's another reason i support the monarchy. our prime minister has to have the governor general's authority to convene or disolve parliament, and more over the gov gen has the ability to declare or end war. our pm has to request the gg to declare war. the gg's power is derived from the monarch. the monarch has the royal perogative. check out wikipedia for more info on the r.p.

too many people are unaware of the monarch's true power. they see our current queen as a figurehead. window dressing. this is our fault as much as the monarchy's.

we the people of the british commonwealth have power over our elected and appointed officals. we simply have to lobby the queen to do our bidding.

she does provably bend to the people's will.
something to think about.
roslyn

theblackprussian <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
But Prince Charles wants to become a Muslim, so Sharia law could
come even sooner if we stay a monarchy. He is a descendent of the
Prophet after all...

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
> Television's equivalent of Alison Weir! And both love the Tudors.
> Ghastly!
> Paul
>
>
> On 29 Dec 2007, at 21:24, Janet Trimbath wrote:
>
> > David
> > Starkey seems like the kind of fellow
> >
> > who would sell his own mother for a bit of publicity. He would
> > obviously
> > "diss" his Queen for some. What
> >
> > a lowlife!
>
> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>

My Uncle Peter was a Canadian MP for quite a while, but to get there
he had to undergo a process of election every 4 years. I'd rather
put power in the hands of people who have to be assessed by the
electorate than for their dodgy bloodlines.

In Britain, it's precisely because of the Royal Perogative that the
Prime Minister has so much power. He can use it to have Parliament
dismissed whenever he likes without even consulting the people's
representatives.
This is how John Major got the Maastrict Treaty through the House:
he told MPs that if they didn't vote for it he'd go to the Queen and
in effect have them all sacked. If we had a democratic constitution
he'd not have been able to do this and we'd still be an independent
country.

The Prime Minister, who can be elected (like Blair) by less than a
quarter of the electorate, effectively holds regal powers thanks to
the R.P. so I'm at a loss to understand why anyone lauds it. If
there was ONE example of a monarch in modern times using it to veto
a P.M. then I might give it more credibility, but since the Queen
failed to stop Blair launching a bloody, criminal and pointless war
in which over 200,000 innocent people died then when will she use it?


--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> richard also descends from mohammad via maria de padilla, his
great great grandmother.
> maria
> /
> isabella m. edmund of langley
> /
> richard of conisbrough m anne mortimer
> /
> richard of york m. cecily neville
> /
> richard iii
> ====
> as a canadian, i fully and totally support the monarchy. it is
primary factor that most distinguishes us from being american. i
don't mind paying taxes to the queen. i would like her and her
family to work more for it. but, hey CEO's are notorious for riding
free on the fat of the corporation.
>
> here's another reason i support the monarchy. our prime minister
has to have the governor general's authority to convene or disolve
parliament, and more over the gov gen has the ability to declare or
end war. our pm has to request the gg to declare war. the gg's power
is derived from the monarch. the monarch has the royal perogative.
check out wikipedia for more info on the r.p.
>
> too many people are unaware of the monarch's true power. they
see our current queen as a figurehead. window dressing. this is our
fault as much as the monarchy's.
>
> we the people of the british commonwealth have power over our
elected and appointed officals. we simply have to lobby the queen to
do our bidding.
>
> she does provably bend to the people's will.
> something to think about.
> roslyn
>
> theblackprussian <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
> But Prince Charles wants to become a Muslim, so Sharia
law could
> come even sooner if we stay a monarchy. He is a descendent of the
> Prophet after all...
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paultrevor@> wrote:
> >
> > Television's equivalent of Alison Weir! And both love the Tudors.
> > Ghastly!
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > On 29 Dec 2007, at 21:24, Janet Trimbath wrote:
> >
> > > David
> > > Starkey seems like the kind of fellow
> > >
> > > who would sell his own mother for a bit of publicity. He would
> > > obviously
> > > "diss" his Queen for some. What
> > >
> > > a lowlife!
> >
> > "Richard Liveth Yet!"
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

comments interspersed, see below

theblackprussian <theblackprussian@...> wrote: My Uncle Peter was a Canadian MP for quite a while, but to get there
he had to undergo a process of election every 4 years.
===
canadian elections are not held every four years. that is american.
our elections can occur at any time. usually when the governing political party is doing well in the opinion polls. there has been as much as five years between elections and as little as few months.
see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_Canada
====
I'd rather
put power in the hands of people who have to be assessed by the
electorate than for their dodgy bloodlines.
===
in canada we have our dodgy elected bloodlines, as does america.
bhutto is being succeeded by her son. both advocates of democracy. both come from power elite families.
==

In Britain, it's precisely because of the Royal Perogative that the
Prime Minister has so much power. He can use it to have Parliament
dismissed whenever he likes without even consulting the people's
representatives.
This is how John Major got the Maastrict Treaty through the House:
he told MPs that if they didn't vote for it he'd go to the Queen and
in effect have them all sacked. If we had a democratic constitution
he'd not have been able to do this and we'd still be an independent
country.
===
blair used the same tactic to pull england in to the iraq war.
however, if the people had lobbied the queen, these despotic pm's would have had less of a chance of manipulating you in to these unpopular decisions.
===

The Prime Minister, who can be elected (like Blair) by less than a
quarter of the electorate, effectively holds regal powers thanks to
the R.P. so I'm at a loss to understand why anyone lauds it. If
there was ONE example of a monarch in modern times using it to veto
a P.M. then I might give it more credibility, but since the Queen
failed to stop Blair launching a bloody, criminal and pointless war
in which over 200,000 innocent people died then when will she use it?
===
when the people wake up and start lobbying her to end the war.
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Perogative for more info.
roslyn


--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> richard also descends from mohammad via maria de padilla, his
great great grandmother.
> maria
> /
> isabella m. edmund of langley
> /
> richard of conisbrough m anne mortimer
> /
> richard of york m. cecily neville
> /
> richard iii
> ====
> as a canadian, i fully and totally support the monarchy. it is
primary factor that most distinguishes us from being american. i
don't mind paying taxes to the queen. i would like her and her
family to work more for it. but, hey CEO's are notorious for riding
free on the fat of the corporation.
>
> here's another reason i support the monarchy. our prime minister
has to have the governor general's authority to convene or disolve
parliament, and more over the gov gen has the ability to declare or
end war. our pm has to request the gg to declare war. the gg's power
is derived from the monarch. the monarch has the royal perogative.
check out wikipedia for more info on the r.p.
>
> too many people are unaware of the monarch's true power. they
see our current queen as a figurehead. window dressing. this is our
fault as much as the monarchy's.
>
> we the people of the british commonwealth have power over our
elected and appointed officals. we simply have to lobby the queen to
do our bidding.
>
> she does provably bend to the people's will.
> something to think about.
> roslyn
>
> theblackprussian <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
> But Prince Charles wants to become a Muslim, so Sharia
law could
> come even sooner if we stay a monarchy. He is a descendent of the
> Prophet after all...
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paultrevor@> wrote:
> >
> > Television's equivalent of Alison Weir! And both love the Tudors.
> > Ghastly!
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > On 29 Dec 2007, at 21:24, Janet Trimbath wrote:
> >
> > > David
> > > Starkey seems like the kind of fellow
> > >
> > > who would sell his own mother for a bit of publicity. He would
> > > obviously
> > > "diss" his Queen for some. What
> > >
> > > a lowlife!
> >
> > "Richard Liveth Yet!"
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Quite, Roslyn. I don't usually get dragged off-topic but:

It sounds rather like going to watch a football match where the crowd have elected the referee. The monarchy is a sealed box of powers - the only people who wish to end it are a subset of those in politics who want to open the box and use the powers themselves.

----- Original Message -----
From: fayre rose
To:
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 7:33 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Starkey vs the Queen


comments interspersed, see below

theblackprussian <theblackprussian@...> wrote: My Uncle Peter was a Canadian MP for quite a while, but to get there
he had to undergo a process of election every 4 years.
===
canadian elections are not held every four years. that is american.
our elections can occur at any time. usually when the governing political party is doing well in the opinion polls. there has been as much as five years between elections and as little as few months.
see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_Canada
====
I'd rather
put power in the hands of people who have to be assessed by the
electorate than for their dodgy bloodlines.
===
in canada we have our dodgy elected bloodlines, as does america.
bhutto is being succeeded by her son. both advocates of democracy. both come from power elite families.
==

In Britain, it's precisely because of the Royal Perogative that the
Prime Minister has so much power. He can use it to have Parliament
dismissed whenever he likes without even consulting the people's
representatives.
This is how John Major got the Maastrict Treaty through the House:
he told MPs that if they didn't vote for it he'd go to the Queen and
in effect have them all sacked. If we had a democratic constitution
he'd not have been able to do this and we'd still be an independent
country.
===
blair used the same tactic to pull england in to the iraq war.
however, if the people had lobbied the queen, these despotic pm's would have had less of a chance of manipulating you in to these unpopular decisions.
===

The Prime Minister, who can be elected (like Blair) by less than a
quarter of the electorate, effectively holds regal powers thanks to
the R.P. so I'm at a loss to understand why anyone lauds it. If
there was ONE example of a monarch in modern times using it to veto
a P.M. then I might give it more credibility, but since the Queen
failed to stop Blair launching a bloody, criminal and pointless war
in which over 200,000 innocent people died then when will she use it?
===
when the people wake up and start lobbying her to end the war.
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Perogative for more info.
roslyn

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> richard also descends from mohammad via maria de padilla, his
great great grandmother.
> maria
> /
> isabella m. edmund of langley
> /
> richard of conisbrough m anne mortimer
> /
> richard of york m. cecily neville
> /
> richard iii
> ====
> as a canadian, i fully and totally support the monarchy. it is
primary factor that most distinguishes us from being american. i
don't mind paying taxes to the queen. i would like her and her
family to work more for it. but, hey CEO's are notorious for riding
free on the fat of the corporation.
>
> here's another reason i support the monarchy. our prime minister
has to have the governor general's authority to convene or disolve
parliament, and more over the gov gen has the ability to declare or
end war. our pm has to request the gg to declare war. the gg's power
is derived from the monarch. the monarch has the royal perogative.
check out wikipedia for more info on the r.p.
>
> too many people are unaware of the monarch's true power. they
see our current queen as a figurehead. window dressing. this is our
fault as much as the monarchy's.
>
> we the people of the british commonwealth have power over our
elected and appointed officals. we simply have to lobby the queen to
do our bidding.
>
> she does provably bend to the people's will.
> something to think about.
> roslyn
>
> theblackprussian <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
> But Prince Charles wants to become a Muslim, so Sharia
law could
> come even sooner if we stay a monarchy. He is a descendent of the
> Prophet after all...
>
> --- In , Paul Trevor Bale
> <paultrevor@> wrote:
> >
> > Television's equivalent of Alison Weir! And both love the Tudors.
> > Ghastly!
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > On 29 Dec 2007, at 21:24, Janet Trimbath wrote:
> >
> > > David
> > > Starkey seems like the kind of fellow
> > >
> > > who would sell his own mother for a bit of publicity. He would
> > > obviously
> > > "diss" his Queen for some. What
> > >
> > > a lowlife!
> >
> > "Richard Liveth Yet!"
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

It seems to me that the Queen is the head of state of the United
Kingdom and also of various Commonwealth countries because she retains
the support of the people. Historically, unpopular monarchs have been
removed – the most spectacular example being Charles I, who was put on
trial by his people and subsequently executed for the crime of high
treason. A few years later, James II was deposed during "The Glorious
Revolution", while in more recent times the Abdication crisis can be
seen as a king being removed from power by the political establishment
of Britain and the Empire. There are, therefore, clear precedents for
the removal of a monarch and indeed the establishment of a republic,
and this is perhaps as it should be in the case of a constitutional
monarchy that acts within the confines and restraints of democratic
nations such as Canada and the UK.

My point is that the power is already being used by the Prime
Minister in defiance of an elected Parliament.

In effect we have an elected dictator using the powers of a King to
rule, when if he had a democratic constitution no one person would
hold that power and government would be exercised by a Parliament in
which the PM was merely one voting member. The Royal perogative
reduces Parliament to the status of feudal vassals.

Besides, we had a civil war to establish that the Crown was the gift
of Parliament, so theoretically a Monarch who goes against
democratic government should be unseated in any case.

--- In , "Stephen Lark"
<stephenmlark@...> wrote:
>
> Quite, Roslyn. I don't usually get dragged off-topic but:
>
> It sounds rather like going to watch a football match where the
crowd have elected the referee. The monarchy is a sealed box of
powers - the only people who wish to end it are a subset of those in
politics who want to open the box and use the powers themselves.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: fayre rose
> To:
> Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 7:33 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: Starkey vs the Queen
>
>
> comments interspersed, see below
>
> theblackprussian <theblackprussian@...> wrote: My Uncle Peter
was a Canadian MP for quite a while, but to get there
> he had to undergo a process of election every 4 years.
> ===
> canadian elections are not held every four years. that is
american.
> our elections can occur at any time. usually when the governing
political party is doing well in the opinion polls. there has been
as much as five years between elections and as little as few months.
> see:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_Canada
> ====
> I'd rather
> put power in the hands of people who have to be assessed by the
> electorate than for their dodgy bloodlines.
> ===
> in canada we have our dodgy elected bloodlines, as does america.
> bhutto is being succeeded by her son. both advocates of
democracy. both come from power elite families.
> ==
>
> In Britain, it's precisely because of the Royal Perogative that
the
> Prime Minister has so much power. He can use it to have
Parliament
> dismissed whenever he likes without even consulting the people's
> representatives.
> This is how John Major got the Maastrict Treaty through the
House:
> he told MPs that if they didn't vote for it he'd go to the Queen
and
> in effect have them all sacked. If we had a democratic
constitution
> he'd not have been able to do this and we'd still be an
independent
> country.
> ===
> blair used the same tactic to pull england in to the iraq war.
> however, if the people had lobbied the queen, these despotic
pm's would have had less of a chance of manipulating you in to these
unpopular decisions.
> ===
>
> The Prime Minister, who can be elected (like Blair) by less than
a
> quarter of the electorate, effectively holds regal powers thanks
to
> the R.P. so I'm at a loss to understand why anyone lauds it. If
> there was ONE example of a monarch in modern times using it to
veto
> a P.M. then I might give it more credibility, but since the
Queen
> failed to stop Blair launching a bloody, criminal and pointless
war
> in which over 200,000 innocent people died then when will she
use it?
> ===
> when the people wake up and start lobbying her to end the war.
> see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Perogative for more info.
> roslyn
>
> --- In , fayre rose
> <fayreroze@> wrote:
> >
> > richard also descends from mohammad via maria de padilla, his
> great great grandmother.
> > maria
> > /
> > isabella m. edmund of langley
> > /
> > richard of conisbrough m anne mortimer
> > /
> > richard of york m. cecily neville
> > /
> > richard iii
> > ====
> > as a canadian, i fully and totally support the monarchy. it is
> primary factor that most distinguishes us from being american. i
> don't mind paying taxes to the queen. i would like her and her
> family to work more for it. but, hey CEO's are notorious for
riding
> free on the fat of the corporation.
> >
> > here's another reason i support the monarchy. our prime
minister
> has to have the governor general's authority to convene or
disolve
> parliament, and more over the gov gen has the ability to declare
or
> end war. our pm has to request the gg to declare war. the gg's
power
> is derived from the monarch. the monarch has the royal
perogative.
> check out wikipedia for more info on the r.p.
> >
> > too many people are unaware of the monarch's true power. they
> see our current queen as a figurehead. window dressing. this is
our
> fault as much as the monarchy's.
> >
> > we the people of the british commonwealth have power over our
> elected and appointed officals. we simply have to lobby the
queen to
> do our bidding.
> >
> > she does provably bend to the people's will.
> > something to think about.
> > roslyn
> >
> > theblackprussian <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> > But Prince Charles wants to become a Muslim, so Sharia
> law could
> > come even sooner if we stay a monarchy. He is a descendent of
the
> > Prophet after all...
> >
> > --- In , Paul Trevor
Bale
> > <paultrevor@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Television's equivalent of Alison Weir! And both love the
Tudors.
> > > Ghastly!
> > > Paul
> > >
> > >
> > > On 29 Dec 2007, at 21:24, Janet Trimbath wrote:
> > >
> > > > David
> > > > Starkey seems like the kind of fellow
> > > >
> > > > who would sell his own mother for a bit of publicity. He
would
> > > > obviously
> > > > "diss" his Queen for some. What
> > > >
> > > > a lowlife!
> > >
> > > "Richard Liveth Yet!"
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

theblackprussian wrote:

>My point is that the power is already being used by the Prime
>Minister in defiance of an elected Parliament.
>
>In effect we have an elected dictator using the powers of a King to
>rule, when if he had a democratic constitution no one person would
>hold that power and government would be exercised by a Parliament in
>which the PM was merely one voting member. The Royal perogative
>reduces Parliament to the status of feudal vassals.
>
>

Right, because side stepping the other branches of government so that
the executive branch gets away with things which are blatantly
unconstitutional doesn't ever happen here, does it? ;-)

Gilda

And by defying the elected government would be reason to unseat any
monarch, which is why the current monarch only advises, else the
institution would be at an end.
As it could, with reference to an earlier post, if Charles became a
Muslim, a ridiculous idea IMO. As head of the church of England, any
member of the royal family converting to another religion would have
to follow Edward VIII into exile.
The parliamentary majority of most governments is under the 50 per
cent mark, even that of Mrs Thatcher, so I also do not like to call
our system, or the American one, democracy, as a pure democracy means
the majority decision is the adopted one. When did that last happen?
Joining the European Community back in the 1970s, and that was done
by a referendum, something no UK government likes to use often, if at
all, any more.
In the days before the Great Rebellion and the Glorious Revolutions
of the 17th century, parliament mainly advised the monarch, though it
could, and occasionally did, oppose him or her. But then it was also
only elected/formed by a small number of members of the population.
Paul



On 31 Dec 2007, at 20:36, theblackprussian wrote:

> we had a civil war to establish that the Crown was the gift
> of Parliament, so theoretically a Monarch who goes against
> democratic government should be unseated in any case.

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

Parliament did much more than "advise" the monarch during the Medieval
period - a Parliament had to be called if and when the king needed
money for wars, or other purposes, and it could therefore be argued
that the lords and commons assembled in Parliament controlled the
nation's purse strings. Its other major role concerned the passing of
laws, and thus, when Charles I imposed his personal rule, his opponents
could claim, with justification, that he was acting unconstitutionally
and in open contravention of "the just rights and liberties of England".

Australia has compulsory voting but there have been elections where the "winning" party has had less votes than the "losing" party but, of cause, more seats.

Some people in Australia has argued it is undemocratic to be made to vote and should have the right not to vote.

Of cause, even if you have your name ticked off at the polls, you still do not have to vote. One could still put in a blank form, write nasty words on it, not fill in all the squares or vote for Blinky Bill

Democracy is probably only as strong as the people wish it to be. If some people are apathetic it is a great pity.

Helen (who would vote even if it was not compulsory)

Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@...> wrote:
And by defying the elected government would be reason to unseat any
monarch, which is why the current monarch only advises, else the
institution would be at an end.
As it could, with reference to an earlier post, if Charles became a
Muslim, a ridiculous idea IMO. As head of the church of England, any
member of the royal family converting to another religion would have
to follow Edward VIII into exile.
The parliamentary majority of most governments is under the 50 per
cent mark, even that of Mrs Thatcher, so I also do not like to call
our system, or the American one, democracy, as a pure democracy means
the majority decision is the adopted one. When did that last happen?
Joining the European Community back in the 1970s, and that was done
by a referendum, something no UK government likes to use often, if at
all, any more.
In the days before the Great Rebellion and the Glorious Revolutions
of the 17th century, parliament mainly advised the monarch, though it
could, and occasionally did, oppose him or her. But then it was also
only elected/formed by a small number of members of the population.
Paul

On 31 Dec 2007, at 20:36, theblackprussian wrote:

> we had a civil war to establish that the Crown was the gift
> of Parliament, so theoretically a Monarch who goes against
> democratic government should be unseated in any case.

"Richard Liveth Yet!"






---------------------------------
Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now.

Happy new year everyone.

One minor point in the debate of Starkey vs the Queen which hasn`t been raised is, that one reason for the modern constitutional monarch being held in position, is that while a monarch is on the throne, it prevents any lunatic dictator (or anyone) from completely taking over the country. The fact that Blair waived the Royal Prerogative over Iraq did not in itself put him in position of overall control. Admittedly he had a substantial majority in Parliament, but not all of his Party agreed with his actions, and indeed most of the Opposition were at the time in favour of the war.

John

"Stanley C.Jenkins" <stanleyc.jenkins@...> wrote:
Parliament did much more than "advise" the monarch during the Medieval
period - a Parliament had to be called if and when the king needed
money for wars, or other purposes, and it could therefore be argued
that the lords and commons assembled in Parliament controlled the
nation's purse strings. Its other major role concerned the passing of
laws, and thus, when Charles I imposed his personal rule, his opponents
could claim, with justification, that he was acting unconstitutionally
and in open contravention of "the just rights and liberties of England".






---------------------------------
Sent from Yahoo! - a smarter inbox.

Parliament did little to oppose the monarch until the time of
Elizabeth when the Commons flexed its muscles for the first time. It
got into its stride under James Ist whose fear of removal could been
clearly seen on occasion, and then Charles 1.
Before the 17th century few would argue with the monarch unless a
weak one like Henry VI, and then they opposed or attacked the kings
advisors. Fear doubtless was the chief reason.
Paul


On 1 Jan 2008, at 10:55, Stanley C.Jenkins wrote:

> Parliament did much more than "advise" the monarch during the Medieval
> period - a Parliament had to be called if and when the king needed
> money for wars, or other purposes, and it could therefore be argued
> that the lords and commons assembled in Parliament controlled the
> nation's purse strings. Its other major role concerned the passing of
> laws, and thus, when Charles I imposed his personal rule, his
> opponents
> could claim, with justification, that he was acting unconstitutionally
> and in open contravention of "the just rights and liberties of
> England".
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

Parliaments could only oppose the monarch when they were called into
being, which meant that if a Medieval king did not need to summon a
Parliament he could rule without one for long periods. However, if the
monarch needed money he would have to call a Parliament - and it is at
that point that the assembled Lords and Commons could exert some
measure of control.