HabboxWiki needs you!
Are you a Habbo buff? Or maybe a rare trader with a bunch of LTDs? Get involved with HabboxWiki to share your knowledge!
Join our team!
Whether you're raving for rares, excited for events or happy helping, there's something for you! Click here to apply
Need a helping hand?
Check out our guides for all things to help you make friends, make rooms, and make money!


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13
  1. #1
    -:Undertaker:-'s Avatar
    -:Undertaker:- is offline Habbox Hall of Fame Inductee
    Former Rare Values Manager
    HabboxForum Top Poster
    Articles Writer


    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Mijas, the Kingdom of Spain
    Country
    Spain
    Posts
    28,666
    Tokens
    180
    Habbo
    -:overtaker:-

    Latest Awards:

    Default Prince Charles becomes longest-serving Prince of Wales

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-41179772

    Prince Charles becomes the longest-serving Prince of Wales



    Quote Originally Posted by BBC News
    Prince Charles has become the longest-serving Prince of Wales in history.

    On Saturday he took the record from King Edward VII who held the title for more than 59 years before becoming monarch in 1901 after the death of Queen Victoria.

    From Prince Charles' 1969 investiture at Caernarfon Castle to the 2006 purchase of his official Welsh home in Carmarthenshire, he certainly has a long history with the country.

    But while one Welsh historian says his relationship with Wales is "symbolic" another says he has a "vital role".

    Prof Peter Stead believes the prince, who has held the title for 59 years, one month and 15 days, has faced both frustration and achievement over the decades.

    But he thinks Wales should "delight" in its "rather eccentric" prince.

    Prince Charles being crowned as Prince of Wales by Queen Elizabeth II

    History of the Prince of Wales title

    Quote Originally Posted by BBC News
    - In 1301 Edward of Caernarfon, the future Edward II, was invested as Prince of Wales - this was the first time the eldest son of the King of England had been bestowed the title.

    - Since then, only one native Welshman, Owain Glyndwr has had a claim to the title, and was proclaimed as such in 1400.

    - His armed revolt was defeated in 1409 and marked the end of native princes for good. Since then the eldest son of the reigning monarch has been made Prince of Wales.

    - The title is not automatic and has to be created each time by the reigning monarch. It is not an hereditary title.

    - Prince Charles is the 21st Prince of Wales in the current line.

    - The previous longest-serving holder of the title was Edward VII. The then Albert Edward was created Prince of Wales on 8 Dec 1841 when he was just one month old old. He acceded to the throne as Edward VII on 22 Jan 1901, meaning he served as Prince of Wales for 59 years, one month and 14 day.

    - Prince Charles was created Prince of Wales when he was nine years old on 26 July 1958. He has now held the title for 59 years, one month and 15 days. He was not invested at Caernarfon Castle in Gwynedd until 1 July 1969, aged 20.

    - Prince Charles is also the longest-serving heir apparent in British history.
    Another record broken.



  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    6,722
    Tokens
    3,670
    Habbo
    welldonemate

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    When the Queen passes away, I think it is time to become Republican.
    (H)

  3. #3
    -:Undertaker:-'s Avatar
    -:Undertaker:- is offline Habbox Hall of Fame Inductee
    Former Rare Values Manager
    HabboxForum Top Poster
    Articles Writer


    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Mijas, the Kingdom of Spain
    Country
    Spain
    Posts
    28,666
    Tokens
    180
    Habbo
    -:overtaker:-

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Earthquake View Post
    When the Queen passes away, I think it is time to become Republican.
    You'd like a President Blair and First Lady Cherie lording it over us all in Buckingham Palace?

    "Ladies and Gentlemen, Your Excellency the President of the United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Mr Blair" :Sick:
    Last edited by -:Undertaker:-; 11-09-2017 at 07:16 PM.



  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    12,313
    Tokens
    33,472
    Habbo
    dbgtz

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    it's been 10 years since Blair was PM stop living in the past
    it would essentially be the same bleedy job anyway

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    6,722
    Tokens
    3,670
    Habbo
    welldonemate

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:- View Post
    You'd like a President Blair and First Lady Cherie lording it over us all in Buckingham Palace?

    "Ladies and Gentlemen, Your Excellency the President of the United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Mr Blair" :Sick:
    Blair has not a single thread of hair able to come back into office, the man is a vile snake who lied to the public about going to war.

    Quote Originally Posted by dbgtz View Post
    it's been 10 years since Blair was PM stop living in the past
    it would essentially be the same bleedy job anyway
    Exactly.

    The whole Royal family is not what this country needs now, we are speaking about millions upon millions wasted on security, housing, holidays just for one family.
    (H)

  6. #6
    -:Undertaker:-'s Avatar
    -:Undertaker:- is offline Habbox Hall of Fame Inductee
    Former Rare Values Manager
    HabboxForum Top Poster
    Articles Writer


    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Mijas, the Kingdom of Spain
    Country
    Spain
    Posts
    28,666
    Tokens
    180
    Habbo
    -:overtaker:-

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    Left wing writer George Orwell wrote the best defence of monarchy many years ago. Let me share the passage with you -


    This was certainly the case in Germany where Hitler had to wait for the immensely popular President and former General Paul von Hindenburg to pass away before assuming total control. Had Hindenburg, a monarchist himself, had an heir awaiting then it is quite possible - although not certain of course - that Hitler's path to total power would have been impeded. Germany at that time lacked that constitutional barrier that we are blessed to have as a constitutional monarchy.

    Quote Originally Posted by dbgtz View Post
    it's been 10 years since Blair was PM stop living in the past
    it would essentially be the same bleedy job anyway
    No, because the fact is that at the height of his popularity and dark arts Blair would have won a Presidential election hands down - a President Blair and First Lady Cherie in Buckingham Palace would have been a stone cold reality. As would a President Nick Clegg in 2010 and a President Nigel Farage in 2012 - all of these politicians personal popularity ratings at one time would have propelled them into a Presidency if it had existed at the time. Republicans I assume think this is better than a King Charles III - I say let them argue that.

    And as for the same job, yes it would be without constitutional changes. However the job would become political, and if you are happy with the post of Head of State becoming political and in the grip of the major political parties then again I say argue for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Earthquake
    Blair has not a single thread of hair able to come back into office, the man is a vile snake who lied to the public about going to war.
    That revulsion towards Blair - quite justified I agree - is the best argument for constitutional monarchy. Look at the United States now as to how people speak of George W Bush, Barack Obama and Donald J Trump - and compare with Her Majesty the Queen.

    Quote Originally Posted by Earthquake
    The whole Royal family is not what this country needs now, we are speaking about millions upon millions wasted on security, housing, holidays just for one family.
    So you're saying what the country needs is millions of millions still used on one family - the First Family - but with the added cost of elections to the post every 5 years. Along with turning a neutral position into one which divides the country rather than unites it?
    Last edited by -:Undertaker:-; 11-09-2017 at 10:31 PM.



  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    12,313
    Tokens
    33,472
    Habbo
    dbgtz

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    To be clear, I'm not inherently against a monarchy.

    Quote Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:- View Post
    Left wing writer George Orwell wrote the best defence of monarchy many years ago. Let me share the passage with you -


    This was certainly the case in Germany where Hitler had to wait for the immensely popular President and former General Paul von Hindenburg to pass away before assuming total control. Had Hindenburg, a monarchist himself, had an heir awaiting then it is quite possible - although not certain of course - that Hitler's path to total power would have been impeded. Germany at that time lacked that constitutional barrier that we are blessed to have as a constitutional monarchy.
    Firstly, let's not ignore the fact our monarch doesn't get involved in legislation.

    I'm pretty sure that the government at the time had no majority, and it was simply a result of grubby deals or manipulation that lead to Hitler passing the necessary legislation. In fact, a quick google search indicates von Hindenburg kicking it all off with the Reichstag Fire Decree.

    Let us also not forget the UK is said to have the most fascist movements (though I somewhat doubt this myself and could never find a source for this after seeing the map). Though, many would argue that the current government has fascist tendencies. Trying to seize power similar to the Nazi party in 1933; seemingly trying to gain the ability to pass legislation without Parliaments consent (again, similar to the Nazi party); the dodgy DUP deal and authoritarianism in general. Going back to the repeal bill again, the talk from David Davi(e)s telling Labour to not "frustrate" the vote otherwise it subverts democracy or something when really, the opposite is true.

    No, because the fact is that at the height of his popularity and dark arts Blair would have won a Presidential election hands down - a President Blair and First Lady Cherie in Buckingham Palace would have been a stone cold reality. As would a President Nick Clegg in 2010 and a President Nigel Farage in 2012 - all of these politicians personal popularity ratings at one time would have propelled them into a Presidency if it had existed at the time. Republicans I assume think this is better than a King Charles III - I say let them argue that.

    And as for the same job, yes it would be without constitutional changes. However the job would become political, and if you are happy with the post of Head of State becoming political and in the grip of the major political parties then again I say argue for it.
    I'd have liked to have seen President Blair.

    That revulsion towards Blair - quite justified I agree - is the best argument for constitutional monarchy. Look at the United States now as to how people speak of George W Bush, Barack Obama and Donald J Trump - and compare with Her Majesty the Queen.
    Easy to be liked when you don't really get involved. If Blair was in her position he wouldn't have been disliked either I'm sure. In fact, most of the dislike towards him is Iraq related.

    So you're saying what the country needs is millions of millions still used on one family - the First Family - but with the added cost of elections to the post every 5 years. Along with turning a neutral position into one which divides the country rather than unites it?
    Why would a president need millions and millions spent on them? The PM only earns ~ £140k per annum including their MP duties.
    The added cost of elections? You mean this democracy you like to bang on about?
    Can't really speak about dividing a country either when Brexit has probably divided a lot more people than the abolition of the monarchy would. The monarchy really doesn't affect peoples lives and I think you're assuming a lot of people have that strong of an opinion either way. You can talk about how people were obsessed with Diana or are seemingly obsessed with Kate and William, but in reality the media pushes for it. If they stopped, very few people would really be that upset.

  8. #8
    -:Undertaker:-'s Avatar
    -:Undertaker:- is offline Habbox Hall of Fame Inductee
    Former Rare Values Manager
    HabboxForum Top Poster
    Articles Writer


    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Mijas, the Kingdom of Spain
    Country
    Spain
    Posts
    28,666
    Tokens
    180
    Habbo
    -:overtaker:-

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    On the popularity of the monarchy, it is actually very popular.

    Even in the Commonwealth of Australia, on the other side of the world, republicans failed in the 1999 referendum to abolish The Crown and become a republic. This was despite the fact the monarchy at that time was at its lowest ebb with the marriage breakdowns and death of Diana, Princess of Wales - as well as the fact many of the Australian politicians and journalists were for a republic.

    That people would advocate the end of a much loved thousand year institution, rich with ancient English and Scottish traditions, to be replaced with an unloved office with an unloved politician puzzles me. Long Live The Queen (and her successors).

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/09/08...chy-here-stay/

    Quote Originally Posted by YouGov
    The monarchy's enduring popularity has been confirmed by new YouGov research, with a resounding 68% of the British public believing the institution to be good for the country. It comes as Queen Elizabbeth II becomes the longest serving monarch in British history - overtaking Queen Victoria’s reign of 63 years, seven months and two days.

    Support for the institution is wide ranging - with the monarchy gaining majority support from voters of all political parties and every age group. Older people are most enthusiastic, with almost eight in ten over-60s saying the monarchy is good for Britain.


    Looking to the future, the majority is even confident that the Royal Family is here to stay. More than six in ten (62%) believe Britain will still have a monarch in 100 years' time – a view that hasn’t changed dramatically since the Jubilee in 2012.


    The British public fully support the monarchy continuing. Over seven in ten (71%) adults believe the British monarchy should remain, with less than a fifth (18%) saying we should have an elected head of state instead.


    This view has remained roughly consistent over the last few years of YouGov research.







    Quote Originally Posted by dbgtz
    Why would a president need millions and millions spent on them? The PM only earns ~ £140k per annum including their MP duties.
    Because, exactly like the monarchy, it would require the exact same security as Head of State. Many of the costs of the monarchy are the upkeep of the palaces and castles which would be kept for a President - Head of States don't slum it - so unless you're advocating flattening Buckingham Palace, the Palace of Westminster and Edinburgh Castle and replacing with some RedRow housing then you're still going to be paying for the upkeep of stately buildings.

    Quote Originally Posted by dbgtz
    The added cost of elections? You mean this democracy you like to bang on about?
    Well yes, it would be an added cost.

    You can't say you want a republic to save money when it would do the opposite. You may think that added cost for Presidential elections every 5 years to be worth it in the democratic sense - fine position to hold - but don't at the same time claim lower costs lol.



  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    12,313
    Tokens
    33,472
    Habbo
    dbgtz

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    Hey how about replying to the part about fascism, you know, the bulk of what I was saying beforehand rather than ignoring it. Is it because you know you're wrong? Do you also need poking in the direction that Italy had a king and that our King had also been slightly cosying up to Adolf?

    Quote Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:- View Post
    On the popularity of the monarchy, it is actually very popular.

    Even in the Commonwealth of Australia, on the other side of the world, republicans failed in the 1999 referendum to abolish The Crown and become a republic. This was despite the fact the monarchy at that time was at its lowest ebb with the marriage breakdowns and death of Diana, Princess of Wales - as well as the fact many of the Australian politicians and journalists were for a republic.

    That people would advocate the end of a much loved thousand year institution, rich with ancient English and Scottish traditions, to be replaced with an unloved office with an unloved politician puzzles me. Long Live The Queen (and her successors).

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/09/08...chy-here-stay/







    Except my point was if they were removed from their position, most people wouldn't care or even notice. All the Royal family provide for most people is a bit of gossip. Just look at Diana and how much gossip floats around her even to this day. And you know the moment they started to become active their popularity would decrease rapidly, like any (well, most) elected politicians.

    Because, exactly like the monarchy, it would require the exact same security as Head of State. Many of the costs of the monarchy are the upkeep of the palaces and castles which would be kept for a President - Head of States don't slum it - so unless you're advocating flattening Buckingham Palace, the Palace of Westminster and Edinburgh Castle and replacing with some RedRow housing then you're still going to be paying for the upkeep of stately buildings.
    Not quite sure why you assume any of this. First of all, at what point did I suggest Westminster Palace being removed? Secondly, you realise the government doesn't own any of those and I suspect would probably not take outright ownership under a "happy divorce"? I don't really understand why you're assuming they'd just be in the Queen's exact position but elected.

    Well yes, it would be an added cost.

    You can't say you want a republic to save money when it would do the opposite. You may think that added cost for Presidential elections every 5 years to be worth it in the democratic sense - fine position to hold - but don't at the same time claim lower costs lol.
    I don't disagree, but for someone who talks about democracy a lot, this is a really shoddy point to make. If cost is an issue then let us just not bother with MPs to begin with. Let us never have referendums or any of that shite either.
    Nice ignoring my point about Brexit, too, because you know it is true and your argument looks weak because of it.

  10. #10
    -:Undertaker:-'s Avatar
    -:Undertaker:- is offline Habbox Hall of Fame Inductee
    Former Rare Values Manager
    HabboxForum Top Poster
    Articles Writer


    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Mijas, the Kingdom of Spain
    Country
    Spain
    Posts
    28,666
    Tokens
    180
    Habbo
    -:overtaker:-

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dbgtz View Post
    Hey how about replying to the part about fascism, you know, the bulk of what I was saying beforehand rather than ignoring it. Is it because you know you're wrong? Do you also need poking in the direction that Italy had a king and that our King had also been slightly cosying up to Adolf?
    Germany

    Firstly in regards to Germany, President Hindenburg did sign into law Nazi doctrines along with appointing Hitler into government. But like you said, you've just done a Google search. If you knew the motives - Hindenburg ultimately had his hands constitutionally tied as the Preisdent and not the Chancellor, and his motive in appointing Hitler if my recollection serves me right was that he would be "shown up" in power.

    If you read the history on the period though you will know that Hindenburg's presence was a great irritation to Hitler and certainly put brakes on his acquisition of power in Germany, hence the wait for Hindenburg to pass away. My argument simply is that quite possible, had Hindenburg been a monarch with an heir waiting in the wings then although possibly still toppled in the end, this would have led to more of a rebellion in Germany against Nazi rule.

    The actions of King Haakon VII of Norway in refusing to collaborate with Nazi Germany along with Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands and King Christian X of Denmark inspired rebellion amongst the Norweigans, Danes and Dutch people - hence why Norway, the Netherlands and Denmark all remain kingdoms to this very day.

    Italy

    In terms of King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy, you'll notice I did not state that monarchy is an absolute guarantee against dictatorship. Of course it is not - sometimes monarchy (although rarely constitutional) can even be the cause of a dictatorship like modern day Saudi Arabia or Imperial Germany. But it is a constitutional defence nevertheless because if you compare the constitutional monarchies of Britain, Norway, Sweden, Belgium Denmark, the Netherlands to republics in Europe you'll see that on the whole they are much more peaceful and stable.

    King-Emperor Edward VIII

    Important to remember context in all of this. Back in the 1930s, there were no gas chambers or German troops marching across Europe. National socialism had undoubtedly brought stability to Germany in the same way we view modern day China or Russia: a brute government but one that has stabilised a previously weak state. Kign Edward VIII was not alone in early admiration for 1930s Germany - in any case, constitutional restraints on the king resulted in his abdication anyway which rather supports my case.

    Quote Originally Posted by dbgtz
    Except my point was if they were removed from their position, most people wouldn't care or even notice. All the Royal family provide for most people is a bit of gossip. Just look at Diana and how much gossip floats around her even to this day. And you know the moment they started to become active their popularity would decrease rapidly, like any (well, most) elected politicians.
    You'll have to provide evidence for this. It isn't a burning constitutional issue, no, because the vast majority are happy with the status quo in the same way that voting reform doesn't appear in the top ten issues when people are polled. If you attempted to remove the monarchy though with say a referendum, I would guarantee an even more intense debate than we had over the European Union last summer. Like I said, Australia - on the other side of the world, a curious mix of the British and American constitutional systems and during the Windsor's least popular years - didn't even want to abolish the monarchy when all of the media and political class wanted to.

    What we do know from polling is that the monarchy is key to our national identity and you only have to look at the crowds that turn up on royal events to see, as Lord Hurd put it a few years back, that the magic hasn't gone. The same crowds that were there to see King George VI on VE Day were there on the Queen's Golden Jubilee, her Diamond Jubilee, the Royal Wedding - even today Prince William visited my local area and huge crowds turned out. From our armed forces, to our flag, to our ceremonies, to our national anthem, to our post stamps, to our post boxes, telephone kiosks, national coat of arms, what we name our buildings and streets, our constitution, history, national celebrations, national times of mourning - everything is wrapped up in that of institution of The Crown.

    https://yougov.co.uk/news/2012/05/01...jack-mean-you/
    http://www.natcen.ac.uk/blog/how-imp...british-people

    Quote Originally Posted by NatCen
    For more than 30 years, NatCen’s British Social Attitudes survey has been asking the British public their views on the monarchy. The 2015 BSA report highlights important changes in attitudes towards the royal family.

    First of all, regardless of when we asked, most people said having a monarchy was very important or important for the country. But the size of this majority has decreased significantly in the past 30 years. In 1983 more than four fifths of the population (86%) were in favour of the monarchy. This figure fell to 66% in 1994 and it remained stable until 2011. This period of lower consensus coincided with allegations of Prince Charles’ infidelity and his subsequent separation from Diana.

    By 2011 the tide of public opinion rose again: the percentage of those who supported the monarchy reached 74% of the population. Indeed, this increase has been sustained and in 2015 almost three in four people (73%) remained in favour of the monarchy. This strong rise in support is likely to be due, in no small part, to the royal milestones that took place during this period, such as William and Kate’s wedding in 2011, the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee in 2012 and the birth of two Royal babies in 2013 and 2015. The high level of support in the early 1980s also followed a royal wedding and another royal baby: Prince William.
    Don't confuse your own indifference to the House of Windsor to that of the public.

    Huge crowds will turn out for the funeral of the Queen and the Coronations of Kings Charles, William and George.


    Quote Originally Posted by dbgtz
    Not quite sure why you assume any of this. First of all, at what point did I suggest Westminster Palace being removed? Secondly, you realise the government doesn't own any of those and I suspect would probably not take outright ownership under a "happy divorce"? I don't really understand why you're assuming they'd just be in the Queen's exact position but elected.
    If they were not in the Queen's exact position then you're assuming a *huge* constitutional change that this country has never seen before - even when we had the English Civil War and overthrew the monarchy, Cromwell as Lord Protector basically assumed the institutions of the Crown rather than abolishing the structures of government as is what happened in France. Huge constitutional change is very un-British which is why we're still talking about Lords reform more than a hundred years after it first surfaced as an issue. There's no appetite for republicanism - or constitutional change - other than in the back pages of the Guardian newspaper.

    Quote Originally Posted by dbgtz
    I don't disagree, but for someone who talks about democracy a lot, this is a really shoddy point to make. If cost is an issue then let us just not bother with MPs to begin with. Let us never have referendums or any of that shite either.
    I'm not the one making the case for a change - opponents of monarchy often bring up the cost factor (which does not bother me in the slightest as I think every penny is worth it and more) to which my question is exactly how they would bring down the costs when a President would likely cost the same or even more as in the case of the US President.

    Unless they want to merge the Crown with the office of the Prime Minister (as many of them say when you say this) which in itself would Presidentialise the position of PM and concentrate a lot of power in the hands of one person.

    Quote Originally Posted by dbgtz
    Nice ignoring my point about Brexit, too, because you know it is true and your argument looks weak because of it.
    If you really want to debate the silly point that this government is somehow fascist for copying and pasting existing EU law into the statute books then i'll happily do so in The Great Repeal Bill thread.
    Last edited by -:Undertaker:-; 15-09-2017 at 09:42 PM.



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •