Sooty57 403 Posted June 20, 2014 My boss gave his view on England''s departure, which cures the hurt in an instant."Just imagine England had won the World Cup, with the winning goal in the final scored by Rooney. Come the New Year Honours List would see the probably knighthood of Sir Wayne Rooney. How many of us could live with that?"A lucky escape methinks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mrs miggins 0 Posted June 21, 2014 But it doesn''t mean anything to get knighted, who is she (the queen) to give anyone anything? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted June 21, 2014 Nothing wrong with a bit of pomp and ceremony Miggins. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gainer the Gopher 0 Posted June 21, 2014 It may not matter to you, Miggs, but to those receiving the honour and their friends, family and (in some cases) fans, and to the general public, it''s a big deal.I know Sir Maurice Mickelthorpe was chuffed to be knighted. That''s Michael Caine''s real name. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Herman 9,760 Posted June 21, 2014 Isn''t there some way we can blame Sepp Blatter for our quick exit? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pete_norw 0 Posted June 21, 2014 [quote user="Herman "]Isn''t there some way we can blame Sepp Blatter for our quick exit?[/quote]The only people to blame is the F A. for allowing the top league choke the squads with Foreign players, not enough home grow players in any squad. and Wrong manager. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PurpleCanary 5,558 Posted June 21, 2014 [quote user="pete_norw"][quote user="Herman "]Isn''t there some way we can blame Sepp Blatter for our quick exit?[/quote]The only people to blame is the F A. for allowing the top league choke the squads with Foreign players, not enough home grow players in any squad. and Wrong manager.[/quote]I''m not an expert on the subject, but I think any serious attempt to do that (as opposed to the marginal eight-home-grown rule) would fall foul of European Union employment law, which allows for the free movement of labour.Added to which if it came to a power struggle between the FA trying to do something to benefit the England team and the Premier League defending the ability of its major clubs to compete in the Champions League I suspect I know which organisation would win out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mrs miggins 0 Posted June 21, 2014 Ice Cold Pineapple Soda wrote the following post at 21/06/2014 4:12 AM:It may not matter to you, Miggs, but to those receiving the honour and their friends, family and (in some cases) fans, and to the general public, it''s a big deal. I know Sir Maurice Mickelthorpe was chuffed to be knighted. That''s Michael Caine''s real name.---------------------------------------------Personally if I was ever offered a knighthood (there''s no reason for one, but lets just say) I was give a big FU CK YOU to ''her majesty'' herself. Waste of skin. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
whoareyou? 0 Posted June 21, 2014 [quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="pete_norw"][quote user="Herman "]Isn''t there some way we can blame Sepp Blatter for our quick exit?[/quote]The only people to blame is the F A. for allowing the top league choke the squads with Foreign players, not enough home grow players in any squad. and Wrong manager.[/quote]I''m not an expert on the subject, but I think any serious attempt to do that (as opposed to the marginal eight-home-grown rule) would fall foul of European Union employment law, which allows for the free movement of labour.Added to which if it came to a power struggle between the FA trying to do something to benefit the England team and the Premier League defending the ability of its major clubs to compete in the Champions League I suspect I know which organisation would win out.[/quote]I don''t believe that is true. The FA could make a rule that any team must have at least 5 English players on the pitch at any one time. There is already a rule regarding numbers of foreign players in the squad (17).This does not stop clubs employing players, just limits how many are in the squad (or on the pitch in my idea) at any one time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PurpleCanary 5,558 Posted June 21, 2014 [quote user="whoareyou"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="pete_norw"][quote user="Herman "]Isn''t there some way we can blame Sepp Blatter for our quick exit?[/quote]The only people to blame is the F A. for allowing the top league choke the squads with Foreign players, not enough home grow players in any squad. and Wrong manager.[/quote]I''m not an expert on the subject, but I think any serious attempt to do that (as opposed to the marginal eight-home-grown rule) would fall foul of European Union employment law, which allows for the free movement of labour.Added to which if it came to a power struggle between the FA trying to do something to benefit the England team and the Premier League defending the ability of its major clubs to compete in the Champions League I suspect I know which organisation would win out.[/quote]I don''t believe that is true. The FA could make a rule that any team must have at least 5 English players on the pitch at any one time. There is already a rule regarding numbers of foreign players in the squad (17).This does not stop clubs employing players, just limits how many are in the squad (or on the pitch in my idea) at any one time.[/quote]I did admit to not being an expert in employment law! And I did mention the eight-homegrown rule. But if the FA tried to limit clubs to a certain number of overseas payers on the pitch then I think you would find the Premier League would strongly oppose that. And I really do think I know who would come out on top in that power struggle... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Reggie Strayshun 0 Posted June 21, 2014 [quote user="mrs miggins"]I-Personally if I was ever offered a knighthood (there''s no reason for one, but lets just say) I was give a big FU CK YOU to ''her majesty'' herself. Waste of skin.[/quote]I take it you''re of the ''line ''em all up against the wall and shoot ''em'' persuasion then, Miggo ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Angry 1,555 Posted June 21, 2014 [quote user="Ice Cold Pineapple Soda"]I know Sir Maurice Mickelthorpe was chuffed to be knighted. That''s Michael Caine''s real name.[/quote]Micklewhite Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mrs miggins 0 Posted June 21, 2014 Reggie Strayshun wrote the following post at 21/06/2014 11:38 AM:I take it you''re of the ''line ''em all up against the wall and shoot ''em'' persuasion then, Miggo ?---------------------------------------------------------Yep(realistically just get rid of the monarchy) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lincoln canary (& Golden Coppel) 0 Posted June 21, 2014 [quote user="Sooty57"]My boss gave his view on England''s departure, which cures the hurt in an instant."Just imagine England had won the World Cup, with the winning goal in the final scored by Rooney. Come the New Year Honours List would see the probably knighthood of Sir Wayne Rooney. How many of us could live with that?"A lucky escape methinks.[/quote]Had this happened I''d have had no problem calling Wayne Sir Wayne. Really gutted at our exit. Bad season all round. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lappinitup 629 Posted June 21, 2014 [quote user="lincoln canary"]Had this happened I''d have had no problem calling Wayne Sir Wayne.[/quote]Helen Wood has already said "Arise Sir Wayne". Allegedly. [;)] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gainer the Gopher 0 Posted June 21, 2014 Whoops! Good save, Mr. Angry. Miggs, abolishing the monarchy would have a mostly negative impact on the economy. The ceremony, tradition, curiosity and charm are major draws for tourism. It may be nonsense, but so is Mickey Mouse, another major tourism draw. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mrs miggins 0 Posted June 21, 2014 Tourism isn''t a good enough excuse, thats the main thing I hear in favour of the monarchy, such a $hit excuse (if you don''t mind me saying). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gainer the Gopher 0 Posted June 21, 2014 I don''t mind you saying at all but a little clarification on why it''s a $#!t excuse would be enlightening. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mrs miggins 0 Posted June 21, 2014 Because we shouldn''t forget our morals by the prospect of a little more money coming in. I''m sure the monarchy do have an impact on tourism, but firstly, it shouldn''t be the reason for why we still have a monarchy, and second it''s not like people will stop coming here, thats absurd, sure its a combining factor, but London has so much to offer for tourists other than the Royal Family. For me the tourism ''argument'' isn''t an argument, it has nothing to do with the morality of why the monarchy is still in place...especially in this day an age. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Monty13 2,233 Posted June 21, 2014 Miggins what are you on about? is it immoral to have a Monarchy over some other form of head of state?I don''t have any issue with anyone being anti any of our establishments in this country, but I don''t get what you mean by forgetting our morals?You have to have a head of state, a figurehead for your country. What would you prefer a President like France/US/Ireland? Would you like President Miliband or Cameron or...Farage? Would that be more moral?There is also a very clear economic argument for the Royal Family, you can''t just ignore that. The reality is that most people care very little whether we have a Royal Family or not because apart from the getting an extra Holiday off every so often they have very little affect on their lives so why destroy 1000''s of years of tradition just so some elected idiot can cause diplomatic incidents with other countries rather than Prince Philip. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mrs miggins 0 Posted June 21, 2014 Why are you looking for an argument? "I don''t have any issue with anyone being anti any of our establishments in this country"Good for you"You have to have a head of state, a figurehead for your country. What would you prefer a President like France/US/Ireland? Would you like President Miliband or Cameron or...Farage? Would that be more moral?"Yes because Presidents run the country, they are elected, they don''t have a devine right to run the country or be automatically in line to be the head of the state/country. Presidents/Prime Ministers don''t represent a class system IN THE SAME WAY that the foyle family do (that bit is important as politicians are obviously associated very much in a certain class, but the royal family by concept create a class system). "There is also a very clear economic argument for the Royal Family, you can''t just ignore that."I didn''t ignore it, I addressed it and said there is financial gain by having a royal family. "The reality is that most people care very little whether we have a Royal Family or not because apart from the getting an extra Holiday off every so often they have very little affect on their lives so why destroy 1000''s of years of tradition just so some elected idiot can cause diplomatic incidents with other countries rather than Prince Philip."I don''t care if not a lot of people care about the royal family (which i don''t think is true, I think most people either really like them, or don''t), the thread was about Rooney being knighted, and me saying that the it wouldn''t matter as it doesn''t mean anything, I didn''t start the thread stating my bitterness towards the useless bunch including (as you say) Prince Phillip. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PurpleCanary 5,558 Posted June 21, 2014 [quote user="Monty13"]Miggins what are you on about? is it immoral to have a Monarchy over some other form of head of state?I don''t have any issue with anyone being anti any of our establishments in this country, but I don''t get what you mean by forgetting our morals?You have to have a head of state, a figurehead for your country. What would you prefer a President like France/US/Ireland? Would you like President Miliband or Cameron or...Farage? Would that be more moral?There is also a very clear economic argument for the Royal Family, you can''t just ignore that. The reality is that most people care very little whether we have a Royal Family or not because apart from the getting an extra Holiday off every so often they have very little affect on their lives so why destroy 1000''s of years of tradition just so some elected idiot can cause diplomatic incidents with other countries rather than Prince Philip.[/quote]The argument against the monarchy in general and having the monarch as head of state in particular is that is is undemocratic. We should be a parliamentary democracy in theory as well as in practice, either with an elected head of state with powers, or with a head of state, elected or non-elected, with absolutely no powers, but we cannot be that under the current system.There is an argument about how real and extensive are the monarch''s powers, and whether they would ever now be used undemocratically, but there should no longer even be the theoretical possibility of a monarch whom no-one has elected wielding power.As to those examples, they are not really to the point. In France and the US the presidents are the heads of state, and with significant powers, but they are elected by the people. They and their powers are part of a democratic system. In the Irish Republic the head of state, with virtually no power, is elected, while the political leader, the equivalent of our prime minister, is also elected.In Germany, to give another example, political power rests with the elected chancellor, and there is a powerless president - usually a respected elder statesman - for ceremonial purposes. And that system works fine. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gainer the Gopher 0 Posted June 21, 2014 And for putting it in such clear and logical terms, I christen thee Sir Monty and Sir Purple. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mrs miggins 0 Posted June 21, 2014 see, people do care Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Monty13 2,233 Posted June 22, 2014 Is there much of an argument over the Monarchs powers Purple? It seems universally accepted that they have no political power, whether they legally do or not, and to try and enforce any of the powers they ceremonially hold would be unfeasible?I was well aware that the France, US and Ireland differ Purple (no disrespect, maybe I wasn''t clear) thats why I mentioned having our current political or potential political leaders as president ie. in something like the US/France mould... or someone like Farage, who will never likely wield any mainstream power, but would maybe gain popular support for such a ceremonially elected role, like they have in Ireland.Miggins"see, people do care" - No, they will mention their feelings in passing, on here, in a pub etc. But I have never seen anything close to general popular swell for change or a passionate overt defence of the monarchy remaining...ergo, people don''t really care that much either way."I don''t care if not a lot of people care about the royal family (which I don''t think is true, I think most people either really like them, or don''t), the thread was about Rooney being knighted, and me saying that the it wouldn''t matter as it doesn''t mean anything, I didn''t start the thread stating my bitterness towards the useless bunch including (as you say) Prince Phillip. "Nope you said "who is she (the queen) to give anyone anything?" The answer is the Head of State, who just ceremoniously gives out the honours, who receives honours is decided by the Cabinet Office, therefore the Government of the day. So your beef with Rooney getting a knighthood would be with the elected representative government of the people of the UK. So essentially you should be upset with those Democratically elected, not the Royal family if he was to be knighted.I also believe lots of people think it does mean something to get an honour otherwise they wouldn''t be so quick to demand the stripping of peoples honours. It''s also a tad disrespectful for the 100''s that get honoured for their charity work and public service. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mrs miggins 0 Posted June 22, 2014 The person who is knighted, as you say is not decided by the royle family (they don''t know who anyone is), but they are the main part of the ceremony, which they shouldn''t be imo, they shouldn''t be allowed to be part of a celebration where someone has contributed to something more than them (as otherwise we''d all get a knighthood) they can attend if they wish, but to be the ones to honour these people is just laughable. There are awards like ''mum of the year'' and all that kind of stuff which celebrate hard working everyday people and charitable people. If someone was chosen for a knighthood, it should be presented by someone of worth. For example, if you had found the cure for cancer and the Cabinet Office decided you should be knighted, it should be presented by someone who has worked in the same world as that person, famous or otherwise (whether it be Richard Dawkins for example, or a man who has been a scientist for 50 years).I must admit, I found the last bit of your comment a bit distasteful.On the subject of people caring if we have a monarchy, we''ve just been discussing this for quite a while so you must feel quite strong about keeping up with tradition. You are also in a majority as I think the latest poll showed 3/4 of the population still wanted a monarchy. Overall its not that much of an important debate in the grand scheme of Britain''s problems, but I do still think its a problem, there''s absolutely no need for them in this day and age other than to remind the working class how poor they really are. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PurpleCanary 5,558 Posted June 22, 2014 [quote user="Monty13"]Is there much of an argument over the Monarchs powers Purple? It seems universally accepted that they have no political power, whether they legally do or not, and to try and enforce any of the powers they ceremonially hold would be unfeasible?[/quote]Monty, I think there is an argument. It seems generally agreed that Elizabeth II has been a reasonably wise monarch, and has not got involved in politics, at least here. But she did, through her governor-general, unilaterally sack the democratically elected (left-wing) prime minister of Australia and instal his right-wing opponent.And, leaving that aside, there is no guarantee her successors will be so hands-off. It is a fact that the current heir to the throne has for decades used his privileged position to at the very least short-cut or sidestep (many would say subvert) the democratic process to influence government policy.So much so that the governemt''s reason for trying to stop voters knowing what Charles has been campaigning for is that if they did it would "undermine the principle of the heir [or the monarch] being politically neutral". In other words, the principle would be undermined by people knowing the heir had undermined it!Don''t forget that if it hadn''t been for an accident of history the monarch in the run-up to world war two and then throughout would have been Edward VIII, who was an admirer of Nazi Germany and strongly pro-appeasement. It is not fanciful to wonder if he would have tried to sway the government towards suing for peace.Finally, if the powers the monarch holds are purely theoretical and would never be used, then why not abolish them? That would end any danger of misuse. If people want to keep the monarchy as a ceremonial thing, for the tourists, then fine. But strip it of all political powers. Ideally, privatise it. Let it sink or swim in the turbulent waters of capitalism, as the rest of us have to. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Monty13 2,233 Posted June 22, 2014 Come on Purple, I don''t know much in depth about what happened in 1975, but my awareness of it is that the government was unable to function, in deadlock over spending, (much like the US yearly!) and the Governor General (yes as the queens representative) dismissed the PM, then parliament when the spending bill was passed and then ordered a democratic election. However the Australian Governor General was at the time, and has been since, an Australian and they are appointed by the Australian PM.The fact that the opposition were then elected with a majority seems to suggest what happened, while a crisis of constitutional setup, resulted in the change demanded by the majority of the electorate. There was a very upset Labour Party and it''s members obviously, but they lost the following democratic election and the crisis was arguably their fault.Hardly an act of despotism and you would imagine if it had upset the majority of the populace of Australia so much she would no longer be their head of state.Because where do those powers then reside? with the Prime Minister, does he sack himself? can he take the country to war without a majority in government? With the queen de facto holding these powers they will never likely be used unless the majority of parliament and the people want them to.As you say the Royals should be politically neutral and any elected representative that held these powers is unlikely to be. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
YankeeCanary 0 Posted June 22, 2014 [quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Monty13"]Is there much of an argument over the Monarchs powers Purple? It seems universally accepted that they have no political power, whether they legally do or not, and to try and enforce any of the powers they ceremonially hold would be unfeasible?[/quote]Monty, I think there is an argument. It seems generally agreed that Elizabeth II has been a reasonably wise monarch, and has not got involved in politics, at least here. But she did, through her governor-general, unilaterally sack the democratically elected (left-wing) prime minister of Australia and instal his right-wing opponent.And, leaving that aside, there is no guarantee her successors will be so hands-off. It is a fact that the current heir to the throne has for decades used his privileged position to at the very least short-cut or sidestep (many would say subvert) the democratic process to influence government policy.So much so that the governemt''s reason for trying to stop voters knowing what Charles has been campaigning for is that if they did it would "undermine the principle of the heir [or the monarch] being politically neutral". In other words, the principle would be undermined by people knowing the heir had undermined it!Don''t forget that if it hadn''t been for an accident of history the monarch in the run-up to world war two and then throughout would have been Edward VIII, who was an admirer of Nazi Germany and strongly pro-appeasement. It is not fanciful to wonder if he would have tried to sway the government towards suing for peace.Finally, if the powers the monarch holds are purely theoretical and would never be used, then why not abolish them? That would end any danger of misuse. If people want to keep the monarchy as a ceremonial thing, for the tourists, then fine. But strip it of all political powers. Ideally, privatise it. Let it sink or swim in the turbulent waters of capitalism, as the rest of us have to.[/quote] Purple, no desire on my part to interfere with your apparent enjoyment of the interaction with Monty. I simply wanted to point out that Edward V111 was not so strongly pro-appeasement such that he allowed his Johnson to dictate his future rather than his principles or beliefs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Monty13 2,233 Posted June 22, 2014 "I must admit, I found the last bit of your comment a bit distasteful."Well I found yours distasteful but I used the word disrespectful to be more polite, I have seen people who have received honours and the amount it means to them and their families is clear to see. To see you dismiss it so readily out of hand as meaningless as you don''t approve of the system is disrespectful.I feel strongly that things should be changed because they are broken or there is a better option, not because some people dislike it. I''m not too bothered about the royal family, but i find it strange when people are vehemently opposed for very little reason other than their own opinion.What the latest poll shows is 3/4 people see absolutely no reason to make change, not a strong support for them."remind the working class how poor they really are" is that what the royal family do? I had no idea, i''m from a working class family and I would argue A) nowadays the class system is muddied a lot more than any would care to admit B) the royal family has little to no impact on the "working class" in fact it is there that you often find the strongest support and goodwill for Royalty. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites