Comments on: Kiwi PM: Kim Dotcom To Be Royal Baby Gift

By: Zebra52

Zebra52 — Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:45:00 +0000

Yeah……he was just torturing and beheading those he didn’t like.

By: Christopher Kidwell

Christopher Kidwell — Tue, 16 Jul 2013 05:15:00 +0000

True. Though some people would say that was because the United States would have rapped him on the hand if he tried another Kuwait.

By: librtee_dot_com

librtee_dot_com — Mon, 15 Jul 2013 23:31:00 +0000

I read Hans Herman-Hoppe’s analysis of Monarchy and why it is theoretically superior to Democracy a couple nights back, really interesting reading.

mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_14.pdf‎

Sorry, but you can’t look at Democracies and say with a straight face that they compare favorably to ANY other form of government. Even gross dictatorships, I mean, Saddam Hussein wasn’t spying on the whole world or invading countries willynilly.

By: Pat

Pat — Fri, 12 Jul 2013 19:42:00 +0000

Just to chime in with the others, monarchism isn’t a big deal here. Culturally it’s just tradition, and politically it’s just a figurehead. Most people are apathetic towards the royal family (even more so than to religion). I imagine most of the people watching the weddings and parades and such just do it for the novelty value.

Mind you, I live in Scotland, and no one likes anything here.

By: Pat

Pat — Fri, 12 Jul 2013 19:39:00 +0000

I’m British and not a fan of monarchism, but for all it costs to support the royal family, we more than make up for it in tourism related to them (Americans love castles, I suppose). One could argue that it’s taking even more from the public for the govt. to spend, but I’m also glad we have things like free healthcare and education.

By: Tea Party

Tea Party — Thu, 11 Jul 2013 14:58:00 +0000

“In the days to come the UK’s Duchess of Cambridge, wife to Prince
William, will give birth and for the first time the sex of the baby
won’t play a part in determining whether he or she will become heir to the throne.”

Cool, maybe in a few years, the ancestry of the baby will stop playing a part in determining whether or not he or she will become heir to the throne, too!

By: doddlewoddle

doddlewoddle — Thu, 11 Jul 2013 07:19:00 +0000

Norway have a monarchy. A royal family, do some research first.

By: bushed

bushed — Thu, 11 Jul 2013 05:29:00 +0000

Lets try this again from the beginning, the reason why it is important to have a separate figurehead which is not part of the government is that if the government makes a big mistake they can be got rid of easily with no fuss. The clinton scandle is a good recent example of what happens when the ruler and figure head are the same person.

As for the person who questioned that tourist pull of the royals, compare Britains tourist industry to another cold rainy country like Norway, lovely country but no selling point

By: N/A TF

N/A TF — Thu, 11 Jul 2013 05:00:00 +0000

I dunno about year 21, but I agree with regards to MMXIII [2013]

By: The_Strawbear

The_Strawbear — Thu, 11 Jul 2013 03:06:00 +0000

The queen has the power to withdraw royal assent from a bill passed within its first year, she can also deny royal assent as this article from Jan 2013 shows:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/9801835/Queen-and-Prince-Charles-using-power-of-veto-over-new-laws-Whitehall-documents-reveal.html

Also Prince Charles has been directly influencing govt policy, his letters to the PM have been denied release under the FOA.