The Political Thread

[Old Tankie]

Ah!  It's a lovely morning here, it's put me in a really frivolous mood.  So, with that in mind, pray tell me JayzusB, in this modern world, what are the advantages that your Dad has as a "Citizen" over your Mum as a "Subject"?  Just asking, 'cos I can't think of many myself.

[The Legendary Shark]

Citizen

citizen,n.1.  A  person  who,  by  either  birth  or  naturalization,  is  a  member  of  a  political
community, owing allegiance to the community and being entitled to enjoy all its civil rights and
protections;  a  member  of  the  civil  state,  entitled  to  all  its  privileges. 

2.  For  diversity-jurisdiction  purposes,  a  corporation  that  was  incorporated  within  a  state  or
has its principal place of business there.

SUBJECT

subject,n.1. One who owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by that sovereign's laws
<the monarchy's subjects>.

"Speaking generally, we may say that the terms subject and citizen are synonymous. Subjects
and  citizens  are  alike  those  whose  relation  to  the  state  is  personal  and  not  merely  territorial,
permanent  and  not  merely  temporary.  This  equivalent,  however,  is  not  absolute.  For  in  the  first
place, the term  subject is commonly limited to  monarchical forms of government, while the term
citizen  is  more  specially  applicable  in  the  case  of  republics.  A  British  subject  becomes  by
naturalisation a citizen of the United States of America or of France. In the second place, the term
citizen  brings  into  prominence  the  rights  and  privileges  of  the  status,  rather  than  its  correlative
obligations, while the reverse is the case with the term subject. Finally it is to be  noticed that the
term  subject  is capable  of  a  different  and  wider  application,  in  which  it  includes  all  members  of
the body politic, whether they are citizens (i.e., subjects stricto sensu) or resident aliens. All such
persons are subjects, all being subject to the power of the state and to its jurisdiction, and as owing
to it, at least temporarily, fidelity and obedience."

liege subject.See natural-born subject.
natural-born subject.A person born within the dominion of a monarchy, esp. England. — Also
termed liege subject.

Black's Law 8th Ed

[Mikey]

Is it just me or do other people find themselves reading Sharky's posts to the rythym of his avatar's jaw? It's quite entertaining!

Sorry...carry on....


M.

[the 'artist' formerly known as Slips]

Is it just me or do other people find themselves reading Sharky's posts to the rythym of his avatar's jaw? It's quite entertaining!

Sorry...carry on....


M.

Blah Blah Blah Blah.....

Yes Indeed works for me 

[TordelBack]

I think the difference is clearer than TLS' useful legal definitions suggest.

As a subject, you live within a system which is based on the concept that some people (rulers) are innately superior to others (subjects) purely because they belong to a particular narrowly-defined lineage.  The state asserts that you are born inferior, and unless you're Kate Middleton you will die inferior.  The Queen gets to sign stuff into law because of who her Papa was - you never will, because of who your Dad wasn't.

As a citizen, even where it is utterly masked by non-institutional discrimination through wealth and casual conspiracy, no such relationship is codified. 

Whether this has any material effect is hard to measure, given the imbalance that circumstances of birth introduces in any modern state anyway, but at least when striving for equality of opportunity a citizen isn't operating in an environment that incorporates the legal denial of that very thing. The actual concept of equality itself is eroded by the presence of hereditary royalty and peers, and deference to same.

All that said, I think the UK monarchy is presently an asset for that state.  While I wouldn't cross the street to gawp at them myself, the royals represent in physical form a long history and elaborate, colourful traditions, that help define national identity and international perception (from a cultural impact an tourism point of view). 

I'm less sure that this benefit outweighs the moral injury of being born on one's knees, but I very much doubt it's much worse than having one's elected equals suborned by bribery, collegiatism, clientilism and boundless greed.  At least you know what you're getting with the royal family.

[Mikey]

(I didn't mean that derogatorily Sharky!)

M.

[The Legendary Shark]

(I didn't mean that derogatorily Sharky!)

M.

I didn't take it that way, Mikey, don't worry. It does kinda' fit, though.

Yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap yap shop!

[I, Cosh]

All that said, I think the UK monarchy is presently an asset for that state.  While I wouldn't cross the street to gawp at them myself, the royals represent in physical form a long history and elaborate, colourful traditions, that help define national identity and international perception (from a cultural impact an tourism point of view).

However purely symbolic or ceremonial they actually are I still can't accept the argument that tourism revenue is any basis for a system of government. After all, plenty of people still visit the Palace of Versailles.

[Old Tankie]

Interesting post there.

I still don't see what practical difference it makes.  Her Maj rules with consent and if the bulk of the British people didn't want her she'd be gone.  Surely Kate Middleton's example shows that you can get into that so-called "elite group", both her parents were flight attendants, hardly royalty.

If you're a citizen you can get rid of a president but, can you get rid of The President?

[TordelBack]

However purely symbolic or ceremonial they actually are I still can't accept the argument that tourism revenue is any basis for a system of government. After all, plenty of people still visit the Palace of Versailles.

Agreed, but even with that symbol of excessive royal spending, the international concept of (I know it's just an example) France isn't so intimately tied up with the idea of monarchy as the UK's is.  England in particular is Beefeaters, royal castles, gold coaches and Princess Di to many further afield.

As some wise person from this very forum recently remarked, you wouldn't set out to create a new state as a constitutional monarchy, but seeing as you have one...

[Emperor]

All that said, I think the UK monarchy is presently an asset for that state.  While I wouldn't cross the street to gawp at them myself, the royals represent in physical form a long history and elaborate, colourful traditions, that help define national identity and international perception (from a cultural impact an tourism point of view).

However purely symbolic or ceremonial they actually are I still can't accept the argument that tourism revenue is any basis for a system of government. After all, plenty of people still visit the Palace of Versailles.

Also that tourism revenue wouldn't be diminished if they were mere figureheads with no constitutional role. Taking back all the land they've stolen (including vast swathes of the sea bed, from which they stand to earn millions from wind farms) and essentially becoming a republic would not stop a single tourist coming along and standing outside our Buckingham Palace to gawp at historical (and genetic) oddities we allow to live there.

[TordelBack]

Also that tourism revenue wouldn't be diminished if they were mere figureheads with no constitutional role.

I'm not sure this is entirely true.  There are plenty of royal dynasties cluttering up Europe, but none with the international prominence or cachet of the UK's - due in part I suspect to their ongoing relevance in the state's business, and the perceived quaintness thereof.   Also, it's not just tourism - it's the way your cultural products are viewed and consumed abroad.  It's a bit like Ireland and alcohol.  What excessive drinking costs us in ruined lives is more than made up for in our international fondness rating - we'd be lost without it, and countless midwives would be on the dole.

And just to be clear, if it was me saddled with them, I'd be demanding their removal toot-sweet.  But seeing as it's someone else that has them, and so many of you seem to hold them in some affection, I'm inclined to look for positives.

[JayzusB.Christ]

Ah!  It's a lovely morning here, it's put me in a really frivolous mood.  So, with that in mind, pray tell me JayzusB, in this modern world, what are the advantages that your Dad has as a "Citizen" over your Mum as a "Subject"?  Just asking, 'cos I can't think of many myself

Fair point, Tankie. I was struggling, but as usual TB has expressed my own opinion far better than I ever could.

As a subject, you live within a system which is based on the concept that some people (rulers) are innately superior to others (subjects) purely because they belong to a particular narrowly-defined lineage.  The state asserts that you are born inferior, and unless you're Kate Middleton you will die inferior.  The Queen gets to sign stuff into law because of who her Papa was - you never will, because of who your Dad wasn't.

As a citizen, even where it is utterly masked by non-institutional discrimination through wealth and casual conspiracy, no such relationship is codified. 

It's purely idealogical really, and admittedly there are no real practical benefits of being a citizen for the average person.  It's probably ingrained into me as a result of growing up in Ireland too:  Having always lived in a republic, I would simply find it hard to accept the fact that I was ruled by a person that nobody elected (even if it is only a symbolic rule).  This is also one of the many, many reasons I try to have as little to do as possible with the Catholic church.

But yeah, there is absolutely nothing wrong with being a 'subject', it's just not my preferred passport identity.  I just wish Tordelback was there for me every time I shoot my mouth off about points I can't back up. 

As an aside, I'm in Thailand at the moment. If we were Thai subjects, and we had a discussion like this one about the royals here, a lot of us would very likely be put in prison.  No exaggeration. They take royalty verrrry seriously here

[Emperor]

Also that tourism revenue wouldn't be diminished if they were mere figureheads with no constitutional role.

I'm not sure this is entirely true.  There are plenty of royal dynasties cluttering up Europe, but none with the international prominence or cachet of the UK's - due in part I suspect to their ongoing relevance in the state's business, and the perceived quaintness thereof.

I can't see it making a blind bit of a difference to a tourist - they see the Queen one day, pop over to Stonehenge on another, etc. and I can't see people avoiding Stonehenge because it no longer has the power it used to, it is important because of the history and the impressiveness.

It's purely idealogical really, and admittedly there are no real practical benefits of being a citizen for the average person.

As citizens we'd get a proper written constitution, which would have knock on effects in all sorts of areas, like this example from George Monbiot concerining the City of London:

If you've ever dithered over the question of whether the UK needs a written constitution, dither no longer. Imagine the clauses required to preserve the status of the Corporation. "The City of London will remain outside the authority of parliament. Domestic and foreign banks will be permitted to vote as if they were human beings, and their votes will outnumber those cast by real people. Its elected officials will be chosen from people deemed acceptable by a group of medieval guilds ...".

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/31/corporation-london-city-medieval

For a more general overview:

www.republic.org.uk/britishconstitution/
www.republic.org.uk/case/

[The Legendary Shark]

Please consider signing my petition, To Return the Creation and Control of the Money Supply to the People.

Here is the wording of the petition:

At present around 99% of the country's money is created from nothing by private banks and then lent to the government and the people at interest.

This is the root cause of the current 'financial crisis' as the system tries desperately to find ways of paying back the interest, which does not exist because the money to pay the interest was never created.

The solution is simple: We must return the power to create and control the money supply, interest free, to The People where this power rightly belongs.

Secondly, fractional reserve lending must be phased out and eventually (within a year to eighteen months) outlawed.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, a Truth and Reconcilliation process must be set up to gather information on the private and hidden dealings of the bankers and their associates. We must know exactly what damage these people have done so that the system can be repaired and the culprits brought to justice.