[CKASlacker]

DanSC wrote:

The British have one traditional way of removing a bad heir; behead them.

Having the rotten uncle kill them and store the bodies in the Tower is another way.

[Psudo]

Both of those "solutions" sound like exchanging one intolerable thing for another.

[EyeBrock]

Well that kinda stuff hasn't happened for a little while. You Yanks need to brush up on history past "The Redcoats are coming! The Redcoats are coming...!"

[DanSC]

Eh, it happened long after the Magna Carta, and that still carries weight after all these years.

[EyeBrock]

And when was the last time the Brits beheaded somebody Dan? It's hardly a recent event and lends zero credence to the debate on this thread.

[Psudo]

You're right. Beheadings are a lot less common since the British Crown was reduced to a figurehead.

[EyeBrock]

When was the last beheading Psudo?

[Psudo]

EyeBrock wrote:

When was the last beheading Psudo?

1747. So?
Is your point that this was before 1776, which invalidates the entire American Revolution and discredits me and all anti-monarchists forever? Because that would be ridiculous. The American Revolution and the "monarchy vs republic" debate are not remotely the same thing.
1) I've been asked to believe that the King was a figurehead at the time of the revolution; given that, a) the figurehead status would have been achieved earlier, perhaps closer to 1747, and b) the American Revolution was between soft republicanism and hard republicanism, with monarchy not at issue except rhetorically.
2) The American Revolution was more about Britain treating colonists as second-class citizens than monarchy unhampered by republican governmental processes; obviously the British Parliament already existed and wielded power, so obviously the monarchy was not absolute. I challenge you to find where I've said otherwise.
3) Anti-monarchists used the opportunity to rant about their views (Thomas Paine especially), but the actual anger against Britain and acceptance of those writings derived from lousy circumstances in the colonies themselves; being taxed to pay for a war debt they felt they had already paid for in blood, having no vote in the system that taxed them, British retaliation against Boston after the tea party and Boston Massacre, the colonists' inability get satisfaction for their grievances despite numerous petitions, etc.
4) My point -- that more were beheaded when monarchy had power than when it had less -- remains unchallenged.

[EyeBrock]

So ancient history then.

[Psudo]

The correlation between the power of the monarch and the rate of beheadings is still an argument against giving power to a monarch. Time doesn't dilute that.

That's not a criticism of Britain. In fact, it's praise; they recognized that truth and reduced monarchical power.

[EyeBrock]

I'm sorry, I just can't see Aunty Betty Windsor lopping anybodies head off right now.

According to you, this last happened 120 years before Canada became a constitutional monarchy, so I think your 'beheading' reference belies a lack of historical knowledge and credibility on the subject.

Just my view old chap.

[ShepherdsDog]

hey brock let's go watch the 'Mericans burn, drown and hang some old widows who won't conform or sell their land.

[EyeBrock]

I reckon they still do that Shep! Lynching is still in vogue too is it not?

[DanSC]

ShepherdsDog wrote:

hey brock let's go watch the 'Mericans burn, drown and hang some old widows who won't conform or sell their land.

Those were Americans? I figured those were British colonists.

Then again, if Canadians can take credit for military victories in a war that occurred over 50 years before Canada existed, anything's possible.

[EyeBrock]

The Mohawks can take credit for scaring the shite outta you Yanks. I have taken the uneducated to task re the War of 1812 in the past.