The musings of a juggling mother

Rants & raves about life as a woman today, juggling work, home, kids, family, life the universe & everything.

© Mrs Aginoth. The right of Mrs Aginoth to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents act 1988

Saturday, April 22, 2006

Viva la revolution

As Queenie turns 80 here in the UK, it looks like Nepal is determined to become a republic. Power to the People & a reminder to all governments that they are not in power by divine right & can be removed if they mess it up badly enough! I do not see any way out for the king, other than abdication. even if the Nepalise accept the return of a constitutional monarchy, i don't think they'll accept him as the monarch! I hope it is cincluded quickly and with as little blood as possible. With deaths in double figures already it's time for the king to think of his people & country first!

I doubt we'll be seeing the same here in the UK, although the fall of any monarchy in the world always gives ours the jitters for a while (especially if it falls into a communist state!), so I expect we'll get lots of nice photo's, soundbites and goodwill tours from our bunch of layabouts.

It's not the same here as in Nepal, obviously. Although I am, on balance, a republican, I can't really see the point in getting too stressed out about it atm. I think we lose more than we gain by having an extended royal family lurking at the forefront of our economy, in the centre of our culture and in the background of our politics, and I am certainly all for any Bill that restricts the number & cost of them (and don't give me that shit that Charles pays £11m of his annual costs himself - it's obscene that one person owns 30% of the country to make that sort of money out of!), I don't think we lose enough to make it worth revolting over.

Although I've always wondered what would happen if she just refused to sign a bill one day. Would Parliament just cut her out of the political process? Or would they go further? Do you think it's ever occured to her to just say no?


  • At Saturday, April 22, 2006 9:03:00 am, Anonymous Im chele in la said…

    oh lord I so agree ..
    Power to the people.........
    Over from the other michele's.

  • At Saturday, April 22, 2006 12:46:00 pm, Blogger Mike said…

    Here in the United States we broke away from having a king a long time ago. Our system is far from perfect (We ended up with Bush--enough said) but I think it is better than having Royalty.

    Michele sent me.

  • At Saturday, April 22, 2006 1:06:00 pm, Blogger jabbarnepal said…

    Shun the maoists, people of Nepal!
    Dear people of Nepal,

    I write this to you from the bottom of my heart; do you honestly believe that maoists will bring in peace and economic prosperity and growth? do not believe this , do not live in a dream. Please wake up read the history of other nations who have done in the past what you are doing now...... and see for yourself what happiness, what peace and prosperity has it brought them?

    Look at your neighbour India, 60 years ago the indians overthrew the yoke of the British empire, indian freedom fighters gave their blood, young lives were bartered for precious freedom and self rule......... Alas, did the politicians who came in after this martyrdom care anything for the sacrifice of those heroes. They were only interested in their own preoperity.

    Capitalism is the only way, let the economy be free. Communist, socialist policies will worsen the situation in Nepal. In India, Jawaharlal Nehru with his precious socialist policies succeeded in only making india poorer. what did he achieve ' the honest rich became poor, the poor became poorer, and the dishonest rich parked their money illegally abroad' what did the fool succeed in doing except transfer indias money to swiss banks?

    When did India begin to rise? only after the 1990's ! only aftre it changed Nehrus useless socialist idealogies. when india started opening up, started following liberal economic policies, the rise began.

    What socialist regime has ever succeded? it is only hogwash fed to the poor masses , giving them hope......... alas the poor seem to buy it hook line and sinker!

    from me, a lover of Nepal, its people , its monarchy, its culture, its beautiful himalayan land... oh just about everything........ ay mero nepal!

  • At Saturday, April 22, 2006 1:13:00 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "God save the Queen." I've always wondered what from.

    Cheers from Michele.

  • At Saturday, April 22, 2006 1:39:00 pm, Blogger Juggling Mother said…

    jabbarnepal - What socialist regime has ever suceeded?

    umm, lets see now, depending on your definition of "socialist" I would say Norway, Iceland, Denmark, Sweeden (all of Scandinavia really) Holland, France for a good while, and probably a whole bunch of others I don't know much about.

    If you're talking communism (which is a different thing in my book), then I have to say china isn't doing too badly on the economic front - isn't that how you are measuring success, judging by your comment? And Cuba has had one of the most stable regimes I've ever known, despite the Us's desperation to end it, which is pretty sucessful in it's own right.

    i'm not saying that communist dictators are good, but nor are monach dictators! he seized despotic control, despite the democratic processes in place in nepal, and has suceeded in alienating his own people to the extent that they are willing to risk their lives to protest.

    I'm with the Nepalese people here.

  • At Saturday, April 22, 2006 11:31:00 pm, Blogger MuppetLord said…

    So you would rather a Maoist insurgency take over then? You seem to have a strange view of socialism...a little naive perhaps. I notice you mention the Chinese economy...check this video out...,,31200-china_p10436,00.html - I'm sure they appreciate the economic growth.

  • At Sunday, April 23, 2006 6:48:00 am, Blogger Juggling Mother said…

    No, I think China has a particularly nasty form of government. I was merely saying that if you ar judging the success of a country by it's economic growth, China wins hands down atm.

    And the Nepalise opposition is a 7 party allience. One of which is the communist party. it's hardly a foregone conclusion they would be communist, let alone maoist - they have much closer ties with India than China, and were a democratic monarchy before the crown prince went psycho & murdered pretty much every memebr of the royal famly there was a few years ago.

    They are calling for an end to dictatorship - i thought you'd approve ML!

  • At Sunday, April 23, 2006 7:53:00 am, Blogger Crayonsetc said…

    I was going to say... isn't she more of just an honorary thing anyway... I thought Paliment basically ran everything anyway!!

    Stopping by via Michele!!

  • At Sunday, April 23, 2006 8:05:00 am, Blogger Juggling Mother said…

    No bill becoes law without her signing it - so in theory she could halt all legislation!

    She could also theoretically refuse to accept the PM or his cabinet, stopping the whole democratic process in it's tracks.

    More practical is the moral & cultural clout she has with the people, as well as the the economic one!

    Oh, and she gets to chat to all visiting premiers & dignitaries, as well as going off to visit them.

    It's certainly more than honarary - even if it's not a dictatorship.

    The Queens Council (her private bunch of cronies) have the right to enact laws in any circukstance were parliamnet can't get there quick enough too - this has been used during the summer holidays for example!

  • At Sunday, April 23, 2006 12:36:00 pm, Anonymous Claire said…

    I'd love to see the Queen put her foot down, especially with some of the crap Blair and his cronies come up with!

    I'm not keen on the money having a Royal Family costs our country but I wouldn't want to not have one so I guess you take the good with the bad!

  • At Sunday, April 23, 2006 1:34:00 pm, Blogger CyberKitten said…

    Nicely fought corner on Nepal Mrs A. Power to the people indeed. I do hope they get what they want & deserve.

    A government SHOULD be afraid of its people. Death to Tyrants!

    As to your other point: I think that if the Queen or future Royalty got 'uppity' then the Government would cut Her/them off at the knees... and quite rightly too. We only have a Royal family because X years ago their ancestors had a bigger/better army than the next guy... and the fact that at the time they were smart enough to avoid a French style revolution.

    Viva La Revolution. Viva La Republic!

  • At Sunday, April 23, 2006 1:36:00 pm, Blogger Juggling Mother said…

    I'd certainly be happier if we shrunk the funded ones down to just Queenie & I suppose Charles. Most of the European monarchies only fund the monarch & immediate heir, and to a much lesser amount than us.

  • At Sunday, April 23, 2006 4:13:00 pm, Blogger CyberKitten said…

    I'm astounded & not a little annoyed that we fund *any* of them. After all Queenie *is* one of the richest women in the world. Why on earth are we paying her tax-payers money?

  • At Monday, April 24, 2006 12:34:00 am, Blogger MuppetLord said…

    I'm all for getting rid of dictatorships. I just don't understand the twinning with the British Royal Family in that post.

    Incidentally the Duchy of Cornwall makes a profit. Unlike you I think this country would lose a hell of a lot if the monarchy was removed. The Queen does more than most people think.

    I wish people would stop and think a little more before they spout off about the Monarchy. I for one have no intention of seeing a President in this country.

  • At Monday, April 24, 2006 7:44:00 am, Blogger Juggling Mother said…

    The nepalese and British royal family are, indeed, completely different, but the post was about rupublicanism in general (the actual meaning of the term, not the US one!).

    I would like to say I HAVE thought more than a little about this subject. Having grown up in a fervant republican household & married into a fervant monarchist one -it's something that I needed to reallly get sorted in my own head before getting into arguments:-)

    If you look, I said "on balance" I think we'd be better off republican - nothing about elected presidents BTW! I did kind of work out you were a monarchist some months ago;-)

    The Duchy of Cornwall does indeed make a profit. That doesn't make it right! And Charles himself costs us (the taxpayer) money as he is directly funded by the state. The money he makes out of the Duchy is just spare pocket money to him.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home