Kokujoh Sayaka Report post Posted June 15, 2018 If you're bored right now, think about it. We always complain about how bad the others treat us. Maybe having our own country, our own rules and an education system will make a difference in our lives. ----- Autismland is a royalist democratic party in World Aspergers' Organization. Autismland is a member of the World Aspergers' Organization and the World Aspergers' Organization's Royalist International. Programs Welfarism. Backing up the Descendants of Hans I (Dr. Johann "Hans" Friedrich Karl Asperger) to the throne. Positive aspects will be: Royalism. Reformism. Building onto the British know-how and institutes. A Western welfarist monarchy modelled after Great Britain. Symbolism The infinity mark symbolizes the sovereign Autist state. Royal colours, the dark red and gold symbolizes the Royalism. The Anglican Bible verse quotes a part of Malachi 3:10 from King James Bible, as a symbol of the welfarirm and the British model. External links Twitter Account Chat Room Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aeolienne Report post Posted July 17, 2018 Why go for a royalist set-up rather than a democratically elected head of state? What if none of Hans Asperger's descendants want to do the job, or are any good at it? Is it really fair to subject anyone to such expectations? Look at the damage caused to the current heir to the British throne: Prince Charles, a victim of monarchists' cruelty (originally written in 2003, prior to Charles's second marriage) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kokujoh Sayaka Report post Posted July 20, 2018 (edited) On 2018/7/17 at 7:57 PM, Aeolienne said: Why go for a royalist set-up rather than a democratically elected head of state? What if none of Hans Asperger's descendants want to do the job, or are any good at it? Is it really fair to subject anyone to such expectations? Look at the damage caused to the current heir to the British throne: Prince Charles, a victim of monarchists' cruelty (originally written in 2003, prior to Charles's second marriage) Ew, I don't like this article... The writer doesn't show any sympathy for His Royal Highness Prince Charles about His incompetency... The monarchism is not about competency anyways. This is why "The Sovereign reigns, but does not rule". On 2018/7/2 at 6:20 PM, Aeolienne said: What if none of his descendants want to do the job, or are any good at it? Is it really fair to subject anyone to such expectations? Good point. Maybe we will wait patiently for Their reconsidering? Edited July 20, 2018 by Kokujoh Sayaka Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kokujoh Sayaka Report post Posted July 20, 2018 (edited) On 2018/7/17 at 7:57 PM, Aeolienne said: Why go for a royalist set-up rather than a democratically elected head of state? To be honest, I don't really understand the point of the "democratically elected head of state"... What is their meaning of existence? Why do Republicans not accept Monarch but "democratically elected head of state" is okay? Edited July 20, 2018 by Kokujoh Sayaka Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aeolienne Report post Posted July 20, 2018 4 hours ago, Kokujoh Sayaka said: To be honest, I don't really understand the point of the "democratically elected head of state"... What is their meaning of existence? Why do Republicans not accept Monarch but "democratically elected head of state" is okay? In the words of Republic (the campaign for an elected head of state for Great Britain & Northern Island): Do we need a head of state? Yes, absolutely. The job of head of state is important and it needs to be done by someone who is genuinely independent of the government and above day-to-day party politics. That can't be the Queen, because all she can do is what she's told by the Prime Minister. And it can't be the Speaker of the House of Commons either, because he's already got an important job, but one that's not independent of MPs. Most of us are so used to the Queen as head of state that we often assume the way she carries out the role is the only way it can be – or should be – done. So people often ask, as she doesn't do much why not just get rid of the role altogether? Yet an effective head of state – one that’s separate and independent from the government and MPs - can play an important role in a parliamentary democracy. Do we need a head of state? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites