What is the Queen for?

[Rovinghawk]

Breadvan72 said:

Limit the terms of office that one person can serve.

Liz has never really put a foot wrong in 52 years and is very well respected.

Why limit a term for someone who's good at what they do?

[McWigglebum4th]

SilverSixer said:

I'm sorry, but who says you'd only get to pick from candidates presented by Political Parties? Anyone can stand for election to any office in this country, we have independent town councillors, independent MPs, the lot. Anyone would be free to stand for election to a Presidential role, likewise. And now the Monarchists are going to say but that could mean Brian from East17 being our President. Yes, it could. But it's hardly a possibility that the bookies are going to offer short odds on now, is it?

What about Stephen Hawking for President? Stephen Fry? Anyone else called Stephen, or even Steven - hey, Redgrave for instance. What about Helen Mirren? Tim Berners-Lee? Ranulph Fiennes? Put any of those up against Tony Blair and Iain Duncan-Smith and let's see what happens.

So we could have the bright orange over inflated waste of oxygen that is jordan (not eddie) as our head of state


No thanks


I'll stick with the ceremonial goat

[SilverSixer]

Rovinghawk said:

Liz has never really put a foot wrong in 52 years

Some may say that her handling of the marriage of her eldest and its consequences and aftermath may have left something to be desired.

For starters.

[anonymous-user]

You cannot build a case for an institution based on the accident of personality. Heredity means that you get random dheads as well as random good ones.

Anyway, the job is a non job that exists only for historical reasons. It could be phased out with no loss of tourism dollar (in fact an increase, as more palaces would be open for punters).

[Hol]

I cannot be bother to read all the pub-gossip posts about how much 'tax payers' money they get from people who have never even heard of the crown estates money we get in return.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estates

Anyway:

Doesn't the monarch legally own everything nailed down in the country and the rights to the minerals below and the sky above?

And the government acts officially on her behalf in running the country (Her Majestys Revenue & Customs = HMRC).

Also, the Prime Minister is the official first minister approved by her. Hence those official trips to the palace every election.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_minister


This basic stuff should really be taught in school.

[anonymous-user]

Other basic stuff to be taught includes the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution. The Queen now has jack all power, and that is as it should be. The idea of feudal ownership of land is a polite legal fiction. As for the Crown Estates, where do you think they got those in the first place?

[SilverSixer]

McWigglebum4th said:

SilverSixer said:

I'm sorry, but who says you'd only get to pick from candidates presented by Political Parties? Anyone can stand for election to any office in this country, we have independent town councillors, independent MPs, the lot. Anyone would be free to stand for election to a Presidential role, likewise. And now the Monarchists are going to say but that could mean Brian from East17 being our President. Yes, it could. But it's hardly a possibility that the bookies are going to offer short odds on now, is it?

What about Stephen Hawking for President? Stephen Fry? Anyone else called Stephen, or even Steven - hey, Redgrave for instance. What about Helen Mirren? Tim Berners-Lee? Ranulph Fiennes? Put any of those up against Tony Blair and Iain Duncan-Smith and let's see what happens.

So we could have the bright orange over inflated waste of oxygen that is jordan (not eddie) as our head of state

But it's hardly a possibility that the bookies are going to offer short odds on now, is it?

[otolith]

Breadvan72 said:

You cannot build a case for an institution based on the accident of personality. Heredity means that you get random dheads as well as random good ones.

^^ this - and crucially, if you get a random dhead, you can't vote him out.

[SilverSixer]

Hol said:

I cannot be bother to read all the pub-gossip posts about how much 'tax payers' money they get from people who have never even heard of the crown estates money we get in return.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estates

Crown Estates is a red herring. It's a publicly owned resource. The public purse should get every penny from it.

See: http://republic.org.uk/sites/default/files/worthev...

[25NAD90TUL]

Justin Cyder said:

25NAD90TUL said:

Blue One said:

- even if we got rid of the monarchy at this late stage, we’d replace it with what? Some career politician like David Steel or Ming Campbell as ‘President’ - the alternative to Monarchy just doesn’t bear thinking about as there is a real vacuum in terms of a real alternative to our current system so we are at an impasse

Agree.

Agree with what though?

At risk of teaching your granny to suck eggs, who exactly do you think is running the country now? The alternative to Monarchy is career politician run government and has been since Walpole in 1727 effectively. And by the way, Walpole rampantly feathered his and his cronies nests at a rate of knots over decades. Lovely place, Houghton house.

Who's to say if the Monarchy were put up against the wall tomorrow, it couldn't all carry on as an adversarial parliamentary democracy with an elected Prime Minister as head of state for a period of five years just as it is now. We'd simply need Bercow to read out the speech.

Agree with his statement and yours too...

Either or Ither, both options are wk.

Whole lot of 'em pile of st.

[Rovinghawk]

SilverSixer said:

Some may say that her handling of the marriage of her eldest and its consequences and aftermath may have left something to be desired.

Presuming you're married- how much control did your mother have over the wedding?

[jmorgan]

People going to find faults with them that want a republic.


Take it to its extreme then all monies and chattels revert to the stat e on death of anyone. Swap jobs with the city and steel workers for example. Cannot have someones lot in life getting them a better job. President or King, they will not be posts most commoners can aspire to (harder for the latter unless you are in the line of Usurping....)

[Rovinghawk]

SilverSixer said:

Crown Estates is a red herring. It's a publicly owned resource. The public purse should get every penny from it.

See: http://republic.org.uk/sites/default/files/worthev...

Is that a totally impartial & unbiased source?

Who says it's publicly owned & since when has that been the case?
Wanting something doesn't make it so.

[Hol]

SilverSixer said:

Hol said:

I cannot be bother to read all the pub-gossip posts about how much 'tax payers' money they get from people who have never even heard of the crown estates money we get in return.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estates

Crown Estates is a red herring. It's a publicly owned resource. The public purse should get every penny from it.

See: http://republic.org.uk/sites/default/files/worthev...

Oh right. A totally biased republican fanboy site says this...... It must be true then.

[25NAD90TUL]

Crown estates?

Dunno about that but I live in the Duchy of Cornwall and we get ripped to fk.

[Hol]

Breadvan72 said:

Other basic stuff to be taught includes the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution. The Queen now has jack all power, and that is as it should be. The idea of feudal ownership of land is a polite legal fiction. As for the Crown Estates, where do you think they got those in the first place?

I dunno??
where did the crown estates come from?


I assumed they were the remants of the wealth they had owned since feudal times, but you obviously know something we dont. Care to share yoyr source of facts?

[plasticpig]

Breadvan72 said:

Other basic stuff to be taught includes the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution. The Queen now has jack all power, and that is as it should be. The idea of feudal ownership of land is a polite legal fiction. As for the Crown Estates, where do you think they got those in the first place?

Being a lawyer I thought you would know better than that. The monarch has enormous power but by tradition does not wield it. I wouldn't put it past Big Ears if he ever gets onto the throne to throw a spanner into the works by refusing assent to a bill.

[SilverSixer]

Hol said:

SilverSixer said:

Hol said:

I cannot be bother to read all the pub-gossip posts about how much 'tax payers' money they get from people who have never even heard of the crown estates money we get in return.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estates

Crown Estates is a red herring. It's a publicly owned resource. The public purse should get every penny from it.

See: http://republic.org.uk/sites/default/files/worthev...

Oh right. A totally biased republican fanboy site says this...... It must be true then.

So debunk what they're saying then.

Edited by SilverSixer on Friday 12th September 13:33

[jmorgan]

Imagine Blair doing the xmas afternoon chat in a knitted sweater with reindeer on .

[Hol]

25NAD90TUL said:

Crown estates?

Dunno about that but I live in the Duchy of Cornwall and we get ripped to fk.

The crown gifted it to the public so that the income could be used to pay for good causes and such - in return for some of the money back each year as pocket money (the civil list). Which is effectively what we call Philanthropy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philanthropy

Ye olde Republicans have ever since coveted that money and like to 'forget' that it covers the cost of the civil list - and then some.



Its a funny old world!!