Queen to abdicate?

Author
Discussion

RobinOakapple

2,802 posts

111 months

Monday 22nd December 2014
quotequote all
SilverSixer said:
RobinOakapple said:
at least we will know that nobody else got to choose either.
Oh that's all right then.
Not necessarily alright, but better than any alternative you have proposed so far.


V8 Fettler

7,019 posts

131 months

Monday 22nd December 2014
quotequote all
SamHH said:
V8 Fettler said:
I think we've got that straight then: Liz volunteered to serve in WW2 and would have experienced the reality of German bombs/V1s/V2s. You - on the other hand - have experienced the reality of being "dicked by public bodies" ... Merry mid-winter break.
Would any of the millions of people who shared that experience be qualified to advise the Prime Minister?
Obviously, it was intended as a comparison between Liz's experience of reality and Breadvan's experience.

ali_kat

31,988 posts

220 months

Monday 22nd December 2014
quotequote all
HenryJM said:
Personally I suspect that her view is that she is and will remain Queen as long as she is alive, but I have no evidence for it.
She won't abdicate.

It's not down to anything to do with Charles, it's simply that she swore an oath that it was for life, and she sees that as her duty.

She was a child when her Uncle abdicated. She saw the mess that his abdication made of her families life. Her sister couldn't marry who she wanted; her Mother blamed it for her Father's early death. And she was thrown into a role that was never expected for her.

Johnnytheboy

24,498 posts

185 months

Monday 22nd December 2014
quotequote all

Countdown

39,690 posts

195 months

Monday 22nd December 2014
quotequote all
V8 Fettler said:
Obviously, it was intended as a comparison between Liz's experience of reality and Breadvan's experience.
So you think the Queen has more experience of "reality" than BV2 because she volunteered to serve in WW2?

The phrase "mad as a box of frogs" springs to mind. I didn't serve in WW2 - have I been living in some Matrix-type fantasy world when compared to HRH?

My guess is that the "reality" experienced by the Queen is a thousand miles away from the "reality" experienced by the vast majority of her subjects. As such I doubt she possesses any magical inherent, inbred ability to advise Ministers of State, at least no more than any of the rest of us.

Quit the forelock tugging - she isn't Superqueenie. She's a nice lady doing a reasonable job whilst living a very luxurious lifestyle. However I'd rather she didn't take it upon herself to interfere in the running of the Country. If she wants to do that she can stand for Parliament like the rest of us.

RobinOakapple

2,802 posts

111 months

Monday 22nd December 2014
quotequote all
Countdown said:
So you think the Queen has more experience of "reality" than BV2 because she volunteered to serve in WW2?

The phrase "mad as a box of frogs" springs to mind. I didn't serve in WW2 - have I been living in some Matrix-type fantasy world when compared to HRH?

My guess is that the "reality" experienced by the Queen is a thousand miles away from the "reality" experienced by the vast majority of her subjects. As such I doubt she possesses any magical inherent, inbred ability to advise Ministers of State, at least no more than any of the rest of us.

Quit the forelock tugging - she isn't Superqueenie. She's a nice lady doing a reasonable job whilst living a very luxurious lifestyle. However I'd rather she didn't take it upon herself to interfere in the running of the Country. If she wants to do that she can stand for Parliament like the rest of us.
Has she actually done that then?

HenryJM

6,315 posts

128 months

Monday 22nd December 2014
quotequote all
Countdown said:
However I'd rather she didn't take it upon herself to interfere in the running of the Country. If she wants to do that she can stand for Parliament like the rest of us.
But the whole point is that she doesn't interfere in the running of the Country. That is what it is all about.

SilverSixer

8,202 posts

150 months

Monday 22nd December 2014
quotequote all
HenryJM said:
Countdown said:
However I'd rather she didn't take it upon herself to interfere in the running of the Country. If she wants to do that she can stand for Parliament like the rest of us.
But the whole point is that she doesn't interfere in the running of the Country. That is what it is all about.
The whole point now is that Prince Charles does interfere in running the country and intends to continue in this vein once on the throne. What now?

RobinOakapple

2,802 posts

111 months

Monday 22nd December 2014
quotequote all
SilverSixer said:
HenryJM said:
Countdown said:
However I'd rather she didn't take it upon herself to interfere in the running of the Country. If she wants to do that she can stand for Parliament like the rest of us.
But the whole point is that she doesn't interfere in the running of the Country. That is what it is all about.
The whole point now is that Prince Charles does interfere in running the country and intends to continue in this vein once on the throne. What now?
Charles is and will be entitled to make his views known just like every other citizen. And the Government can continue to ignore him as much as they ignore anyone else they disagree with. So there's really no need for you to worry.

McWigglebum4th

32,414 posts

203 months

Monday 22nd December 2014
quotequote all
mybrainhurts said:
Second on the list when I take over, after the firing squads.

I shall exile the French to Scunthorpe, then we can move over there.
That is a relief

i thought they had fixed the shorpe swear filter issue


Countdown

39,690 posts

195 months

Monday 22nd December 2014
quotequote all
HenryJM said:
Countdown said:
However I'd rather she didn't take it upon herself to interfere in the running of the Country. If she wants to do that she can stand for Parliament like the rest of us.
But the whole point is that she doesn't interfere in the running of the Country. That is what it is all about.
My comment was following on from some earlier posts which seemed to suggest that she played some vital "checks and balances" role in the machinery of Government. I don't think she interferes or can interfere.


HenryJM

6,315 posts

128 months

Monday 22nd December 2014
quotequote all
I think that one one can safely say that a king or queen going beyond the current status could be a problem should it occur in the future. But the Queen doesn't, if another party does then there is a situation that may need addressing at that time.

Whatever Charles does now is a bit hazy, but if it's beyond an acceptable limit when as a King then there could be an issue. But that's a problem that would be addressed if it ever happened.

V8 Fettler

7,019 posts

131 months

Monday 22nd December 2014
quotequote all
Countdown said:
V8 Fettler said:
Obviously, it was intended as a comparison between Liz's experience of reality and Breadvan's experience.
So you think the Queen has more experience of "reality" than BV2 because she volunteered to serve in WW2?

The phrase "mad as a box of frogs" springs to mind. I didn't serve in WW2 - have I been living in some Matrix-type fantasy world when compared to HRH?

My guess is that the "reality" experienced by the Queen is a thousand miles away from the "reality" experienced by the vast majority of her subjects. As such I doubt she possesses any magical inherent, inbred ability to advise Ministers of State, at least no more than any of the rest of us.

Quit the forelock tugging - she isn't Superqueenie. She's a nice lady doing a reasonable job whilst living a very luxurious lifestyle. However I'd rather she didn't take it upon herself to interfere in the running of the Country. If she wants to do that she can stand for Parliament like the rest of us.
The harshest reality is the threat of death, even more so if it's over a 6 year period. Whilst the Strand can certainly have its "edgy" moments in 2014, the imminent threat of German high explosives raining down is not one of them. Although that pedestrian crossing outside the RCJ can be a bit dodgy at times.

Forelock tugging? Not particularly, merely countering Breadvan's rantings.

SilverSixer

8,202 posts

150 months

Monday 22nd December 2014
quotequote all
RobinOakapple said:
SilverSixer said:
HenryJM said:
Countdown said:
However I'd rather she didn't take it upon herself to interfere in the running of the Country. If she wants to do that she can stand for Parliament like the rest of us.
But the whole point is that she doesn't interfere in the running of the Country. That is what it is all about.
The whole point now is that Prince Charles does interfere in running the country and intends to continue in this vein once on the throne. What now?
Charles is and will be entitled to make his views known just like every other citizen. And the Government can continue to ignore him as much as they ignore anyone else they disagree with. So there's really no need for you to worry.
Me writing to my MP because I don't like the plans someone has to build a school in my street is not interfering with Government. What Prince Charles does, which is currently the subject of a massive cover up operation, is lobby Government with his personal views of how the country should be run and seeks to have his views implemented. He is about to become King, I am not. I think you see the difference between the two of us.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/19/bec...

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/24/pri...

I am worried. We all should be. The monarchy must go before he is let loose.

Not only that Chalres is not a citizen, as you call it. Neither am I, neither are you. I wish we were citizens not subjects, but there you go. We're not.


jonby

5,357 posts

156 months

Monday 22nd December 2014
quotequote all
V8 Fettler said:
Breadvan72 said:
You mentioned decisions, but you cannot identify a single decision of importance that the Queen makes. You believe that in her little chats with PMs the Queen gives them guidance. That is by its nature implausible. Why on Earth should the PM take advice from a woman who has even less experience of reality than he has? If she does give advice and PMs do take it, that is a constitutional outrage and we should be lining the barricades, as this woman has no mandate to interfere in government. We need not start mixing Molotovs, however, because she doesn't interfere. You say that the Queen is a diplomat, but we have professional diplomats. Name one treaty that the Queen has negotiated, or identify one diplomatic development that depended on her. You can't, because there are none. You are falling for a cosy fiction. Her role is symbolic.
Liz lived through and served during World War 2, please describe your experience of reality. In reality, the legal system has a more pressing requirement for wholesale modernisation than the monarchy.
Most prime ministers discuss, to some extent, some of the most pressing issues of the day with the Queen. She is able to use her unique experience of having discussed similar types of issues with umpteen prime ministers before, in the unique environment where the PM knows the discussion is completely confidential, never leaked, with the Queen having little in the way of a political bias or agenda

There are far too many, too similar politicians, in the world today. They mostly speak the same 'language', talk the same policies, go to the same schools and worry above all about re-election (plus lining their own pocket). Having people coming from a completely different angle to advise, be a sounding board and generally have some involvement, however minor, has to be a good thing.

The statement above that it's an outrage if it's proven the PM has ever acted using the Queen's advice is utter nonsense. The PM's wife is never elected, but a PM might ask his wife for advice. He might ask his vicar/priest/other religious minister to act as a sounding board. He might speak to a paid advisor or an unpaid mentor. He might speak to business leaders. But he shouldn't speak to the Queen ?!? One of the most experienced & best informed people on the planet. You aren't applying any common sense. It's because she doesn't negotiate that she isn't tainted and can be useful as a neutral sounding board - you have it the wrong way round

vonuber

17,868 posts

164 months

Monday 22nd December 2014
quotequote all
My Gran served in WW2 (and in a much more active role), is the same age as the Queen - and she's German.

Can she have a go? She's got the right qualifications.

V8 Fettler

7,019 posts

131 months

Monday 22nd December 2014
quotequote all
vonuber said:
My Gran served in WW2 (and in a much more active role), is the same age as the Queen - and she's German.

Can she have a go? She's got the right qualifications.
What, have a go at being Queen? Is she a Hanoverian?

SilverSixer

8,202 posts

150 months

Monday 22nd December 2014
quotequote all
jonby said:
V8 Fettler said:
Breadvan72 said:
You mentioned decisions, but you cannot identify a single decision of importance that the Queen makes. You believe that in her little chats with PMs the Queen gives them guidance. That is by its nature implausible. Why on Earth should the PM take advice from a woman who has even less experience of reality than he has? If she does give advice and PMs do take it, that is a constitutional outrage and we should be lining the barricades, as this woman has no mandate to interfere in government. We need not start mixing Molotovs, however, because she doesn't interfere. You say that the Queen is a diplomat, but we have professional diplomats. Name one treaty that the Queen has negotiated, or identify one diplomatic development that depended on her. You can't, because there are none. You are falling for a cosy fiction. Her role is symbolic.
Liz lived through and served during World War 2, please describe your experience of reality. In reality, the legal system has a more pressing requirement for wholesale modernisation than the monarchy.
Most prime ministers discuss, to some extent, some of the most pressing issues of the day with the Queen. She is able to use her unique experience of having discussed similar types of issues with umpteen prime ministers before, in the unique environment where the PM knows the discussion is completely confidential, never leaked, with the Queen having little in the way of a political bias or agenda

There are far too many, too similar politicians, in the world today. They mostly speak the same 'language', talk the same policies, go to the same schools and worry above all about re-election (plus lining their own pocket). Having people coming from a completely different angle to advise, be a sounding board and generally have some involvement, however minor, has to be a good thing.

The statement above that it's an outrage if it's proven the PM has ever acted using the Queen's advice is utter nonsense. The PM's wife is never elected, but a PM might ask his wife for advice. He might ask his vicar/priest/other religious minister to act as a sounding board. He might speak to a paid advisor or an unpaid mentor. He might speak to business leaders. But he shouldn't speak to the Queen ?!? One of the most experienced & best informed people on the planet. You aren't applying any common sense. It's because she doesn't negotiate that she isn't tainted and can be useful as a neutral sounding board - you have it the wrong way round
Again, all well and good whilst we still have Lizzie Dripping (in theory, I have my doubts about the reality and don't trust that the situation is as benign as you say). But that's only going to be the case for, at best, 10 years or so. Then what? The next bloke has said he'll do it differently. Do you like the sound of Charles's intended approach to the role? It's time to change if not.

Countdown

39,690 posts

195 months

Monday 22nd December 2014
quotequote all
V8 Fettler said:
The harshest reality is the threat of death, even more so if it's over a 6 year period. Whilst the Strand can certainly have its "edgy" moments in 2014, the imminent threat of German high explosives raining down is not one of them. Although that pedestrian crossing outside the RCJ can be a bit dodgy at times.

Forelock tugging? Not particularly, merely countering Breadvan's rantings.
I'm afraid I don't understand.

Firstly the threat of death doesn't endow anybody with superior governance skills. Secondly I'd argue that being a Land Army girl was probably at the lower end of risk during WW2 - there were many, many more people involved in much more risky occupations (leaving aside the fact that they would still have had much more protection than the average person)

TL;DR - She's lived through WW2 - so what?

jonby

5,357 posts

156 months

Monday 22nd December 2014
quotequote all
SilverSixer said:
jonby said:
V8 Fettler said:
Breadvan72 said:
You mentioned decisions, but you cannot identify a single decision of importance that the Queen makes. You believe that in her little chats with PMs the Queen gives them guidance. That is by its nature implausible. Why on Earth should the PM take advice from a woman who has even less experience of reality than he has? If she does give advice and PMs do take it, that is a constitutional outrage and we should be lining the barricades, as this woman has no mandate to interfere in government. We need not start mixing Molotovs, however, because she doesn't interfere. You say that the Queen is a diplomat, but we have professional diplomats. Name one treaty that the Queen has negotiated, or identify one diplomatic development that depended on her. You can't, because there are none. You are falling for a cosy fiction. Her role is symbolic.
Liz lived through and served during World War 2, please describe your experience of reality. In reality, the legal system has a more pressing requirement for wholesale modernisation than the monarchy.
Most prime ministers discuss, to some extent, some of the most pressing issues of the day with the Queen. She is able to use her unique experience of having discussed similar types of issues with umpteen prime ministers before, in the unique environment where the PM knows the discussion is completely confidential, never leaked, with the Queen having little in the way of a political bias or agenda

There are far too many, too similar politicians, in the world today. They mostly speak the same 'language', talk the same policies, go to the same schools and worry above all about re-election (plus lining their own pocket). Having people coming from a completely different angle to advise, be a sounding board and generally have some involvement, however minor, has to be a good thing.

The statement above that it's an outrage if it's proven the PM has ever acted using the Queen's advice is utter nonsense. The PM's wife is never elected, but a PM might ask his wife for advice. He might ask his vicar/priest/other religious minister to act as a sounding board. He might speak to a paid advisor or an unpaid mentor. He might speak to business leaders. But he shouldn't speak to the Queen ?!? One of the most experienced & best informed people on the planet. You aren't applying any common sense. It's because she doesn't negotiate that she isn't tainted and can be useful as a neutral sounding board - you have it the wrong way round
Again, all well and good whilst we still have Lizzie Dripping (in theory, I have my doubts about the reality and don't trust that the situation is as benign as you say). But that's only going to be the case for, at best, 10 years or so. Then what? The next bloke has said he'll do it differently. Do you like the sound of Charles's intended approach to the role? It's time to change if not.
The Queen has no power. Neither will Charles. A PM doesn't have to take the monarch's advice. They meet with the Queen once per week and can use the monarch's advice as much or as little as they wish. That's why the advice is so different to most forms of advice - it doesn't come with any form of power, it doesn't come from someone who says it just because of how they look in the media (because it isn't reported), it doesn't come from someone under pressure to tow party lines

If Charles, when monarch, brings up say the environment a lot, then it's not necessarily a problem if it's kept quiet because again, he will have no actual power. If he does it publically, I'd take issue with it. But if is a big word

There's a greater problem here. We live in a world where on the face of it, we have greater diversity amongst our elected politicians - more are from ethnic minority backgrounds, different religions, more women, more openly gay MPs, etc. But in fact when you listen to them, never have politicians sounded more similar than right now. Very few have any experience beyond academia & politics, they all gravitate towards the centre ground, none of them sound remotely sincere, they just say what they think will win the most votes and get them in the least trouble.

The last thing in the world that we need is another elected politician. Say what you want about an elected head of state who isn't a politician but by very definition, just the fact they have to campaign for your vote makes them a politician. Democracy is supposed to be about helping the people get what they want but right now, it simply isn't working & more elected officials in the current climate will not help. I also like the fact that most of the Royal Family don't seem to engage in the whole blame game mentality which is sweeping our country, both the general population & the politicians. It's very unhealthy and needs to change

Mind you, if Andrew or Edward looked likely to take the throne, I'll admit my post would take a very different tone