Queen to abdicate?
Discussion
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?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.
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.
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?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.
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.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.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.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.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.
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.
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.
Forelock tugging? Not particularly, merely countering Breadvan's rantings.
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.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.
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.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
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.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
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.Forelock tugging? Not particularly, merely countering Breadvan's rantings.
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?
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.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
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
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff