Queen to abdicate?

[VeeDubBigBird]

I don't think HRH will abdicated yet, i think it'll either be a serious health issue with herself or Prince Phillip would force an abdication.

As for Prince Charles, he has previously stated he wasn't interested in ruling and suggested Prince William would be the next to rule.

I think Prince William would be the best option to succeed, he's well liked, not been in any scandals, and already has a queen and heir in waiting with Prince Harry as the more down to earth relatable royal.

[hairyben]

Stop me if I'm wrong or put my simple terms in complexspeak as you see fit, but I thought the queens power was largely symbolic; she has the authority to refuse to sign into law anything she decides, and the PM has the authority to go over her head if she does- it's just the political ststorm either of these would bring on that'd in theory make everyone sit up and take note that ensures both monarch and PM would never try this unless they were really sure of themselves.

[Halb]

HTP99 said:

On the 9th September 2015, she will have taken over from Victoria as the longest raining monarch, she won't abdicate before then.

She passed oldest British Head of State (and an interesting pub quiz answer) a few years years ago, now just one left.

[V8 Fettler]

Countdown said:

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?

I fully understand that you find it difficult to understand, so I'll keep it simple for your level of understanding.

The initial issue was: does Liz have more or less experience of reality than Call_me_Dave? This was subverted into "does Liz have more or less experience of reality than Breadvan?".

The definition of greatest reality is the risk of violent death. For Liz this involved six years of potential violent death from high explosives dropped by the Luftwaffe, potential violent death from high explosives delivered by Vengeance Weapon #1 (an early cruise missile) and potential violent death from high explosives delivered by Vengeance Weapon #2 (an early ballistic missile).

For Breadvan, I think we are agreed that the risk of violent death revolves around the pedestrian crossing outside the RCJ as he scurries back to chambers following another epic verbal encounter with fellow professionals in the nice, warm and secure environs of the RCJ. Although I sometimes wonder about the chandeliers in the Great Hall.

Thus the comparison can be made, although I'm not certain how anyone could have protected Liz from a V2, some of sort shield thing perhaps? Similar to a dustbin lid but a bit bigger perhaps?

Many people didn't survive WW2, but that's fading into history so unimportant to many.

Land Army?

[anonymous-user]

V8 Fettler said:

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.

I once had someone point a presumably loaded gun at me. I once woke up in a house that was on fire. Those were just things that happened through the happenstance of life. Neither qualifies me to guide prime ministers.

If I had been alive in WW2 I would have had to put up with its hardships the same as others. Perhaps I would have had a cushy safe job, perhaps I would have been bombed, perhaps I would have had a crap time in a muddy field or on a ship or whatever. So what? Living through history doesn't give any of us special merits. Some of us live in more notable times than others. Some get the chance to do exceptional things, or suffer the mischance of dying miserably in some blindly random way. Few of us have much control over that sort of thing. No doubt Brenda acted creditably during the war, but so did millions of others, and many performed amazing deeds, so if wartime service gets you a help the PM to govern gig, others are ahead of HMQ in the line.

[anonymous-user]

PS: as for subversion to my reality vs the Queen's, it was you who introduced that, V8. Pretty good adding hypocrisy to your empty sneering. Top PH points. Meanwhile, any monarchists got any arguments based on principles for a change? Somone above says it's all fine unless Andrew or Edward get the gig. That is the whole issue: Why accept a system in which you get whomever is next in line regardless of personal qualities?

[valiant]

There can be some benefit of her experience with modern politicians but she has playing a similar role with all her prime ministers since taking the throne.

You can't tell me that her experience of fixing a couple of trucks and suffering the occasion bombing is anything compared to post war PMs like Eden, Macmillan who served in WW1 and others who served in WW2 who actually experienced war up front.

How can she advise and use her experience to guide such men who have seen it all?

[Fat Fairy]

valiant said:

How can she advise and use her experience to guide such men who have seen it all?

Because of the current crop, only 50 (out of 650) have served. What great war leader is Queenie ignoring or patronising?

Who was the last Defence Minister in uniform (Retired) ?

FF

[vonuber]

Why does serving in the military make you suitable for leading a civilian Government?

[MarshPhantom]

I'd have thought binning the monarchy and selling their property would pretty much clear the deficit - never mind the "cost of security" which has never been costed in public.

It costs £11k a day to police Julian Assange - one can only imagine the bill to protect the royals.

[MarshPhantom]

vonuber said:

Why does serving in the military make you suitable for leading a civilian Government?

fk knows.

[Countdown]

V8 Fettler said:

I fully understand that you find it difficult to understand, so I'll keep it simple for your level of understanding.

The initial issue was: does Liz have more or less experience of reality than Call_me_Dave?

Thanks for trying to keep it simple.

Does Liz have any experience of running a country? CMD does.

Liz has lots of experience in unveiling plaques. I'm happy for her to stick with that.

I have no idea if Liz has ever popped any 'E"s or tabs so I've no idea how many realities she's experienced.

[MarshPhantom]

Countdown said:

V8 Fettler said:

I fully understand that you find it difficult to understand, so I'll keep it simple for your level of understanding.

The initial issue was: does Liz have more or less experience of reality than Call_me_Dave?

The answer is less.

[onyx39]

MarshPhantom said:

I'd have thought binning the monarchy and selling their property would pretty much clear the deficit - never mind the "cost of security" which has never been costed in public.

It costs £11k a day to police Julian Assange - one can only imagine the bill to protect the royals.

£102 Million pa apparently. Although this from an anti royal site, so potentially biased.

[Fat Fairy]

MarshPhantom said:

vonuber said:

Why does serving in the military make you suitable for leading a civilian Government?

fk knows.

In reply to

'You can't tell me that her experience of fixing a couple of trucks and suffering the occasion bombing is anything compared to post war PMs like Eden, Macmillan who served in WW1 and others who served in WW2 who actually experienced war up front.

How can she advise and use her experience to guide such men who have seen it all? '

FF

[Asterix]

onyx39 said:

MarshPhantom said:

I'd have thought binning the monarchy and selling their property would pretty much clear the deficit - never mind the "cost of security" which has never been costed in public.

It costs £11k a day to police Julian Assange - one can only imagine the bill to protect the royals.

£102 Million pa apparently. Although this from an anti royal site, so potentially biased.

Does it have the income generated for the UK's coffers from the Crown Estate and other factors, just for balance...

[McWigglebum4th]

Countdown said:

Does Liz have any experience of running a country? CMD does.

Could of fooled me

Countdown said:

Liz has lots of experience in unveiling plaques. I'm happy for her to stick with that.

Royal family job = Unveiling plaques and trying not to be too controversial

I doubt if millibrain could manage a task as simple as pulling a string without fking it up

[AJS-]

I'm generally more royalist but I think we should have a referendum on becoming a republic.

Our current monarchy requires us to accept that the monarch is there by divine right, which is an absurd proposition to most people today. There are sound cultural and historical reasons to support the monarchy and with the possible exception of the US very few successful examples of republics as peaceful, stable and free as modern Britain.

Recent Prime Ministers already behave like Presidents anyway and the monarch is wise enough to have no visible involvement in politics to speak of. This arrangement could be formalised and continued with true modern legitimacy.

If Charles is foolish enough to use the crown as a platform for his idiotic ideas under this current arrangement he will be jeopardising the future of the monarchy. I even speculate sometimes that this might be his intention.

[V8 Fettler]

Breadvan72 said:

I once had someone point a presumably loaded gun at me. I once woke up in a house that was on fire. Those were just things that happened through the happenstance of life. Neither qualifies me to guide prime ministers.

If I had been alive in WW2 I would have had to put up with its hardships the same as others. Perhaps I would have had a cushy safe job, perhaps I would have been bombed, perhaps I would have had a crap time in a muddy field or on a ship or whatever. So what? Living through history doesn't give any of us special merits. Some of us live in more notable times than others. Some get the chance to do exceptional things, or suffer the mischance of dying miserably in some blindly random way. Few of us have much control over that sort of thing. No doubt Brenda acted creditably during the war, but so did millions of others, and many performed amazing deeds, so if wartime service gets you a help the PM to govern gig, others are ahead of HMQ in the line.

Wrong end of a gun that might or might not have been loaded and house on fire is a fairly frequent occurrence for country folk, as I'm sure you are aware.

Living through WW2 under risk of violent death was an experience of the harshest reality; on a wider scale this experience created substantial political change and clear political objectives, see US/UK involvement in mainland Europe post 1945. However, the next generation follows and the lessons of history fade, see lack of US/UK involvement in Iraq post 2011 and the resultant mess (lack of clear political objectives).

What would Liz have advised re: invasion of Iraq? Perhaps something about learning from history, which would have fallen on Blair's deaf ears no doubt.

In 2014, there will be very few people in the UK with the Queen's historical perspective and experience of meeting PMs since 1953.

Hypocrisy? Not at all. The subversion involved a slight realignment of the goalposts (as happens so frequently here) although missed by you until I drew it to your attention.

You are at risk of confusing "Monarchist" with "Lizist".

[AJS-]

Loads of people lived through WW2 without being head of state.