Queen to abdicate?

[Johnnytheboy]

Only a few of them came from families that had been knocking out heads of states for generations.

While I don't have strong opinions on the subject, I see it a bit like any other family business.

If you are after a chimney sweep, doesn't the fact that they are third in a line of fathers and sons who've done the same thing provide you with an (utterly unjustified) sense of reassurance that they'll know what they are doing?

[AJS-]

Johnnytheboy said:

Only a few of them came from families that had been knocking out heads of states for generations.

While I don't have strong opinions on the subject, I see it a bit like any other family business.

If you are after a chimney sweep, doesn't the fact that they are third in a line of fathers and sons who've done the same thing provide you with an (utterly unjustified) sense of reassurance that they'll know what they are doing?

No. For an artisan or something it's a charming novelty. For something a bit more consequential I'd probably rather someone who has actually chosen that career and dedicated time and effort to pursuing it than someone who fell into it by accident of birth.

The qualification is that having the power of a presidency vested in one man tends to attract the worst men.

[economicpygmy]

Johnnytheboy said:

If you are after a chimney sweep, doesn't the fact that they are third in a line of fathers and sons who've done the same thing provide you with an (utterly unjustified) sense of reassurance that they'll know what they are doing?

How many successful companies have been trashed when directorships are passed down the family. Its no guarantee.

[Johnnytheboy]

I'm also reminded of the Billy Connolly line, something like "even the desire to be a politician should ban you for life from ever being one".

Anyone that wants to be president is likely to be there for all the wrong reasons. At least Liz didn't get the choice.

[SilverSixer]

OK. I'm convinced. The excellent Monarchist arguments here have won me over.

Now, let's have hereditary Prime Ministers, Chancellors, Home and Foreign Secretaries, starting immediately with the current incumbents starting the Dynasties. Although perhaps we should ask a few blokes in purple dresses if they think their big imaginary friend will approve first.

An end to the politics and politicians we all profess to loathe and despise so deeply. Hooray!

I look forward to my Son taking over my IT Project Mangment job upon my 65th birthday. Until then he'll have have to live at home at my expense but it's worth it for this wondrous system of selecting the right people for the right jobs. Oh, my daughter and her descendents can have the job if my son gets shot in the eye with an arrow before my 65th birthday. If not, tough luck on her. She's only the second born.

Onwards to a bright and glorious future, Comrade Subjects! Hail the Cameron Dynasty!

Edited by SilverSixer on Tuesday 23 December 10:52

[Halb]

Asterix said:

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

The income is not personal income and has to be used for governance anyway, so it would not be for balance.

---

edit to ad, security costs are split between local authority and central. So the local council gets stung a bit normally.

Edited by Halb on Tuesday 23 December 11:44

[DJRC]

SilverSixer said:

OK. I'm convinced. The excellent Monarchist arguments here have won me over.

Now, let's have hereditary Prime Ministers, Chancellors, Home and Foreign Secretaries, starting immediately with the current incumbents starting the Dynasties. Although perhaps we should ask a few blokes in purple dresses if they think their big imaginary friend will approve first.

And end to the politics and politicians we all profess to loathe and despise so deeply. Hooray!

I look forward to my Son taking over my IT Project Mangment job upon my 65th birthday. Until then he'll have have to live at home at my expense but it's worth it for this wondrous system of selecting the right people for the right jobs. Oh, my daughter and her descendents can have the job if my son gets shot in the eye with an arrow before my 65th birthday. If not, tough luck on her. She's only the second born.

Onwards to a bright and glorious future, Comrade Subjects! Hail the Cameron Dynasty!

You do realise that by dismantling the current system to implement a single stream system - in having both the Crown and Parl ensures by one system - that you in fact reverting the process to how it was 350yrs ago? Which created the imbalance in the first place. It doesn't matter if it's hereditary or elected it's the systematic aspect of just having the one pathway which creates the problem.

If of course it's entirely just about the principles involved then I'm sure your son will be perfectly happy for me to be allowed to chop his head off if he is st.

[SilverSixer]

DJRC said:

just having the one pathway which creates the problem.

What problem? The only problem I see at the moment is the prospect of a meddling, political monarch in the next 10 years or so.

[Blue Oval84]

Blue Oval84 said:

I had to google for this but I knew I had read somewhere that the queen has not actually been acting simply as a figurehead but has consulted on, and in some cases blocked laws that Parliament wished to pass...

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-p...

Quoting myself, which is a new low, but I'm wanting to bump it to find out whether this article is a load of crap, or whether she is in fact doing more than just "unveiling plaques"?

[DJRC]

SilverSixer said:

DJRC said:

just having the one pathway which creates the problem.

What problem? The only problem I see at the moment is the prospect of a meddling, political monarch in the next 10 years or so.

Seriously? You are arguing from a principle basis yet the essence of the principles behind Sovereign Monarch v Parl are not important or relevant to you?

As it happens, even under the Constitutional Monarchy situation the Monarch has always meddled and been political. Feel free to enlighten me of one who wasn't. If you are going to say Liz 2.0 I would recommend you do not before I have to correct you otherwise. The current conflict of UK interests, vis a vis Europe facing or Commonwealth facing one could argue is a subject in which Liz has been meddling for over 30 yrs. she fought a running battle with Maggie over it for a start.

[Esseesse]

DJRC said:

SilverSixer said:

DJRC said:

just having the one pathway which creates the problem.

What problem? The only problem I see at the moment is the prospect of a meddling, political monarch in the next 10 years or so.

Seriously? You are arguing from a principle basis yet the essence of the principles behind Sovereign Monarch v Parl are not important or relevant to you?

As it happens, even under the Constitutional Monarchy situation the Monarch has always meddled and been political. Feel free to enlighten me of one who wasn't. If you are going to say Liz 2.0 I would recommend you do not before I have to correct you otherwise. The current conflict of UK interests, vis a vis Europe facing or Commonwealth facing one could argue is a subject in which Liz has been meddling for over 30 yrs. she fought a running battle with Maggie over it for a start.

Please give more info about Liz 2.0 meddling? There is quite a bit of noise online from people who think she should have (coronation oath) meddled WRT the EU and UK sovereignty but didn't.

[unrepentant]

DJRC said:

The current conflict of UK interests, vis a vis Europe facing or Commonwealth facing one could argue is a subject in which Liz has been meddling for over 30 yrs. she fought a running battle with Maggie over it for a start.

We haven't been Commonwealth facing in any material way for many decades. If there's been a struggle it's whether we should align more with the USA or with Europe. The Commonwealth seems to exist purely for the Queen to have something to do and to give her the feeling of Empire. The member countries either paddle their own canoes or are banana republics of some sort.

[RobinOakapple]

SilverSixer said:

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.

In the context of this discussion, there is NO difference between the two of you. You lobby the government, the government ignores you if it wishes, Charles lobbies the government, the government ignores him if it wishes. So difference at all.

You really are worrying about nothing.

[Mojocvh]

Johnnytheboy said:

I'm also reminded of the Billy Connolly line, something like "even the desire to be a politician should ban you for life from ever being one".

Anyone that wants to be president is likely to be there for all the wrong reasons. At least Liz didn't get the choice.

And neither did her father either. For this reason alone she will not abdicate.

[mybrainhurts]

RobinOakapple said:

SilverSixer said:

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.

In the context of this discussion, there is NO difference between the two of you. You lobby the government, the government ignores you if it wishes, Charles lobbies the government, the government ignores him if it wishes. So difference at all.

You really are worrying about nothing.

But what if Chuck can actually CONVERSE with Triffids? We don't know this....

[Gargamel]

What is the change that people arguing for a republic actually want? Do you imagine any future head of state, however happening upon would have any less influence or likelyhood of wanting to participate in the direction of the country.

I would rather the reformed the Lords properly, something that DOES participate directly in the legislature. It is funny that people want to do away with the monarch as it unacceptable in "the modern world" but yet we still have peers in the house of lords, a house made of patronage.

I wouldn't want to go the same way with the monarchy as we did with House of Lords, ie, everyone campaigning to get rid of something, but no real idea on how to replace it and achieve "broadly the same effect"

Anyway, I am not that worried about Charles, The UK have had good and bad Monarchs before, and survived.

[Fat Fairy]

Mojocvh said:

Johnnytheboy said:

I'm also reminded of the Billy Connolly line, something like "even the desire to be a politician should ban you for life from ever being one".

Anyone that wants to be president is likely to be there for all the wrong reasons. At least Liz didn't get the choice.

And neither did her father either. For this reason alone she will not abdicate.

Or as Douglas Adams put it....

"The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”
― The Restaurant at the End of the Universe, 1980.

FF

[SamHH]

Gargamel said:

What is the change that people arguing for a republic actually want? Do you imagine any future head of state, however happening upon would have any less influence or likelyhood of wanting to participate in the direction of the country.

I don't. But my reason for favouring republicanism isn't that I think the head of state should have less influence, or should not want to "participate in the direction of the country". It's that I think the head of state should have a legitimate reason for being so.

Gargamel said:

I would rather the reformed the Lords properly, something that DOES participate directly in the legislature. It is funny that people want to do away with the monarch as it unacceptable in "the modern world" but yet we still have peers in the house of lords, a house made of patronage.

I would prefer that too. But I don't think Lords reform and republicanism are mutually exclusive, so that's not a problem.

[onyx39]

Not at home, so not seen the speech, but I am guessing she's not chucked the towel in?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Gargamel said:

Anyway, I am not that worried about Charles, The UK have had good and bad Monarchs before, and survived.

I think the monarchy can survive an idiot, but the problems, like the landed gentry who inherit stately homes, arise when you get two morons in a row. That's when you end up in real trouble.

But William looks pretty sensible, so the reign of his buffoon of a dad shouldn't be fatal.