Queen to abdicate?

[jmorgan]

Makes me think the internet does what is does best with Chinese whispers.

[Esseesse]

HenryJM said:

Esseesse said:

HenryJM said:

Our royal system is brilliant, it exists for image, tourism and occasion. Whilst there may be minor refinements on the edges the process is mainly superb and far, far better than any alternative.

It would be having anyone who actually did anything of note that would be problematic.

Not true actually, she does have some jobs to do, that she promised to do in her coronation oath. I am a supporter of the royal family, but have recently learned that possibly she hasn't done her job properly, so I'm now less enthusiastic.

The whole point is that there is almost nothing that she has to do that matters and those things certainly have been done. And it's actually that ability and willingness to do almost nothing that is political or meaningful that is the strength, any concept of using or expressing opinion on any subject or note is avoided. Charles has been more controversial at times but Elizabeth has been brilliant at it for many, many years.

No it seems that at least some of the things in the coronation oath are very important.

[Jasandjules]

HTP99 said:

I wonder why there is this sudden interest and speculation about her abdicating.

I might be wrong but I heard a snippet on TV whilst I was on the laptop about Richard III's DNA suggesting that the current Royal Family are not related to the old Royalty.

I would imagine it is just the usual rubbish on TV but who knows?

[HenryJM]

Esseesse said:

HenryJM said:

Esseesse said:

HenryJM said:

Our royal system is brilliant, it exists for image, tourism and occasion. Whilst there may be minor refinements on the edges the process is mainly superb and far, far better than any alternative.

It would be having anyone who actually did anything of note that would be problematic.

Not true actually, she does have some jobs to do, that she promised to do in her coronation oath. I am a supporter of the royal family, but have recently learned that possibly she hasn't done her job properly, so I'm now less enthusiastic.

The whole point is that there is almost nothing that she has to do that matters and those things certainly have been done. And it's actually that ability and willingness to do almost nothing that is political or meaningful that is the strength, any concept of using or expressing opinion on any subject or note is avoided. Charles has been more controversial at times but Elizabeth has been brilliant at it for many, many years.

No it seems that at least some of the things in the coronation oath are very important.

Well yes and no, for example the monarch appoints the Prime Minister, but it is done with no real choice in it, the arrangement is not that it is a decision by the monarch, it's a process undertaken by them. But it is pretty much the case that the only route the monarch can take is to follow process and not through choice.

[Pommygranite]

I can't understand why everyone hates Charles so much.

He's not a 2014 twitter generation poster boy but he actually seems to care about national matters and points of personal interest such as architecture and farming.

I hate the popularity contest discussions about Wills taking over.

[ralphrj]

Jasandjules said:

I might be wrong but I heard a snippet on TV whilst I was on the laptop about Richard III's DNA suggesting that the current Royal Family are not related to the old Royalty.

I would imagine it is just the usual rubbish on TV but who knows?

Even if it were true I don't think it would make any difference to the line of succession as the Act of Settlement 1701 decided who would be the Monarch of the United Kingdom.

I'm sure I've read somewhere that Parliament theoretically has the power to appoint someone other than the heir presumptive as Monarch.

[JonRB]

Pommygranite said:

I can't understand why everyone hates Charles so much.

He's not a 2014 twitter generation poster boy but he actually seems to care about national matters and points of personal interest such as architecture and farming.

I think most objections centre on the fact that he would be a very "hands on" monarch, whereas the Queen has always adopted a very "let the elected government get on with running the country" approach.

[Tiggsy]

The idea of it skipping Charles to go to Wills is XFactor generation nonsense.....why not just have a phone in and vote for your fav out of Wills, Richard Branson and Beyonce????

[Vocal Minority]

I am not totally sure why the problem with the Richard III D.N.A all of a sudden.

Henry Tudor's claim to the throne was always suspect - and no one seemed to worried about that potential succession issue - so I am not sure what difference Richard's DNA makes

Edited by Vocal Minority on Friday 19th December 10:37

Edited by Vocal Minority on Friday 19th December 10:37

[IainT]

Vocal Minority said:

thrown

Please let that be auto-correct helping out.

[RobinOakapple]

JonRB said:

Pommygranite said:

I can't understand why everyone hates Charles so much.

He's not a 2014 twitter generation poster boy but he actually seems to care about national matters and points of personal interest such as architecture and farming.

I think most objections centre on the fact that he would be a very "hands on" monarch, whereas the Queen has always adopted a very "let the elected government get on with running the country" approach.

Perhaps it would pan out like it did in the House of Cards (the original UK version (looking forward to the next series of the US version)).

[Jasandjules]

Pommygranite said:

I can't understand why everyone hates Charles so much.

I can't speak for others, but for me he harps on about Global Warming - then lives in a large palace, flies around the world, even gets his OH's shoes flown over when she forgets them, and so on... So it appears the poor can die of cold whilst he swans about hypocritically.

[Vocal Minority]

IainT said:

Vocal Minority said:

thrown

Please let that be auto-correct helping out.

I am ashamed to say it isn't. Brain not engaged this morning. I shall go and flay myself and beg forgiveness.

[Pommygranite]

JonRB said:

Pommygranite said:

I can't understand why everyone hates Charles so much.

He's not a 2014 twitter generation poster boy but he actually seems to care about national matters and points of personal interest such as architecture and farming.

I think most objections centre on the fact that he would be a very "hands on" monarch, whereas the Queen has always adopted a very "let the elected government get on with running the country" approach.

The very reason he should be welcomed IMHO.

[RobinOakapple]

Another reason why people don't want HM to abdicate is it means that Camilla gets to be queen

[HTP99]

RobinOakapple said:

Another reason why people don't want HM to abdicate is it means that Camilla gets to be queen

She won't become Queen, I believe it has already been discussed that she will become the Queen Consort.

[RobinOakapple]

HTP99 said:

RobinOakapple said:

Another reason why people don't want HM to abdicate is it means that Camilla gets to be queen

She won't become Queen, I believe it has already been discussed that she will become the Queen Consort.

Pretty much the same thing in everything but name, she will still be sitting next to him at the coronation etc.

[JonRB]

RobinOakapple said:

Pretty much the same thing in everything but name, she will still be sitting next to him at the coronation etc.

Perhaps. But a very important distinction. She will not be Queen in the same way that Prince Philip is not King.

[RobinOakapple]

JonRB said:

RobinOakapple said:

Pretty much the same thing in everything but name, she will still be sitting next to him at the coronation etc.

Perhaps. But a very important distinction. She will not be Queen in the same way that Prince Philip is not King.

Yes but 'Queen' as in married to the King is different to 'Queen' as in the current queen's case, it was always only ever going to be a ceremonial position, she wouldn't get to sign any Acts etc. So the different title is just that, a different title, no other differences.

[SilverSixer]

If she goes and Charlie stands up and says "I wish to take on the role of HoS only if elected to do so" and invites nominations for alternative candiadtes, then I might vote for him. If he doesn't, I don't want him as HoS, but of course I'll have no say, neither will anyone. Which is fundamentally wrong whichever way you cut it.

Royals out.