Queen to abdicate?

Author
Discussion

JonRB

74,402 posts

271 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
RobinOakapple said:
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.
Why is it? Or are you saying that once we have a "proper" King again then we can dispense with all this gender equality malarky that we have with the current Queen, and go back to the Queen just being the wife of the King? rolleyes

Oakey

27,523 posts

215 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
SilverSixer said:
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.
Well you could at least suggest some alternative candidates.

RobinOakapple

2,802 posts

111 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
JonRB said:
RobinOakapple said:
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.
Why is it? Or are you saying that once we have a "proper" King again then we can dispense with all this gender equality malarky that we have with the current Queen, and go back to the Queen just being the wife of the King? rolleyes
Chill Winston. All I am saying is what I said.

But if you want it explained, there's only ever one monarch. The Queen is the current monarch. Her husband is the Royal Consort. When the monarch is a male, then his spouse is called the Queen. But she won't be the monarch. I didn't make the rules by the way, that's just how it is until they change it.

McWigglebum4th

32,414 posts

203 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
SilverSixer said:
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.
You know we would end up with king Russel brand


JonRB

74,402 posts

271 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
RobinOakapple said:
Chill Winston. All I am saying is what I said.

But if you want it explained, there's only ever one monarch. The Queen is the current monarch. Her husband is the Royal Consort. When the monarch is a male, then his spouse is called the Queen. But she won't be the monarch. I didn't make the rules by the way, that's just how it is until they change it.
Ah, ok. I'm with you now. As you were. Sorry about that. smile

Edit: I confess that I didn't fully realise that, so thank you for the clarification / explanation.

RobinOakapple

2,802 posts

111 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
JonRB said:
RobinOakapple said:
Chill Winston. All I am saying is what I said.

But if you want it explained, there's only ever one monarch. The Queen is the current monarch. Her husband is the Royal Consort. When the monarch is a male, then his spouse is called the Queen. But she won't be the monarch. I didn't make the rules by the way, that's just how it is until they change it.
Ah, ok. I'm with you now. As you were. Sorry about that. smile

Edit: I confess that I didn't fully realise that, so thank you for the clarification / explanation.
Now you are just trying to embarrass me smile

beer



SilverSixer

8,202 posts

150 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
Oakey said:
SilverSixer said:
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.
Well you could at least suggest some alternative candidates.
Why? When I think my football manager needs sacking, it's not up to me to supply a list of candidates.

Let people stand and I'll pick the best according to my own judgement. If that's Charles Windsor, great, I'll vote for him. But let's have a say.

SilverSixer

8,202 posts

150 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
McWigglebum4th said:
SilverSixer said:
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.
You know we would end up with king Russel brand
No chance. He refuses to stand for public office on the grounds he fears becoming "one of them".

These sort of arguments bear no scrutiny.

If Charles thinks he's the best option, then he'd have nothing to fear in an election. Right?

RobinOakapple

2,802 posts

111 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
SilverSixer said:
Oakey said:
SilverSixer said:
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.
Well you could at least suggest some alternative candidates.
Why? When I think my football manager needs sacking, it's not up to me to supply a list of candidates.

Let people stand and I'll pick the best according to my own judgement. If that's Charles Windsor, great, I'll vote for him. But let's have a say.
I'm going to guess that what Oakey is getting at is that there is no alternative. If there's any question at all of voting then there is going to be an awful lot of people who won't get the candidate of their choice. Better to have no choice than to feel that some people got who they wanted, but that you didn't.

JonRB

74,402 posts

271 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all

ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
WOMAN : Order, eh -- who does he think he is?
ARTHUR: I am your king!
WOMAN : Well, I didn't vote for you.
ARTHUR: You don't vote for kings.
WOMAN : Well, how did you become king then?
ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake, [angels start singing] her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. [singing stops] That is why I am your king!
DENNIS: Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: Well you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you!
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: I mean, if I went around saying, I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me they'd put me away!
ARTHUR: Shut up! Will you shut up!
DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! HELP! HELP! I'm being repressed!
ARTHUR: Bloody peasant!
DENNIS: Oh, what a give away. Did you hear that, did you here that, eh? That's what I'm on about -- did you see him repressing me, you saw it didn't you?


SilverSixer

8,202 posts

150 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
RobinOakapple said:
I'm going to guess that what Oakey is getting at is that there is no alternative. If there's any question at all of voting then there is going to be an awful lot of people who won't get the candidate of their choice. Better to have no choice than to feel that some people got who they wanted, but that you didn't.
No alternative? How on Earth would we know that unless we ask people to stand?

RobinOakapple

2,802 posts

111 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
SilverSixer said:
RobinOakapple said:
I'm going to guess that what Oakey is getting at is that there is no alternative. If there's any question at all of voting then there is going to be an awful lot of people who won't get the candidate of their choice. Better to have no choice than to feel that some people got who they wanted, but that you didn't.
No alternative? How on Earth would we know that unless we ask people to stand?
Sorry, what I meant was no practical alternative, no alternative that would meet the various conflicting requirements. Of course if we could come up with someone who would suit everybody, that would be great. But that wouldn't happen.

SilverSixer

8,202 posts

150 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
RobinOakapple said:
SilverSixer said:
RobinOakapple said:
I'm going to guess that what Oakey is getting at is that there is no alternative. If there's any question at all of voting then there is going to be an awful lot of people who won't get the candidate of their choice. Better to have no choice than to feel that some people got who they wanted, but that you didn't.
No alternative? How on Earth would we know that unless we ask people to stand?
Sorry, what I meant was no practical alternative, no alternative that would meet the various conflicting requirements. Of course if we could come up with someone who would suit everybody, that would be great. But that wouldn't happen.
Fine. But that doesn't change the fact that I believe it would be better to have someone chosen by over 50% of the electorate than have someone imposed upon us all with no say. Whoever that turns out to be. The principle for me is the important thing.

McWigglebum4th

32,414 posts

203 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
SilverSixer said:
McWigglebum4th said:
SilverSixer said:
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.
You know we would end up with king Russel brand
No chance. He refuses to stand for public office on the grounds he fears becoming "one of them".

These sort of arguments bear no scrutiny.

If Charles thinks he's the best option, then he'd have nothing to fear in an election. Right?
So king milliband it is then

Have i mentioned my idea of having a goat as head of state?

Certainly more able the millibrain

SilverSixer

8,202 posts

150 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
McWigglebum4th said:
SilverSixer said:
McWigglebum4th said:
SilverSixer said:
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.
You know we would end up with king Russel brand
No chance. He refuses to stand for public office on the grounds he fears becoming "one of them".

These sort of arguments bear no scrutiny.

If Charles thinks he's the best option, then he'd have nothing to fear in an election. Right?
So king milliband it is then
Not wanting to give your feeble point any credence whatsoever, seeing as it's utterly false, but so what if it is? It should be our choice.

Royalists tell us it's only a ceremonial role anyway. No real power. Right? As it stands your friend Mr Miliband stands a very good chance of real power in 5 months time, do you think we need to change the system to prevent that?

Or are you going to just keep on throwing stupid names in to the thread instead of presenting proper arguments?

HenryJM

6,315 posts

128 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
Criticising something is easy, if you don't put forwards as viable alternative.

Royalty has many quirks and foibles, but coming up with a viable alternative is the problem, if you didn't have largely powerless royalty what would you have?

SilverSixer

8,202 posts

150 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
HenryJM said:
Criticising something is easy, if you don't put forwards as viable alternative.

Royalty has many quirks and foibles, but coming up with a viable alternative is the problem, if you didn't have largely powerless royalty what would you have?
Erm, elected ceremonial Head of State. Republic of Ireland stylee.

McWigglebum4th

32,414 posts

203 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
SilverSixer said:
Not wanting to give your feeble point any credence whatsoever, seeing as it's utterly false, but so what if it is? It should be our choice.

Royalists tell us it's only a ceremonial role anyway. No real power. Right? As it stands your friend Mr Miliband stands a very good chance of real power in 5 months time, do you think we need to change the system to prevent that?

Or are you going to just keep on throwing stupid names in to the thread instead of presenting proper arguments?
Yep it is 100% ceremonial

But part of that ceremonial duty is Milliband asking permission to form a government


So having that tt having to ask someone makes me happy

Even better if he had to ask a goat



I would prefer the royal family had the power to behead and stick their heads on a pike politicians when they overstep the mark


But we might need a few more pikes

McWigglebum4th

32,414 posts

203 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
SilverSixer said:
Erm, elected ceremonial Head of State. Republic of Ireland stylee.
Okay who do you want as our elected head of state


SilverSixer

8,202 posts

150 months

Friday 19th December 2014
quotequote all
McWigglebum4th said:
SilverSixer said:
Erm, elected ceremonial Head of State. Republic of Ireland stylee.
Okay who do you want as our elected head of state
I refer the Honourable Gentleman to the reply I made at 12:24.