Queen to abdicate?
Discussion
colonel c said:
I believe the she has another 465 or so days to go before she overtakes Queen Victoria’s position of Britain’s longest reigning monarch.
I would not expect her to consider giving up before then.
At which point - or possibly on her 90th birthday - I suspect she will ask parliament to create Charles Prince Regent and continue in a purely ceremonial capacityI would not expect her to consider giving up before then.
SilverSixer said:
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
t off the only was is essex or somethingMcWigglebum4th said:
SilverSixer said:
McWigglebum4th said:
SilverSixer said:
Erm, elected ceremonial Head of State. Republic of Ireland stylee.
Okay who do you want as our elected head of statet off the only was is essex or somethingIt. Simply. Wouldn't. Happen.
Besides which, I'll indulge your lurid fantasy, and say even if they did, I'd have Joey Essex rather than Charles Windsor if it meant we'd had a say and chosen him. If those were the candidates, I'd vote Charles and accept the will of the majority if he lost.
SilverSixer said:
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.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 said:
Again with the same rubbish. Tell me where this has happened in any other country.
It. Simply. Wouldn't. Happen.
Besides which, I'll indulge your lurid fantasy, and say even if they did, I'd have Joey Essex rather than Charles Windsor if it meant we'd had a say and chosen him. If those were the candidates, I'd vote Charles and accept the will of the majority if he lost.
So it wouldn't be some fading film star like Ronald RaygunIt. Simply. Wouldn't. Happen.
Besides which, I'll indulge your lurid fantasy, and say even if they did, I'd have Joey Essex rather than Charles Windsor if it meant we'd had a say and chosen him. If those were the candidates, I'd vote Charles and accept the will of the majority if he lost.
You are right it would be some wonderful caring lovely lovely politician
As i cannot think of anywhere that has an elected head of state who isn't some polltical knob jockey
McWigglebum4th said:
As i cannot think of anywhere that has an elected head of state who isn't some polltical knob jockey
Quite. Make it an electable position and it immediately becomes aspirational. The kind of person who would want the job would probably be the least suitable for it. Imagine some vainglorious slime like Tony Blair getting elected to it. And, also, he's exactly the kind of person who would want it too. No, I think it's better to have people who have been born into it and raised to believe that they have a sense of duty to fulfil the obligations they were born into. I'm no royalist, but I think it works fine as it is.
People say "why should someone become monarch just because they were born into it?" Well, why should you be British just because you were born into it? Give up your British Citizenship and emigrate to Russia or France where they killed their monarchy if you don't like it.
Edited by JonRB on Friday 19th December 13:55
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 brandRoyals out.
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?
Have i mentioned my idea of having a goat as head of state?
Certainly more able the millibrain
I'd vote for a goat purely on the grounds of some numpty saying it's the principle that is important. If it's the principle then the goat must be valid aswell.
King Gruff!
SilverSixer said:
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 brandRoyals out.
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?
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?
Your petard Sir appears to be rather hoisty today...
JonRB said:
McWigglebum4th said:
As i cannot think of anywhere that has an elected head of state who isn't some polltical knob jockey
Quite. Make it an electable position and it immediately becomes aspirational. The kind of person who would want the job would probably be the least suitable for it. Imagine some vainglorious slime like Tony Blair getting elected to it. No, I think it's better to have people who have been born into it and raised to believe that they have a sense of duty to fulfil the obligations they were born into. I'm no royalist, but I think it works fine as it is.
People say "why should someone become monarch just because they were born into it?" Well, why should you be British just because you were born into it? Give up your British Citizenship and emigrate to Russia or France where they killed their monarchy if you don't like it.
Why do we think that the Attorney General is refusing to allow publication of Charles's letters, lobbying the Government, which he has stated he intends to continue to do once he has the crown on his bonce?
We are heading into constitutionally interesting times. Bring it on.
I'll try to ignore the "leave the country" rubbish. We're all entitled to an opinion about the monarchy without being deported so far as I'm aware. The times of Sir Thomas More and his sticky end are long since over, I believe. Besides, who said I wanted them killed or that I approve of other countries doing so? Sending them down the nearest Job Centre would do for me - Slough I think it is which is nearest to their favourite state-funded council house.
SilverSixer said:
The problem arises when the person born to that role rises above their station and starts to want to meddle politically, as we are about to find out. I do not predict a rosy future for the Monarchy.
Why do we think that the Attorney General is refusing to allow publication of Charles's letters, lobbying the Government, which he has stated he intends to continue to do once he has the crown on his bonce?
We are heading into constitutionally interesting times.
Absolutely. Why do we think that the Attorney General is refusing to allow publication of Charles's letters, lobbying the Government, which he has stated he intends to continue to do once he has the crown on his bonce?
We are heading into constitutionally interesting times.
SilverSixer said:
I'll try to ignore the "leave the country" rubbish. We're all entitled to an opinion about the monarchy without being deported so far as I'm aware. The times of Sir Thomas More and his sticky end are long since over, I believe. Besides, who said I wanted them killed or that I approve of other countries doing so? Sending them down the nearest Job Centre would do for me - Slough I think it is which is nearest to their favourite state-funded council house.
My tongue was firmly in my cheek for those comments. DJRC said:
And loo and behold gentlemen...it is suddenly not about the principle! The whole point about something being about the principle is that it cuts both ways.
Your petard Sir appears to be rather hoisty today...
Sorry, blue, totally lost me there. I think you must have misread me or I didn't put my point very clearly. Never mind.Your petard Sir appears to be rather hoisty today...
The principle comes first.
turbobloke said:
Gargamel said:
Don't think she will either.
Quite a few people do care, The Queen is the only thing between us and King Charles....
Hopefully HMTQ will stay put. There's always the possibility of Charles shuttling off first.Quite a few people do care, The Queen is the only thing between us and King Charles....
If you are a Monarchist you have to accept the idea of hereditary office. There have been elective Monarchies but the UK isn't one , and an elected Monarch is merely an elected head of state with no fixed term of office. All the discussion here about how rubbish Chazzer will be and how might we avoid having him as King makes good the case for the institution being fundamentally flawed. You get some good ones, and done duff ones, as was the case when Monarchs had powers, and in those long vanished days having a duff one could cause the country big problems.
As for head of state, who needs one who is a non exec? Why not just let whomever is temporary chief exec double as temporary head of state?
As for head of state, who needs one who is a non exec? Why not just let whomever is temporary chief exec double as temporary head of state?
Breadvan72 said:
Why not just let whomever is temporary chief exec double as temporary head of state?
AgreedI would feel so proud of our country when standing there representing us is the proud and noble man who has battled the cursed bacon butty and proven himself
A man we can all look up to
A man without challenge
We should all praise our elected head of state
President <insert gormless looking political
here>OR
We could have the ceremonial goat
thing with all the monarchist/anti-monarchist is I see it not in terms of boo-hoo-hoo it's not faaair I'm entitled to destroy it, or flag waving traditionalist claptrap trappings, but what would we get instead and how would it be better? I'm more interested in where we're moving to rather than the ideology of why we should move there.
Who's got rid of a monarchy in recent times? What brilliant societal model are we basing our brave new world on?
France? Russia? Greece?
Who's got rid of a monarchy in recent times? What brilliant societal model are we basing our brave new world on?
France? Russia? Greece?
Esseesse said:
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 job is ceremonial and gestural, and the current holder seems to do it well enough. It doesn't seem to be a hard job, and is probably quite boring, but the pay and conditions are good. In what way has Brenda not being doing her job properly? It being Friday, I hope your answer will be suitably FOTL/Euroloon "she done treason, innit" tinfoil wooist. The idea that any PM has to be wary of the Monarch is nonsense. The Monarch has no power, which is as it should be in a democracy. Blair had as much power as any other PM in the modern era, so why personalise the debate around him? Cameron is just as untrammeled by the Queen as Blair was.
hairyben said:
thing with all the monarchist/anti-monarchist is I see it not in terms of boo-hoo-hoo it's not faaair I'm entitled to destroy it, or flag waving traditionalist claptrap trappings, but what would we get instead and how would it be better? I'm more interested in where we're moving to rather than the ideology of why we should move there.
Who's got rid of a monarchy in recent times? What brilliant societal model are we basing our brave new world on?
France? Russia? Greece?
One thing I love about the British is their ability to moderate the actions of a few fanatics quite nicely.Who's got rid of a monarchy in recent times? What brilliant societal model are we basing our brave new world on?
France? Russia? Greece?
I like to think if some randoms forced a republic on us we'd all vote the previous monarch in as the first president.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff