Queen to abdicate?
Discussion
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.It would be having anyone who actually did anything of note that would be problematic.
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?
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.It would be having anyone who actually did anything of note that would be problematic.
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.
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.
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 would imagine it is just the usual rubbish on TV but who knows?
I'm sure I've read somewhere that Parliament theoretically has the power to appoint someone other than the heir presumptive as Monarch.
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. 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 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
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
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. 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.
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.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. 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.
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.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. 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.
Royals out.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff