Queen to abdicate?
Discussion
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? 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. Royals out.
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? 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.
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.
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. 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.
Edit: I confess that I didn't fully realise that, so thank you for the clarification / explanation.
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. 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.
Edit: I confess that I didn't fully realise that, so thank you for the clarification / explanation.
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. Royals out.
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.
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?
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. Royals out.
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.
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?
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?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?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?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
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?
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:
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% ceremonialRoyalists 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?
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
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff