Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II passes away. 21st April 1926 - 8th September 2022.

[EdBed]

2 hours ago, PaulHartman71 said:

I just think personally the decision should’ve been taken out of her hands several years ago, definitely once Phillip died.

If they insist on keeping the monarchy around forever which for political reasons they will unless Will and Kate become too woke for the right, then they should definitely put some kind of limit on like once a monarch hits retirement age in the UK they have to abdicate/retire etc.

 

Again I'd need some constitutional guidance on this, but who has the right to take any decision away from the Queen?

And it's not a vocation to be retired from, it is bestowed by God.

 

[scott MUFC]

I would have left it shut for everyone sanity

[PaulHartman71]

1 hour ago, EdBed said:

 

Again I'd need some constitutional guidance on this, but who has the right to take any decision away from the Queen?

And it's not a vocation to be retired from, it is bestowed by God.

 

 

3 hours ago, Coulthard's Jaw said:

Why?

 

Look at Putin as an example. 

The Queen in her defence has aged about as gracefully as can reasonably be expected of anyone, but Charles is what, 73? Potentially he lives as long as the Queen given the genes of his parents. 

What happens if he starts losing his marbles at 80? He’s wanted this position his whole life, even if he has got early onset dementia or something who’s making the decision to tell him to step down. 

If they insist on keeping the monarchy around they need to start safeguarding this kind of thing. The monarch plays an important role in state visits, signing off policies, governments etc, you shouldn’t have someone in their 90s in such a position of responsibility. 

Sure the Queen has always done the thing for the British people but what if Charles starts going rogue? He legitimately would have the power to start causing the sitting government problems if he wanted. 

[EdBed]

5 minutes ago, PaulHartman71 said:

 

 

Look at Putin as an example. 

The Queen in her defence has aged about as gracefully as can reasonably be expected of anyone, but Charles is what, 73? Potentially he lives as long as the Queen given the genes of his parents. 

What happens if he starts losing his marbles at 80? He’s wanted this position his whole life, even if he has got early onset dementia or something who’s making the decision to tell him to step down. 

If they insist on keeping the monarchy around they need to start safeguarding this kind of thing. The monarch plays an important role in state visits, signing off policies, governments etc, you shouldn’t have someone in their 90s in such a position of responsibility. 

Sure the Queen has always done the thing for the British people but what if Charles starts going rogue? He legitimately would have the power to start causing the sitting government problems if he wanted. 

Yep, I agree. But if we wanted a modern system based on logical decision making then the monarchy shouldn't exist.

 

[EdBed]

2 hours ago, EdBed said:

 

Again I'd need some constitutional guidance on this, but who has the right to take any decision away from the Queen?

 

Okay, the below is taken from an article today in The Guardian:

“A regency requires three out of five dignitaries, the Prince of Wales, the lord chancellor, the Speaker of the Commons, the lord chief justice and the master of the rolls, to certify that the Queen is permanently – permanently – incapable of carrying out her duties. That judgment would no doubt be made on doctor’s advice. There is no evidence that this is the case,” said Bogdanor, professor of government at King’s College, London and author of The Monarchy and the Constitution.

 

That's the cabal that could do it.

[G-Man11]

2 hours ago, PaulHartman71 said:

 

 

Look at Putin as an example. 

The Queen in her defence has aged about as gracefully as can reasonably be expected of anyone, but Charles is what, 73? Potentially he lives as long as the Queen given the genes of his parents. 

What happens if he starts losing his marbles at 80? He’s wanted this position his whole life, even if he has got early onset dementia or something who’s making the decision to tell him to step down. 

If they insist on keeping the monarchy around they need to start safeguarding this kind of thing. The monarch plays an important role in state visits, signing off policies, governments etc, you shouldn’t have someone in their 90s in such a position of responsibility. 

Sure the Queen has always done the thing for the British people but what if Charles starts going rogue? He legitimately would have the power to start causing the sitting government problems if he wanted. 

This really -

2 hours ago, EdBed said:

Yep, I agree. But if we wanted a modern system based on logical decision making then the monarchy shouldn't exist.

 

You're basically trying to think logically about a hereditary monarchy. You keep it as is or you abolish it. Reforming it is just ridiculous.

[Heartwork]

2 hours ago, PaulHartman71 said:

 

 

Look at Putin as an example. 

The Queen in her defence has aged about as gracefully as can reasonably be expected of anyone, but Charles is what, 73? Potentially he lives as long as the Queen given the genes of his parents. 

What happens if he starts losing his marbles at 80? He’s wanted this position his whole life, even if he has got early onset dementia or something who’s making the decision to tell him to step down. 

If they insist on keeping the monarchy around they need to start safeguarding this kind of thing. The monarch plays an important role in state visits, signing off policies, governments etc, you shouldn’t have someone in their 90s in such a position of responsibility. 

Sure the Queen has always done the thing for the British people but what if Charles starts going rogue? He legitimately would have the power to start causing the sitting government problems if he wanted. 

I mean George IV served as Prince Regent when George III lost his mental capacity to fulfil his duties, so if Charles ever had that situation then William would become Prince Regent and fulfil all the royal duties.

[Jigsaw13]

Personally can’t see Charles going ‘rogue’ like Putin.

Yes the monarch can do a lot of things with parliament, but are their advisors etc going to let them? Not likely 

I can’t see the queen abdicating either. Given the word is almost synonymous with Edward and the scandal involved. She won’t want to be tarred with the same brush 

[PaulHartman71]

58 minutes ago, Jigsaw13 said:

Personally can’t see Charles going ‘rogue’ like Putin.

Yes the monarch can do a lot of things with parliament, but are their advisors etc going to let them? Not likely 

I can’t see the queen abdicating either. Given the word is almost synonymous with Edward and the scandal involved. She won’t want to be tarred with the same brush 

Obviously it’s not quite Putin levels of sitting on nukes etc but say you have Charles in a position where he’s not quite all there and has Boris or a Boris type figure lying or basically taking the **** out of him like Boris did to the Queen. 

What’s to say Charles doesn’t get really angry, has less of a filter and comes out publicly and says “you know what, the PM is a liar, he’s lied to me and he’s lying to you the people”. 

Now I’m not saying he’s going to try and get the PM the sack per se, but a momentarily lapse of judgment or anger etc and you’re in all sorts of problems. I think the Queen has been so good at doing and saying nothing for so long that people kind of take it for granted how “good” she is at doing nothing per se. 

Look at Philip as an example himself. In his old age he’d make even more inappropriate remarks or comments. It’s one thing when it’s the Queen’s eccentric/weird husband, but what happens if the King himself is coming out with dodgy off the cuff comments because he’s old and has no filter. 

I can possibly see William maybe deciding to be the last Monarch and not wanting his kids/grandchildren to have to go through all of it as well. Perhaps attitudes will have changed more in 30-40 years and it will be quietly got rid of. 

[Coulthard's Jaw]

This is all a bit fantastical, this isn't House of Cards (UK version).

[Bootador]

1 hour ago, Coulthard's Jaw said:

This is all a bit fantastical, this isn't House of Cards (UK version).

Man, that season went places 

[oche balboa]

11 hours ago, PaulHartman71 said:

Obviously it’s not quite Putin levels of sitting on nukes etc but say you have Charles in a position where he’s not quite all there and has Boris or a Boris type figure lying or basically taking the **** out of him like Boris did to the Queen. 

What’s to say Charles doesn’t get really angry, has less of a filter and comes out publicly and says “you know what, the PM is a liar, he’s lied to me and he’s lying to you the people”. 

Now I’m not saying he’s going to try and get the PM the sack per se, but a momentarily lapse of judgment or anger etc and you’re in all sorts of problems. I think the Queen has been so good at doing and saying nothing for so long that people kind of take it for granted how “good” she is at doing nothing per se. 

Look at Philip as an example himself. In his old age he’d make even more inappropriate remarks or comments. It’s one thing when it’s the Queen’s eccentric/weird husband, but what happens if the King himself is coming out with dodgy off the cuff comments because he’s old and has no filter. 

I can possibly see William maybe deciding to be the last Monarch and not wanting his kids/grandchildren to have to go through all of it as well. Perhaps attitudes will have changed more in 30-40 years and it will be quietly got rid of. 

Charles will serve the crown well. I actually think he will do it short term as he will realise that the work he does for Green issues cant happen when he is King. The Monarch will continue for centuries to come. It wont come to a stop but it may be different & Future King William V will change this 

[Darren Moores Mum]

No idea how you can claim it will continue for "centuries". Younger people are increasingly anti-monarchy. That will only increase over the coming decades.

[Coulthard's Jaw]

Climate change will kill everyone long before the monarchy goes.

[Mahzun_Savas]

From an Australian perspective I wonder whether there will be a move away from the monarchy in Australia when the Queen dies.

[oche balboa]

51 minutes ago, ginnybob said:

No idea how you can claim it will continue for "centuries". Younger people are increasingly anti-monarchy. That will only increase over the coming decades.

I would love to place a wager that it will but alas sadly we will be dead years beforehand. 

[Darren Moores Mum]

"Centuries" is a long ****ing time.

[oche balboa]

4 minutes ago, ginnybob said:

"Centuries" is a long ****ing time.

Exactly and the Royals will remain. 

[Darren Moores Mum]

Aye, alright. The need for bootlicking is getting less prevalent with younger folk, thankfully.

Edited May 11, 2022 by ginnybob

[mark1985]

Just now, oche balboa said:

Exactly and the Royals will remain. 

How can you be so certain? Lots of other countries have got rid of their monarchies in the last 100/150 years or at least made them a lot more minor. The monarch of England in one centuries time (so 2122) almost certainly hasn’t even been born yet so even 1 century is a long time 

[Darren Moores Mum]

1 minute ago, Tikka Mezzala said:

How could you even begin to claim to know what the picture will be centuries from now. You're expressing a wish, not a serious prediction.

All you can do is look at trends from now. And that would suggest fewer people will be pro-Monarchy as the decades go by.

[mark1985]

18 minutes ago, Tikka Mezzala said:

Here's hoping. I have zero respect for monarchy supporters. It's one of the saddest things I can think of. Really lack any self-respect or dignity, tbh. 

Whilst I have no problem with most of them as people (with some notable exceptions) I have a big problem with the institution of monarchy. No one is better than me purely because of who their dad is/was or who their grandad is/was or the fact that their ancestor 1000 was a little tougher/luckier/richer than mine or in the right place at the right time or had the right friends or whatever.

[Smallen]

19 minutes ago, Tikka Mezzala said:

Here's hoping. I have zero respect for monarchy supporters. It's one of the saddest things I can think of. Really lack any self-respect or dignity, tbh. 

What do you mean, mate. We're all in this together.

[Snooky]

Looks like Donald Trump's bathroom.

[mark1985]

Just now, Tikka Mezzala said:

Unfortunately people internalise social structures/stratifications. I know we all contain contradictions, but this is a big one. At one level, liberal capitalism requires us to believe in basic equality between people and the agency of the individual to improve their social circumstances through talent/effort. At another level, the institution of Monarchy asks us to entertain the idea that inherited privilege, status, and power are compatible with this. 

 

I’m all for a society when the only thing that we are judged on is our actions (with the obvious caviats that no one is left to starve on the streets etc and we all have a minimum standard when it comes to quality of life). We all the same opportunity to succeed (all have the same access to the tools like access to a good education, health, a roof over your head, food etc) so it really will be down to hard work and talent. But that’s not how it works. The whole ‘some people are born on 3rd base and think they’ve schooled a home run’ is so true. And then these people are fawned over by people who have little to nothing. 

[oche balboa]

45 minutes ago, Tikka Mezzala said:

Here's hoping. I have zero respect for monarchy supporters. It's one of the saddest things I can think of. Really lack any self-respect or dignity, tbh. 

Imagine having a President system in the UK.

[oche balboa]

7 minutes ago, Tikka Mezzala said:

Unfortunately people internalise social structures/stratifications. I know we all contain contradictions, but this is a big one. At one level, liberal capitalism requires us to believe in basic equality between people and the agency of the individual to improve their social circumstances through talent/effort. At another level, the institution of Monarchy asks us to entertain the idea that inherited privilege, status, and power are compatible with this. 

 

Or people like Tradition. Everyone knows that royalty have a lot of wealth and most people (In my experience) are ok with it. 

[skybluedave]

Don't know. Think Prince Andrew is a bit skint at mo

[oche balboa]

1 minute ago, Tikka Mezzala said:

Imagine having a proper democracy. 

We should change the voting system in this country. FPTP is outdated. 

[Snooky]

Just now, oche balboa said:

We should change the voting system in this country. FPTP is outdated. 

But it's tradition!

[Mahzun_Savas]

Is the monarchy doing any harm?

[TalkSport]

16 minutes ago, oche balboa said:

Or people like Tradition. Everyone knows that royalty have a lot of wealth and most people (In my experience) are ok with it. 

A lot of people have not needed to endure the silly cost of living we’re currently going through, and the continued dirt thrown at them by people that are so detached from society. 

Probably can point to rationing during the war, but the landscape is completely different. Got people working jobs, that are still in poverty and don’t own a home. Next generations are growing up in poverty who will detest the monarchy, because they’re so far removed from general society. 

[G-Man11]

So much of what people consider tradition is often not really that old either.

The whole ceremony and aura around the British monarchy only really been around about 150 years. It was very much something that developed in the Victorian era.

[Darren Moores Mum]

Bootlicking...it's tradition!

[mark1985]

33 minutes ago, oche balboa said:

Or people like Tradition. Everyone knows that royalty have a lot of wealth and most people (In my experience) are ok with it. 

A lot of people aren’t though are they? Or at least ambivalent towards it or just don’t think about it. Do you think it’s fair that they have that much money?

[Glenn Wakeford]

26 minutes ago, Mahzun_Savas said:

Is the monarchy doing any harm?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Andrew,_Duke_of_York

[Heartwork]

9 minutes ago, G-Man11 said:

So much of what people consider tradition is often not really that old either.

The whole ceremony and aura around the British monarchy only really been around about 150 years. It was very much something that developed in the Victorian era.

Yeah if Blackadder the Third is anything to go by, people HATED George IV, who is described in his party newsheet as "a great moral and spiritual leader of the nation", but is described by almost everyone else as "a fat, flatulent git".

[Mahzun_Savas]

4 minutes ago, Glenn Wakeford said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Andrew,_Duke_of_York

That does not really have much to do with the monarchy and its position in society

[Darren Moores Mum]

3 minutes ago, Mahzun_Savas said:

That does not really have much to do with the monarchy and its position in society

Of course it does. He's protected because of who he is.

Edited May 11, 2022 by ginnybob

[Crispypaul]

1 hour ago, mark1985 said:

A lot of people aren’t though are they? Or at least ambivalent towards it or just don’t think about it. Do you think it’s fair that they have that much money?

Fairness is highly subjective.

[mark1985]

4 minutes ago, Crispypaul said:

Fairness is highly subjective.

Very true. In this case, do you think it’s fair that the royal family are so wealthy? If so, why?

[Mahzun_Savas]

22 minutes ago, mark1985 said:

Very true. In this case, do you think it’s fair that the royal family are so wealthy? If so, why?

It is probably not fair but the alternative to the monarchy will probably be rich. Will that be any fairer?

[mark1985]

1 minute ago, Mahzun_Savas said:

It is probably not fair but the alternative to the monarchy will probably be rich. Will that be any fairer?

It’s the inherited wealth that I (and many others) have a problem with. If you work hard, pay all your taxes etc etc etc most people are fine if you earn decent money. They are rich literally because of who their family is (yes, I know this applies to many other non royal families too). Many people get a little money when family members die but very few of us get even more access to obscene wealth, a few more palaces and to be head of state when a parent dies. 

[profii]

I'm indifferent to the monarchy. I think it's all a bit silly but I don't care enough to advocate that we end it.

 

I think my concern would be if we were ending the monarchy then you would have to consider the government - whilst the Queen doesn't get involved, she is essentially the boss, take that away and there is a void that needs to be filled, that would give MPs to rewrite how things work and they would surely take the opportunity to try and seize additional powers. That would be bad 

[Cilldara_2000]

8 hours ago, Mahzun_Savas said:

Is the monarchy doing any harm?

Yes. The central idea that it's ok for someone to be born into the top job is fundamentally opposed to any ideas of fairness, egalitarianism and meritocracy. 

Consider also how much land in Britain that the monarchy and their various hangers on in the aristocracy own. These people were born into wealth based on land stolen from other people because their ancestors were essentially the most brutal warlords around. 

6 hours ago, Mahzun_Savas said:

It is probably not fair but the alternative to the monarchy will probably be rich. Will that be any fairer?

Pure nonsense. Plenty of countries have elected heads of state who are no different to anyone else. Also, plenty of these heads of states are purely figureheads just like the British queen. So no idea what this is supposed to mean:

8 hours ago, oche balboa said:

Imagine having a President system in the UK.

What exactly is "a President system"?

[Junkhead]

Couple of stories knocking about tonight that she won't be at the jubilee celebrations.  Fair few people on social media seem to think London Bridge is already down and will be announced after the jubilee.

Interested to know if people think they could keep that quiet, and also if they would?

[Confused Clarity]

There is not a single chance at all of them keeping something like that quiet.

 

[Junkhead]

Should have clarified that the majority who seem to think she is already dead also believe that there were microchips in the vaccine.

[oche balboa]

10 hours ago, Junkhead said:

Couple of stories knocking about tonight that she won't be at the jubilee celebrations.  Fair few people on social media seem to think London Bridge is already down and will be announced after the jubilee.

Interested to know if people think they could keep that quiet, and also if they would?

Very unlikely. Its not in anyone's interest to keep it quiet 

[The_jagster]

It's not in their interests which is why there is no recent history whatsoever of the exact status of the Royals' health being couched in very vague and euphemistic terms.