Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

8O,tomorrow The Queen.Have to rather



Charles 'Charley' Charles

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Oct 8, 2005
3,551
The Mile Of Oaks
Brovian said:

No, I wouldn't vote Blair for President either. I'm not 100% happy with him as PM.

Glad we agree on that, the why would you want a President and a Prime Minister. I know President is head of state and in theory open to all contenders, but it would be a choice for a person who would have no authority at all (not in theory, but actuality) as opposed to a representitive that is and has been respected world wide?
 
















bhaexpress

New member
Jul 7, 2003
27,627
Kent
I'm no fan of the monarchy but as Head of State, George W. Bush or Good Queen Bess, well that's a toughie isn't it ?

Besides, unlike an ex-president who (unless he's senile like Ronny Regen) make money by doing public speaking your royals bring a whole load of readdies through tourism, not a hard choice really.
 


Tom Hark Preston Park

Will Post For Cash
Jul 6, 2003
71,878
Reckon the Queen will outlive Prince Charles by a WAY long time. After all, he already wakens up every morning to find a horse's head on the pillow next to him :lol:
 






chip

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2003
1,088
Glorious Goodwood
I'd rather live in a dictatorship run by HRH The Prince of Wales than a democracy with A Liar as PM.
 






555kaz said:
a representitive that is and has been respected world wide?

A common misconception. I've dicussed our monarchy with people from all over the world - the US, Europe, Africa, Asia. Rough guess would have about 80-85% thinking that the continuing existence of a monarchy in the UK is proof of our political immaturity.
 


Charles 'Charley' Charles

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Oct 8, 2005
3,551
The Mile Of Oaks
fatbadger said:
A common misconception. I've dicussed our monarchy with people from all over the world - the US, Europe, Africa, Asia. Rough guess would have about 80-85% thinking that the continuing existence of a monarchy in the UK is proof of our political immaturity.

You may well have a point, however that doesn't stop millions of visitors a year from coming and staring in awe at the gates of BP trying to see if the Standard is flying, or people trying to have their picture taken with the bearskins, or watching the trooping of the colour. Our investment of 12p a week is probably paid back a hundred times over the year, just by our standard of living, we're not in a depression ok would rather his Tonyness :censored: off, b ut you can't have everything. I just can't see the benfits of having a PM and a President, especially as all the Presdident would be there for is effect.
 












Brovion

In my defence, I was left unsupervised.
NSC Patron
Jul 6, 2003
19,687
555kaz said:
You may well have a point, however that doesn't stop millions of visitors a year from coming and staring in awe at the gates of BP trying to see if the Standard is flying, or people trying to have their picture taken with the bearskins, or watching the trooping of the colour. Our investment of 12p a week is probably paid back a hundred times over the year, just by our standard of living, we're not in a depression ok would rather his Tonyness :censored: off, b ut you can't have everything. I just can't see the benfits of having a PM and a President, especially as all the Presdident would be there for is effect.
So if we had no Monarchy we'd get no tourists? I think that's a very weak argument, people still go to visit the pyramids and the Palace of Versaille (sp) even though there are no Pharoes any more and the French very sensibly cut the heads off their Royal Family. We could keep Buckingham Palace, Trooping the Color and all the other Ruritanian rituals if that's what people want (even flying a flag when the president is in residence if you like) - so long as we, as fatbader days, become a bit more mature politically.

If the only arguement for keeping the monarchy is because it adds color for tourists to 'Theme Park GB' then we Republicans have already won.
 






Charles 'Charley' Charles

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Oct 8, 2005
3,551
The Mile Of Oaks
Brovian said:
So if we had no Monarchy we'd get no tourists? I think that's a very weak argument, people still go to visit the pyramids and the Palace of Versaille (sp) even though there are no Pharoes any more and the French very sensibly cut the heads off their Royal Family. We could keep Buckingham Palace, Trooping the Color and all the other Ruritanian rituals if that's what people want (even flying a flag when the president is in residence if you like) - so long as we, as fatbader days, become a bit more mature politically.

If the only arguement for keeping the monarchy is because it adds color for tourists to 'Theme Park GB' then we Republicans have already won.

Ok but someone please answer this question, what is the point of having a PM and a President? Especially as the pres would not be making decsions, as HRH doesn't. We would have a popularity contest every 4 years wasting probably more money, and in theory the Pres would have to be impartial to all parties.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here