For queen and country?

[Doc Lynam]

the system is wrong because we have this knockabout red v blue system that a significant proportion of the electorate support like football teams and has been further corrupted by the emphasis on presentation over conviction.

to moan that the systems wrong because we have a wealthy head of state and her family represent us in public, who are not 'democratically' elected, is not only barking up the wrong tree, you are in the wrong blooming forest in the first place.

Erm no, thats the whole point! It just so happens its gone on for so long and the privilege has been so obscene that Charlie's inherited private property business 'duchy' is worth £847 million.

 

[The Spanish]

Erm no, thats the whole point! It just so happens its gone on for so long and the privilege has been so obscene that Charlie's inherited private property business 'duchy' is worth £847 million.

yeah there are royal families and dynasties all over Europe in a similar position. its not 'the point', if you are proposing redistribution of wealth or curbing of privilege, and plan to draw the line at current unelected heads of state and their immediate family, you are missing the point massively. you are just aiming at the immediately visible target. it seems very stupid and lacking in awareness to me.

how do you feel about other unelected heads of states in northern europe, who are for the most part related to ours? or does your interest in social justice and democracy not extend that far. you know, those rotten to the core socially unequal and undemocratic states like denmark and norway, and illiberal and unjust societies like the netherlands. or do you think these people are just benign 'Royal Lites' with no influence, privilege, and wealth, just because you see them riding a bike from time to time?

 

[lawros left foot]

This thread is about the Royal family, not the chancers in the Palace of Westminster. You seem to have more of a problem with their wealth, than me,I realise that if we ever did, as a country decide to be a democracy, and not a constitutional monarchy, then no doubt they would keep their money, and I really don't have a problem with that. Again, my problem is in having a system that picks a leader the same way as North Korea.

 

[The Spanish]

This thread is about the Royal family, not the chancers in the Palace of Westminster. You seem to have more of a problem with their wealth, than me,I realise that if we ever did, as a country decide to be a democracy, and not a constitutional monarchy, then no doubt they would keep their money, and I really don't have a problem with that. Again, my problem is in having a system that picks a leader the same way as North Korea.

how can it not be about both? honestly i despair. our head of state would come from the 'chancers in westminster' if we did away with the monarchy. bloody hell.

 

[lawros left foot]

Not if it was organised that the job (as President) was only open to non- politicos.I don't know how this could be done, but if the electorate had the will for this, then it could be done, I have no doubt. You seem to think that the only people capable of doing. The job, are either those born to it, no matter how unsuitable, or politicians, who only inspire about 35% of the population vote forthem now.. If, for instance, Sir Richard Attenbrough,Alan Sugar, Prof R,obert Winston, or Steven Hawkins. Stood against the likes of Blair, Major or Boris Johnson, then I could see a landslide

 

[The Spanish]

Not if it was organised that the job (as President) was only open to non- politicos.I don't know how this could be done, but if the electorate had the will for this, then it could be done, I have no doubt. You seem to think that the only people capable of doing. The job, are either those born to it, no matter how unsuitable, or politicians, who only inspire about 35% of the population vote forthem now.. If, for instance, Sir Richard Attenbrough,Alan Sugar, Prof R,obert Winston, or Steven Hawkins. Stood against the likes of Blair, Major or Boris Johnson, then I could see a landslide

hahahahahahahahahaha

 

[turienzo's lovechild]

Not if it was organised that the job (as President) was only open to non- politicos.I don't know how this could be done, but if the electorate had the will for this, then it could be done, I have no doubt. You seem to think that the only people capable of doing. The job, are either those born to it, no matter how unsuitable, or politicians, who only inspire about 35% of the population vote forthem now.. If, for instance, Sir Richard Attenbrough,Alan Sugar, Prof R,obert Winston, or Steven Hawkins. Stood against the likes of Blair, Major or Boris Johnson, then I could see a landslide

wow

 

[Thunder Bolt]

If I was jealous of everyone richer than me, I would like hardly anybody. My point is that I believe in democracy, and therefore I believe that we, as a grown up country in the 21st century should be able to vote for the leader of the country, and if we , as voters do get it wrong, then after an agreed term we could vote them out. I personally think that we have been extremely lucky with the Queen, who has been a brilliant figurehead for the country,. And under a democratic system, would probally have voted for her. It is the system that is wrong, not the personalities.

If there was a democratic open vote whether to retain the monarchy or do away with it, don't forget there are 16 countries involved not just the UK.
The Queen is also the head of the Commonwealth so that brings 42 countries into it. Every one of those 42 countries are volunteer members of a great union with great respect for each other.

 

[lawros left foot]

Perhaps I have not expressed my thoughts on thi very succinctly, people far more intelligent than me would obviously have to come up with a new system,but I am sure a way could be found to have someone in our country, not affiliated to any political party, who could stand as a 'ceremonial'.head of state.at least we could all feel then that we actually have a say in who represents us on the world stage.(And, as a bonus we could get rid of that dirge of a nationa anthem)

 

[The Spanish]

If there was a democratic open vote whether to retain the monarchy or do away with it, don't forget there are 16 countries involved not just the UK.
The Queen is also the head of the Commonwealth so that brings another 42 countries into it.

surely for the UK,it would work the same as any other country she is head of state in, currently. we would not have a say in any decision to remove the monarchy from australias system of government and institutions.

but yes its a constitutional nightmare, and would cost countless millions. there are some people in Britain though who cant see past the end of their own noses when they get an idea in their head. luckily they are in a massive minority, otherwise we would change all our institutions because they thought it was unfair the queen was in charge and wanted the opportunity to vote in stacy solomon instead.

 

[The Spanish]

Perhaps I have not expressed my thoughts on thi very succinctly, people far more intelligent than me would obviously have to come up with a new system,but I am sure a way could be found to have someone in our country, not affiliated to any political party, who could stand as a 'ceremonial'.head of state.at least we could all feel then that we actually have a say in who represents us on the world stage.(And, as a bonus we could get rid of that dirge of a nationa anthem)

so you suggest that we get rid of the current system, that the vast majority of the population is broadly behind, to replace it with a divisive voting system, thus massively diluting support for the head of state at a stroke, and support in the institution, both at home and abroad? with the greatest of respect LLF you are not thinking this through.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

If, for instance, Sir Richard Attenbrough ( Tory party member ),Alan Sugar ( Labour Party member ) , Prof R,obert Winston ( Labour Peer ), or Steven Hawkins.

Yes, very non-political !!!!!

 

[father_and_son]

This has probably been asked in one form or another, but I'll give it another airing. Are you pro or anti monarchy?
Had a very lively debate at work today, mainly with the welsh contingent, who was of the opinion that the whole royal family should disappear and hand back all the money that is given to them by the British tax payer. I'm not particularly a royalist but wouldn't want to see them gone, their history is British history.

Think I'm with you on this... personally I'm not really bothered, but if I worked in a tourist-related industry I'd be extremely Royalist because they do make this country an attractive destination for many visitors and without them, we would undoubtedly lose out.

 

[Simster]

hahahahahahahahahaha

You seem to have no problem with people born into privelege having vetoes on national law-making, who get to be exempt from laws that nevertheless affect the rest of us, whose tax is a matter of person choice unlike everyone else, and whose accounts are shrouded in secrecy, yet will whine like a bitch at the selfishness of it all when it comes to things like the laws on immigration and their effects. So for example, you'll join in on a discussion about immigration and the squeeze it has on council housing, but look the other way when billionaire Prince William and his wife have their 107 roomed apartment re-decorated at a cost of £100m to the tax payer.

Perhaps I have not expressed my thoughts on thi very succinctly, people far more intelligent than me would obviously have to come up with a new system,but I am sure a way could be found to have someone in our country, not affiliated to any political party, who could stand as a 'ceremonial'.head of state.at least we could all feel then that we actually have a say in who represents us on the world stage.(And, as a bonus we could get rid of that dirge of a nationa anthem)

You're wasting your time here.

The Royal family as an institution is a relic from a bygone age, and when our highly respected queen departs, people might start to see it for what it is. Meanwhile, there are plenty of Uncle Tom types on here who will accuse you of being bitter or jealous of their wealth when they can't form a coherent argument for the status quo. Thunderbolt is a particularly dreadful example of this, IMO.

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

Perhaps I have not expressed my thoughts on thi very succinctly, people far more intelligent than me would obviously have to come up with a new system,but I am sure a way could be found to have someone in our country, not affiliated to any political party, who could stand as a 'ceremonial'.head of state.at least we could all feel then that we actually have a say in who represents us on the world stage.(And, as a bonus we could get rid of that dirge of a nationa anthem)

When the Irish did this they elected a Eurovision singer as their head of state. You want Lulu or Cliff Richard as head of state? Or maybe Cheryl Baker whipping off her skirt as she gets "crowned"

 

[lawros left foot]

So a system where accident of birth is the only criteria, to be head of state of a modern country, isd preferable to one where any child, no matter how lowly, can rise to be President? We had trial by ordeal, serfdom, legalised slavery, and no universal sufferage in this country for hundreds of years. No doubt it cost a lot of money to get fairer systems for the majority of the population, but they were the right things to do. I don't think that we wilkl have a republic in this country, definately in my lifetime, and probally not in my childrens, and I know I am in the minority, and being a democrat until the majority want it I wouldn't want it imposed on us, but, I do think we will eventually become a republic, and a true democracy

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Y
You're wasting your time here.

The Royal family as an institution is a relic from a bygone age, and when our highly respected queen departs, people might start to see it for what it is. Meanwhile, there are plenty of Uncle Tom types on here who will accuse you of being bitter or jealous of their wealth when they can't form a coherent argument for the status quo. Thunderbolt is a particularly dreadful example of this, IMO.

Put your claws away Simster. Re-read the thread, and tell me where I have accused anyone of being bitter or jealous of wealth?

 

[Simster]

When the Irish did this they elected a Eurovision singer as their head of state. You want Lulu or Cliff Richard as head of state? Or maybe Cheryl Baker whipping off her skirt as she gets "crowned"

If that's what the people want, then yes. That's the point of a democracy.

Instead, we are going to end up with an unfaithful, talentless, meddling, bore as head of state. I think I'd actually rather have Lulu.

 

[Simster]

Put your claws away Simster. Re-read the thread, and tell me where I have accused anyone of being bitter or jealous of wealth?

No, you don't say that word for word. But whenever you are backed into a corner over royalty, you trott out the line "there's always someone better off than you", as if that makes their absurd level of privilege and law flouting entirely acceptable. Which is just the same thing, to all intents and purposes.

 

[Doc Lynam]

Think I'm with you on this... personally I'm not really bothered, but if I worked in a tourist-related industry I'd be extremely Royalist because they do make this country an attractive destination for many visitors and without them, we would undoubtedly lose out.

This is a big myth none of the Royal residences are in the top 10 uk tourist attractions, number 1 is the chocolate box Victorian imaginings that is the Tower of London, it seems if you get rid of them it only benefits tourism! And also you are denigrating this country which has many historical and culturally significant places.

http://www.visitbritainshop.com/world/articles-and-features/top-10-english-tourist-attractions.html