The Queen

[Simster]

Well just to add to the Prince Andrew theme, I have two friends who have worked for him at different times, and neither has a good word to say about him. Both have suggested he exploits and abuses his privilege to a great degree, and also that he's entirely obnoxious to mere mortals, including many of his own staff.

Charles: I'm fairly meh about. Not remotely fussed about the whole Diana business, as I was never keen on her in the first place and she certainly made the most of her position and public profile up until her unfortunate demise. Yeah, he makes the occasional proclamation on subjects which really are none of his business, but to be honest, nobody takes them seriously anyway as it's not as though he actually has any power or genuine influence. I just find him amusing more than anything else.

I've heard exactly the same about Andrew. He's a wanker, according to pretty much everyone who's ever met him.

As for Charles, I don't think people do ignore what he says unfortunately. That's why it was imperative those private letters he wrote to the government of the day were exposed. I'm sure the judge who ruled on that one can kiss goodbye to a knighthood in favour of doing the right thing.

And how can this sort of thing be right?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ri-PM-pleading-Chelsea-Barracks-scrapped.html

There's nothing "amusing" about that if your job depends on that new development being built is there?

 

[OGH's Libido]

Does she make any political decisions then ? I wonder if the Chilcott report will implicate her in the invasion of Iraq.

That we can't say for sure what her political views are is remarkable. If implicated, as you put it, such secrecy would result in a constitutional crisis.

Parliament voted to go to war, so I'd suggest no.

 

[Doc Lynam]

I am always suspicious when only one side of the argument is presented. There can be no doubt that the Royal Family are the most famous royal family in the world and as such have influence and cache that, in turn, translates into money coming into the country, be it via tourism, networking, diplomacy, commonwealth.

I'd expect that if ever a full cost benefit analysis were undertaken they'd be net contributors to the UK economy.

Leaving aside the financial side, her devotion to the role is quite remarkable and, as has been pointed out, her mistakes have been few and far between.

You may well be right but dissolution of the monarchy doesn't mean we lose our rich and coloured past; I'm pretty sure the tourist would still flock to see how this family got away with it for so long.

 

[OGH's Libido]

You may well be right but dissolution of the monarchy doesn't mean we lose our rich and colour past; I'm pretty sure the tourist would still flock to see how this family got away with it for so long.

That's a good point, and I suspect you are right.

My old boss was Norwegian. He loved to point out that the Norwegian King pulls up at his local supermarket and pushes a trolley around like the rest of us. While that wouldn't work here (nutters, sadly - the public that is, not Elizabeth), it does show that we could keep what we like about it, and lose what we didn't, if we so chose.

 

[beorhthelm]

You may well be right but dissolution of the monarchy doesn't mean we lose our rich and coloured past; I'm pretty sure the tourist would still flock to see how this family got away with it for so long.

they would. and the head of state would cost a few dozen million in security, the palaces would cost a few dozen million in upkeep etc. the financial arguments on both sides cancel out.

 

[Simster]

they would. and the head of state would cost a few dozen million in security, the palaces would cost a few dozen million in upkeep etc. the financial arguments on both sides cancel out.

Except that a president would be accountable but wouldn't be exempt from tax or from certain parliamentary statute.

 

[Questions]

That we can't say for sure what her political views are is remarkable. If implicated, as you put it, such secrecy would result in a constitutional crisis.

Parliament voted to go to war, so I'd suggest no.

Jesus I was joking. Why she has to briefed by the PM on any matters is beyond me.

 

[beorhthelm]

Except that a president would be accountable but wouldn't be exempt from tax or from certain parliamentary statute.

that would rather depend on how the office of president is set up, what powers and structures were created. republicans usualy forget (or dont know) our monarch is there by act of parliament, and therefore ultimately answerable to parliament if they ever tried to stray from the guidance of the PM.

 

[Questions]

I've heard exactly the same about Andrew. He's a wanker, according to pretty much everyone who's ever met him.

As for Charles, I don't think people do ignore what he says unfortunately. That's why it was imperative those private letters he wrote to the government of the day were exposed. I'm sure the judge who ruled on that one can kiss goodbye to a knighthood in favour of doing the right thing.

And how can this sort of thing be right?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ri-PM-pleading-Chelsea-Barracks-scrapped.html

There's nothing "amusing" about that if your job depends on that new development being built is there?

Don't forget he talks to his plants. I know for a fact that they ignore him because he is such a knob.

 

[seagully]

Hands up if you couldn't give a toss about the Queen becoming a record breaker

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

This is nonsense, IMO. You're picking the best example of an unelected head of state (the queen, who has carried out her role well enough) and comparing it to the worst outcome of an elected one (a power hungry, useless twàt like Gordon Brown or Ian Duncan Smith).

How about the idea of an unelected hard of state who abuses his power (like Prince Charles routinely does already) and compare that to a benign but popular, apolitical figurehead voted as head of state that perhaps doesn't wield actual power?

The wonderful Douglas Adams wrote that the only person suitable to 'rule' is someone who doesn't actually want the job, and that the person who everyopne thinks is in charge, actually isn't. Even though I'm a sad old lefty, for me, it is thumbs up for Her Majesty The Queen. Long may she reign over us. Whatever that means . . . .