Queen to Abdicate?

[MANTIS01]

I love my history and when I read books about Britain through the ages it gives me a real buzz. Personally I'm a bit of an aficionado on the Tudor period but have also studied the Wars of the Roses and delved into the murky world of Edward III in the 13th century. I get a bit of a headache going much further back but I do believe the first king of England was Alfred the Great crowned in about 880, which is some one thousand one hundred years ago. Now the twists and turns, mysteries, adventures and campaigns that have happened over the last millennium are fascinating. Much of it has centred around the monarchy and it's an institution which is entrenched in the very fabric of our DNA as people of England. Throughout the ages many have threatened or challenged the existence of the monarch, bloody wars have been fought, kings have been forcibly abdicated, executed and put to the sword in combat. And yet they have endured.

The latest challenge to this bastion of British culture and heritage in the year 2014 is Kmac84 calling them "free loaders" and Camel threatening not to bow. Think it might be gg this time folks, Liz might as well pack her bags!! 

[MANTIS01]

Incidentally when I was a kid my mum used to threaten to "string me up" if I left the light on in the bathroom when I came down the stairs. At the time I felt guilty but looking back I find it offensive.

[The Camel]

I don't really think the cost or benefit the Royal Family bring is the point.

(I don't buy the fqact they attract tourists. The tourists would still come and gawp at Buckingham Palace. Possibly more so when they would the chaance to tramp through all the rooms they are denied entry to currently. "And this the room where Micheal Fagan saat on the queens bed and offered her a fag...")

It's the fact in the 21st Century that people in power/authority are there by birthright, not elected.

Come on Camel.  They don't have any power/authority really.  They are just a performing circus attraction which brings in the tourists.  I'd rather be a normal citizen than Prince Dung.

They have massive power.

For example.

The queen let it be known she would be horrified if Yes won the Scoottish independence vote and all the old biddies who wouldn't have bothered voting got their collective knickers in atwist and rushed to ruin the future of all the under 30s north of the border.

[DaveShoelace]

I don't really think the cost or benefit the Royal Family bring is the point.

(I don't buy the fqact they attract tourists. The tourists would still come and gawp at Buckingham Palace. Possibly more so when they would the chaance to tramp through all the rooms they are denied entry to currently. "And this the room where Micheal Fagan saat on the queens bed and offered her a fag...")

It's the fact in the 21st Century that people in power/authority are there by birthright, not elected.

Come on Camel.  They don't have any power/authority really.  They are just a performing circus attraction which brings in the tourists.  I'd rather be a normal citizen than Prince Dung.

They have massive power.

For example.

The queen let it be known she would be horrified if Yes won the Scoottish independence vote and all the old biddies who wouldn't have bothered voting got their collective knickers in atwist and rushed to ruin the future of all the under 30s north of the border.

Over 65s have always been the most prolific voting group, I doubt the Queen coerced enough extra votes to make a notable difference from that demographic (A fact which worries me now I think of that in the context of UKIP).

[DungBeetle]

I don't really think the cost or benefit the Royal Family bring is the point.

(I don't buy the fqact they attract tourists. The tourists would still come and gawp at Buckingham Palace. Possibly more so when they would the chaance to tramp through all the rooms they are denied entry to currently. "And this the room where Micheal Fagan saat on the queens bed and offered her a fag...")

It's the fact in the 21st Century that people in power/authority are there by birthright, not elected.

Come on Camel.  They don't have any power/authority really.  They are just a performing circus attraction which brings in the tourists.  I'd rather be a normal citizen than Prince Dung.

They have massive power.

For example.

The queen let it be known she would be horrified if Yes won the Scoottish independence vote and all the old biddies who wouldn't have bothered voting got their collective knickers in atwist and rushed to ruin the future of all the under 30s north of the border.

Lol - that is just massive speculation on your behalf.

[The Camel]

I don't really think the cost or benefit the Royal Family bring is the point.

(I don't buy the fqact they attract tourists. The tourists would still come and gawp at Buckingham Palace. Possibly more so when they would the chaance to tramp through all the rooms they are denied entry to currently. "And this the room where Micheal Fagan saat on the queens bed and offered her a fag...")

It's the fact in the 21st Century that people in power/authority are there by birthright, not elected.

Come on Camel.  They don't have any power/authority really.  They are just a performing circus attraction which brings in the tourists.  I'd rather be a normal citizen than Prince Dung.

They have massive power.

For example.

The queen let it be known she would be horrified if Yes won the Scoottish independence vote and all the old biddies who wouldn't have bothered voting got their collective knickers in atwist and rushed to ruin the future of all the under 30s north of the border.

Lol - that is just massive speculation on your behalf.

Charles unquestionably affected the Blair government policy on enviromental issues.

The Queen definitely had a say on the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland.

The list is long.

[david3103]

I don't really think the cost or benefit the Royal Family bring is the point.

(I don't buy the fqact they attract tourists. The tourists would still come and gawp at Buckingham Palace. Possibly more so when they would the chaance to tramp through all the rooms they are denied entry to currently. "And this the room where Micheal Fagan saat on the queens bed and offered her a fag...")

It's the fact in the 21st Century that people in power/authority are there by birthright, not elected.

Come on Camel.  They don't have any power/authority really.  They are just a performing circus attraction which brings in the tourists.  I'd rather be a normal citizen than Prince Dung.

They have massive power.

For example.

The queen let it be known she would be horrified if Yes won the Scoottish independence vote and all the old biddies who wouldn't have bothered voting got their collective knickers in atwist and rushed to secure the future of all the under 30s north of the border.

FYP

[Kmac84]

Aye very good David, back in your cage. 

Its admitted by many in Better Together that getting Betty Battenberg out to have her tuppenceworth was massive for them. 

[DaveShoelace]

She also did that awesome parachute at the Olympics.

Ahhhh the Olympics, that was money well spent too wasn't it?

And the Thatcher funeral.

And so on and so forth

What about Thatcher, she was a right un wasn't she?

Has anyone called the police?

Worse than hitler.

Have you tried turning it off an on again?

Fuck you AmayaStars.

Ignore whatever [Mantis (or Arboy if its a Liverpool thread)] said, he is just trolling.

Christ it's got clicky here these days, not as good as it used to be.



There you go, brought the thread to it's natural conclusion a day in advance. Enjoy your free evening everyone.

[redarmi]

I don't really think the cost or benefit the Royal Family bring is the point.

(I don't buy the fqact they attract tourists. The tourists would still come and gawp at Buckingham Palace. Possibly more so when they would the chaance to tramp through all the rooms they are denied entry to currently. "And this the room where Micheal Fagan saat on the queens bed and offered her a fag...")

It's the fact in the 21st Century that people in power/authority are there by birthright, not elected.

Come on Camel.  They don't have any power/authority really.  They are just a performing circus attraction which brings in the tourists.  I'd rather be a normal citizen than Prince Dung.

They have massive power.

For example.

The queen let it be known she would be horrified if Yes won the Scoottish independence vote and all the old biddies who wouldn't have bothered voting got their collective knickers in atwist and rushed to ruin the future of all the under 30s north of the border.

I think it overly complacent to dismiss the power that they have.  Just on a theoretical level the Queen has a power of veto over all legislation.  Monarchists point to the fact that she never uses it but realistically that might just be about the personalities of the monarchs of the last 100 years (and we have had many) and someone with stronger views (like Charles) could easily be more forthright.  Irrespective of that they are consulted on a weekly basis by the PM.  Does anyone really think that the PM just sits there and tells him what he is going to do and she just nods along like a lapdog?  What right does she have to that weekly meeting that any other citizen doesn't have?  Presumably the Director of the British Museum doesn't get a weekly audience with the PM on the basis he brings in 6m visitors a year.....

[MANTIS01]

The fact that despite having zero official powers the Queen can still massively influence the hearts and minds of British people clearly demonstrates there's still an intrinsic need for a monarch. 

The first Elizabeth didn't have any power on the battlefield but her historic speech rousing the troops certainly went a long way in defeating the Spanish Armada. Every soldier would have laid down their life for her. Funny isn't it.

[Kmac84]

The fact that despite having zero official powers the Queen can still massively influence the hearts and minds of British people clearly demonstrates there's still an intrinsic need for a monarch. 

The first Elizabeth didn't have any power on the battlefield but her historic speech rousing the troops certainly went a long way in defeating the Spanish Armada. Every soldier would have laid down their life for her. Funny isn't it.

Aren't they a bunch of gullible fools.  #NeitherKingNorKaiser

[david3103]

Aye very good David, back in your cage. 

Its admitted by many in Better Together that getting Betty Battenberg out to have her tuppenceworth was massive for them. 

HM's off the cuff remark may have had an impact but it is purely subjective to claim that it ruined anyone's future.

[The Camel]

Aye very good David, back in your cage.  

Its admitted by many in Better Together that getting Betty Battenberg out to have her tuppenceworth was massive for them.  

HM's off the cuff remark may have had an impact but it is purely subjective to claim that it ruined anyone's future.

Quite clearly wasn't "off the cuff".

She said nothing until it looked a real possibility Yes might win.

Whether or not a no vote ruined Scotland's future is of course subjective.

But whether Elizabeth played a massive part in No winning or not is a fact.

[rfgqqabc]

Aye very good David, back in your cage.  

Its admitted by many in Better Together that getting Betty Battenberg out to have her tuppenceworth was massive for them.  

HM's off the cuff remark may have had an impact but it is purely subjective to claim that it ruined anyone's future.

Quite clearly wasn't "off the cuff".

She said nothing until it looked a real possibility Yes might win.

Whether or not a no vote ruined Scotland's future is of course subjective.

But whether Elizabeth played a massive part in No winning or not is a fact.

Still feels pretty subjective to me.

And you do make a good point Red, but I'd much rather the PM meet with the Queen once a week then the editor from one of the tabloids. We've already had one PM become godfather for Rupert Murdoch's kid, I doubt we want another. I feel like the public would react badly to a Monarch blocking any legislation, could prove a bit spicy at some point down the road though.

Couldn't find much about age specific demograpic stuff regarding voter turnout, but I did find this article

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/10/economist-explains-24

"One explanation favoured by older people is that the young are simply lazy. But this does not make much sense. Today’s young people volunteer more than old people; they are much better educated; and they are less likely to drink excessively or use drugs than previous generations of youth. That does not seem like a recipe for political apathy."

And you lot worry about today's generation.