Queen to Abdicate?

[George2Loose]

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.....

This is all convention and just wpuld never happen. It's like Ukips argument that theoretically the whole of Europe can move here tomorrow

[Kmac84]

Regardless of whether its convention or not she shouldn't have any power whatsoever. 

There are millions of people on these islands who don't want an unelected Monarch/Head of State.  We go on about how free we are on these islands yet we have by birthright people in postions of power it is no different to dictatorial regimes elsewhere lets face it if one of them gets a bit power mad chaos could ensue. 

My gripe against the Royals is based on class, politics and religion. 

[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.....

This is all convention and just wpuld never happen. It's like Ukips argument that theoretically the whole of Europe can move here tomorrow

The weekly meeting isn't convention.  It happens every single week.  We are not privy to what goes on in that meeting or how a PM reacts to what is said.  Now obviously this might all be okay and she might just be a nice old lady that accepts everything the democratically elected say but she might not too and there is no guarantee that her successor will take the same view.  What happens, for example, if the monarch becomes mentally ill?  It is so easy to sit back and say it is alright because for x years we haven't had a problem but that is overly complacent and the kind of thinking that has caused numerous issues in the past.  Fwiw I have no massive issue with them as a ceremonial institution but I think belief in democracy is binary....you either do believe in it or you don't and if you do then there is no place for any constitutional powers for a monarch whether they are just conventions or not.

[Kmac84]

I think belief in democracy is binary....you either do believe in it or you don't and if you do then there is no place for any constitutional powers for a monarch whether they are just conventions or not.

Winner.

[The Camel]

Regardless of whether its convention or not she shouldn't have any power whatsoever. 

There are millions of people on these islands who don't want an unelected Monarch/Head of State.  We go on about how free we are on these islands yet we have by birthright people in postions of power it is no different to dictatorial regimes elsewhere lets face it if one of them gets a bit power mad chaos could ensue. 

My gripe against the Royals is based on class, politics and religion. 

My gripe is purely birthright.

I would rather a President Theresa May or Nigel Farage than an unelected King Charles.

But if there was a referendum and the public voted to keep them, I'd accept it.

It is the one issue I'd really be motivated by though. I would knock on every door and explain why a monarchy is wrong 23 hours a day for the month before a vote.

[George2Loose]

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.....

This is all convention and just wpuld never happen. It's like Ukips argument that theoretically the whole of Europe can move here tomorrow

The weekly meeting isn't convention.  It happens every single week.  We are not privy to what goes on in that meeting or how a PM reacts to what is said.  Now obviously this might all be okay and she might just be a nice old lady that accepts everything the democratically elected say but she might not too and there is no guarantee that her successor will take the same view.  What happens, for example, if the monarch becomes mentally ill?  It is so easy to sit back and say it is alright because for x years we haven't had a problem but that is overly complacent and the kind of thinking that has caused numerous issues in the past.  Fwiw I have no massive issue with them as a ceremonial institution but I think belief in democracy is binary....you either do believe in it or you don't and if you do then there is no place for any constitutional powers for a monarch whether they are just conventions or not.

You've been watching too much blackadder. To suggest that any monarch has influence in that weekly meeting is pretty pie in the Sky

[The Camel]

Meh.

[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.

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.

My off the cuff comment was made with my tongue firmly in my cheek.

[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.

My off the cuff comment was made with my tongue firmly in my cheek.

I wish people would quit trying to confuse me.

I'm old and borderline senile. I can't work out what is a joke, sarcasm, serious or an off the cuff comment any more.

I've gone at the game. The Wes Newton of internet forum posting.

[nirvana]

I think belief in democracy is binary....you either do believe in it or you don't and if you do then there is no place for any constitutional powers for a monarch whether they are just conventions or not.

It's not really binary though, we are a parliamentary democracy..and we have a Monarchy.

Privilege, birthright and the hereditary nature of society is about as fundamental a function of being part of the human race as it gets.

Some of us inherit our parents bits and bobs, some their houses, some their businesses, some their titles and stately homes etc

It's all the same so, arguably, a belief in heredity of any kind is binary - one either believes in heredity or one doesn't. Your kids might be a bit disappointed one day if you show up with 'unlucky sausages, but principle comes first, it's all going to Amnesty'

[The Camel]

I think belief in democracy is binary....you either do believe in it or you don't and if you do then there is no place for any constitutional powers for a monarch whether they are just conventions or not.

It's not really binary though, we are a parliamentary democracy..and we have a Monarchy.

Privilege, birthright and the hereditary nature of society is about as fundamental a function of being part of the human race as it gets.

Some of us inherit our parents bits and bobs, some their houses, some their businesses, some their titles and stately homes etc

It's all the same so, arguably, a belief in heredity of any kind is binary - one either believes in heredity or one doesn't. Your kids might be a bit disappointed one day if you show up with 'unlucky sausages, but principle comes first, it's all going to Amnesty'

I detest Richard Branson obviously, but I can't but admire his decision to leave none of his wealth/property to his children.

Think Sting and Paul McCartney have made the same decision.

[nirvana]

I think belief in democracy is binary....you either do believe in it or you don't and if you do then there is no place for any constitutional powers for a monarch whether they are just conventions or not.

It's not really binary though, we are a parliamentary democracy..and we have a Monarchy.

Privilege, birthright and the hereditary nature of society is about as fundamental a function of being part of the human race as it gets.

Some of us inherit our parents bits and bobs, some their houses, some their businesses, some their titles and stately homes etc

It's all the same so, arguably, a belief in heredity of any kind is binary - one either believes in heredity or one doesn't. Your kids might be a bit disappointed one day if you show up with 'unlucky sausages, but principle comes first, it's all going to Amnesty'

I detest Richard Branson obviously, but I can't but admire his decision to leave none of his wealth/property to his children.

Think Sting and Paul McCartney have made the same decision.

lol, obviously. Interesting stance and maybe not as uncommon as I would instinctively think it was.

[The Camel]

I think belief in democracy is binary....you either do believe in it or you don't and if you do then there is no place for any constitutional powers for a monarch whether they are just conventions or not.

It's not really binary though, we are a parliamentary democracy..and we have a Monarchy.

Privilege, birthright and the hereditary nature of society is about as fundamental a function of being part of the human race as it gets.

Some of us inherit our parents bits and bobs, some their houses, some their businesses, some their titles and stately homes etc

It's all the same so, arguably, a belief in heredity of any kind is binary - one either believes in heredity or one doesn't. Your kids might be a bit disappointed one day if you show up with 'unlucky sausages, but principle comes first, it's all going to Amnesty'

I detest Richard Branson obviously, but I can't but admire his decision to leave none of his wealth/property to his children.

Think Sting and Paul McCartney have made the same decision.

lol, obviously. Interesting stance and maybe not as uncommon as I would instinctively think it was.

Clearly the children of the mega rich get lots of opportunities normal kids don't get. But for Branson and Macca that is enough. Once they reach 18, the help stops, they need to carve their own niche.

If there's a more odious subset of people than spoilt adult offspring of rch parents I don't want to meet them.

[redarmi]

Its interesting.  Fundamentally the hereditary principle is the root of a lot of the unequality in society.  I can totally understand the desire for people to leave things for their children etc but, objectively, I think it is a bad thing.

[celtic]

I would enjoy this thread a lot more if I knew what binary meant.