[News] Prince Andrew interviewed about allegations

[Rodney Thomas]

That seems a bit illogical - if the British PM costs more than the French one then it surely suggests that a British presidency will also cost more than a French one - certainly doesn’t suggest it will cost less.

What I'm saying is the French PM has a smaller and less costly role than the French President. Therefore comparing our Queen to Macron is a bit disingenuous as the roles are completely different. The Queen certainly costs a hell of a lot more than say, the Greek President, which is a much more ceremonial role comparable to that of the head of state in the UK. A republic doesn't mean one has to opt for presidential powers such as those in France or the USA etc.

 

[Clive Walker]

What baffles me somewhat is how the Queen seems to be immune to any criticism whatsoever.

Andrew and Charles are her kids. Andrew in particular seems to have been massively indulged by her despite being a total dick. I know we all have something of a blind spot where our kids are concerned but this goes rather beyond that. If she is paying Andrew’s legal fees she needs to understand this is now in the public interest.

Ever since she totally misjudged public opinion after Diana’s death, the press seem to have decided she can’t do anything wrong. I’m not anti her but she does seem to represent a bygone age and the monarchy hasn’t adapted to modern society as result.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This!

She is totally played up to by the press where in reality she is someone who has done an ok job for a long long time. Not work celebrating really considering she couldn’t really lose her job to anyone. She’s simply avoided death. She never really earns the right to rule she just popped out of the right vagina at the right time. It’s all farcical.

As for her active role she addresses the nation once a year with a pre recorded well written speech prepared by some PR expert. Other than that she has addressed the nation two other times in her almighty reign.

Meaningless abd hold no relevance to me. Once she passes it won’t affect me one way or the other.

 

[Robinjakarta]

Lots of anti-monarchy noise on here and disrespect for those who don't deserve it, in particular the Queen (and one in particular who does).

Well, the monarchy has been around many times longer than any of us and will continue to be long after we've all gone. Like it or not, it's woven into the fabric of UK culture.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Lots of anti-monarchy noise on here and disrespect for those who don't deserve it, in particular the Queen (and one in particular who does).

Well, the monarchy has been around many times longer than any of us and will continue to be long after we've all gone. Like it or not, it's woven into the fabric of UK culture.

 

[BadFish]

Lots of anti-monarchy noise on here and disrespect for those who don't deserve it, in particular the Queen (and one in particular who does).

Well, the monarchy has been around many times longer than any of us and will continue to be long after we've all gone. Like it or not, it's woven into the fabric of UK culture.

Looks like opinion is shifting away from the monarchy as time and generations move on.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/863893/support-for-the-monarchy-in-britain-by-age/


I'll settle for Australia cutting ties, although we seem to like them more than you lot.

I am not sure you prediction is accurate. Although to be fair it will probably outlast me. Sadly.

Edit - although, maybe not https://www.theguardian.com/austral...tials-as-support-for-monarchy-hits-record-low

 

[CheeseRolls]

Lots of anti-monarchy noise on here and disrespect for those who don't deserve it, in particular the Queen (and one in particular who does).

Well, the monarchy has been around many times longer than any of us and will continue to be long after we've all gone. Like it or not, it's woven into the fabric of UK culture.

I love the way how these ancient institutions are held so dear by those who upped sticks to escape from it all many moons ago, but still cling fondly to the ex-pats club.

 

[Clive Walker]

Lots of anti-monarchy noise on here and disrespect for those who don't deserve it, in particular the Queen (and one in particular who does).

Well, the monarchy has been around many times longer than any of us and will continue to be long after we've all gone. Like it or not, it's woven into the fabric of UK culture.

It’s hard to show respect for someone who does very little. Please give me something to respect her for beyond the average person.

Don’t try:

Staying impartial (that’s easy)
Doing a job for a long time (no challenge to her reign)
Comforting/steering the nation (addresses nation once a year plus two extra occasions)
Doesn’t complain (I give up)

 

[WATFORD zero]

She suggested it but it appears that she was talking bollocks.
She had the option to refuse the settlement but has chosen to accept it whereby the money goes to her charity.
A criminal case would still be possible, I guess, if a Federal or State prosecutor was prepared to take it on.

And, if certain reports are true the £12M doesn't mean that she has given up the case, but has been paid this to simply delay it until the Jubilee celebrations are out of the way. If it's taken over 20 years already maybe the offer to delay for a few months for £12M was too good to turn down

 

[Publius Ovidius]

I always think the argument for abolishing the monarchy makes sense. Until I think about President Boris Johnson…
If we can’t be trusted not to elect amoral f***tards, then we need a monarchy.

Or Trump = President Rees Mogg

 

[Clive Walker]

Or Trump = President Rees Mogg

Voted in voted out

ie not being stuck with the same useless figure for 70 years

 

[highflyer]

Lots of anti-monarchy noise on here and disrespect for those who don't deserve it, in particular the Queen (and one in particular who does).

Well, the monarchy has been around many times longer than any of us and will continue to be long after we've all gone. Like it or not, it's woven into the fabric of UK culture.

'culture' is not static. It changes. Always has, always will. Whatever the romantic dreams of the 'leather on willow and jam for tea' brigade.

Collectively we make it. Collectively we change it.

We don't have a monarchy because it is woven into an unchangeable 'culture'.

We have it because collectively we have chosen to keep it.

I suspect we will continue to make that choice, at last for a while. But it's not inevitable. And there is no doubt the collective sentiment is shifting.

 

[Creaky]

What I'm saying is the French PM has a smaller and less costly role than the French President. Therefore comparing our Queen to Macron is a bit disingenuous as the roles are completely different. The Queen certainly costs a hell of a lot more than say, the Greek President, which is a much more ceremonial role comparable to that of the head of state in the UK. A republic doesn't mean one has to opt for presidential powers such as those in France or the USA etc.

I can’t see any way that our politicians would ever vote for a ceremonial head of state to replace the monarchy.

Far too big an opportunity to grab even more political power.

 

[Bry Nylon]

I can’t see any way that our politicians would ever vote for a ceremonial head of state to replace the monarchy.

Far too big an opportunity to grab even more political power.

Plus to be a sitting MP you have to swear allegiance to the monarch. Not sure how you could do that then vote to abolish them. It’s the kind of constitutional conundrum that would go in circles for ever.

 

[Creaky]

It’s hard to show respect for someone who does very little. Please give me something to respect her for beyond the average person.

Don’t try:

Staying impartial (that’s easy)
Doing a job for a long time (no challenge to her reign)
Comforting/steering the nation (addresses nation once a year plus two extra occasions)
Doesn’t complain (I give up)

You forget the most valuable aspect of a constitutional monarchy - it prevents the politicians controlling yet another level of government.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Voted in voted out

ie not being stuck with the same useless figure for 70 years

What powers would a President have? The Queen effectively has none and does nothing according to you, so why vote someone else in to do nothing? Now that would be a waste of money.

 

[WATFORD zero]

You forget the most valuable aspect of a constitutional monarchy - it prevents the politicians controlling yet another level of government.

The Royal Family are not 'a level of Government' and haven't been this century or the last one

 

[Creaky]

The Royal Family are not 'a level of Government' and haven't been this century or the last one

No but any replacement certainly would be.

 

[WATFORD zero]

How does the Royal Family stop politicians from controlling another level of Government that the politicians currently control anyway. I'm sorry but you are making no logical sense whatsoever

 

[CheeseRolls]

You forget the most valuable aspect of a constitutional monarchy - it prevents the politicians controlling yet another level of government.

I am not exactly sure how that works, when it isn't written down.

Seeing a member of parliament expelled for calling the prime minister a liar, whilst the prime minister is accountable to no one for lying to parliament, the monarch and the entire country, is not a great advert for a constitutional monarchy, I don't think.

 

[Clive Walker]

What powers would a President have? The Queen effectively has none and does nothing according to you, so why vote someone else in to do nothing? Now that would be a waste of money.

A democratically elected head of state could be constitutional and hold politicians to account while also being held to account for their partisan requirement. Their behaviour and public spending are all open to proper scrutiny, and if they do something wrong they can be sacked. So unlike Prince Charles, who ignores the unwritten rule that he shouldn't become political, in a republic the head of state could be challenged if they step out of line.

All our politicians would have to obey a set of rules that are decided by the people (written down in a constitution and voted on by the public). The head of state would be able to stop the politicians from doing something if they are breaking the rules - but not just because they disagree with the politicians.

It also kicks the house lords into touch but mostly means our politicians and hos are all treated the same in terms of behaviour and morality.