Part of me thinks we should do it just to see the look on Charles' face...
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Is it time for the UK to become a republic?
- Thread starter Hamilton
- Start date
Lyndhurst 14
Well-known member
- Jan 16, 2008
- 5,130
But it would appear that may not always be the case.
Although the queen's consent is deemed to be a mere formality it would seem that she may have used her position to influence legislation on occasion. Yes, I know it's the crazy left wing Guardian writing this but it still made me think
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/queen-lobbied-for-changes-to-three-more-laws-documents-reveal
This is a football forum and anything goes, but seriously you love the country so much you f'd off to live in Canada!!!
Ex pat royalists make football's armchair plastics look credible in my books.
Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk
StonehamPark
#Brighton-Nil
Love the Queen, love the Crown.
Though there’s many far better countries in the world to spend your life in, in my book.
At least I chose to stay in the commonwealth.
To each their own.
You’ll be pleased to know I’m not an expat royalist
jakarta
Well-known member
Lobbying - as in giving an opinion - is not the same as making Laws though is it?
Does She influence Governments? Of course - she goes back to the days of Churchill and Kennedy and clearly has a huge amount of experience of British (and World) Politics.
Did she stop a Government doing things she didn't like? The Hunting Ban comes to mind. No She didn't because as I have previously posted She can't.
And neither will Charles...
burnee54
East Upper Hermit
Get rid of the Queen? What? And loose all those extra Bank Holidays every 70 years?
But seriously can you imaging if Tony B-liar had been voted as President and his Letter Box model of a wife represented us on the world stage?
We would be even more laughed at that we are now.
But seriously can you imaging if Tony B-liar had been voted as President and his Letter Box model of a wife represented us on the world stage?
We would be even more laughed at that we are now.
Lyndhurst 14
Well-known member
- Jan 16, 2008
- 5,130
The assumption is that the queen does not meddle in the nation's affairs. Depending on your point of view it would seem from the article that she may have crossed the line from lobbying to meddling.
'Did she stop a Government doing things she didn't like?' - Well, yes she did. She lobbied the Heath government to alter a proposed transparency law, enabling her to hide her private wealth from the public.
I'm instinctively opposed to Monarchy, and get thoroughly peed-off with the facile "we need them for tourism" argument - as if no-one ever visits Paris or New York!
But, another elected leader: Tony Blair? Nigel Farage? Ricky Gervais? Miranda Hart? Yuk.
In spite of my instinctive Republicanism, I'd go for a compromise; keep the Monarchy, but slim it right down by getting rid of all the junior c-list Royals, flunkeys, and the Royal Estates (Balmoral, Sandringham, etc).
But, another elected leader: Tony Blair? Nigel Farage? Ricky Gervais? Miranda Hart? Yuk.
In spite of my instinctive Republicanism, I'd go for a compromise; keep the Monarchy, but slim it right down by getting rid of all the junior c-list Royals, flunkeys, and the Royal Estates (Balmoral, Sandringham, etc).
vegster
Sanity Clause
- May 5, 2008
- 27,894
I was listening to a radio interview the other day with a couple of ex soldiers, their view was that when fighting, they were fighting for " Queen and Country " ...they said that if the likes of Johnson had ordered them to fight they probably wouldn't have.
As an instinctive Republican, I'd accept that as a compromise. Slim it right down, and also wish that the British public could finally grow out of their forelock-tugging and fawning; it's embarrassing.
Baldseagull
Well-known member
But his wealth and Title came from a Monarch, gifting land to an ancestor, passed to him in the manner of first born son of the previous Duke. I am up for stripping the assets from all those who own their land and wealth by dint of a fiefdom granted by some or other Monarch, usually for some butchery or murder on that Monarchs behalf. They are welcome to the title Duke, Queen, Prince etc.
If we remove the Monarchy, but leave in place the structures Monarchs created to allow certain families to own land no one in their family ever paid anyone to own, we might as well not bother, which is what will happen.
Baldseagull
Well-known member
She is the Queen of Canada too.
Pavilionaire
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 30,588
You think they're not laughing at our Royal Family re Prince Andrew, Meghan and Harry?
Very good point (even though the contra point is also defensible).
Personally, thinking about it, I would rather have Johnson as head of state than as PM. Makes me thing of Zaphod Beeblebrox, and his election as president of the universe.
BN41Albion
Well-known member
- Oct 1, 2017
- 6,418
Yeah because no other country's population has ever voted in a c*** of a head of state/prime minister in the history of the world. Nope, never. Can't think of one.
Let me stop you there.
A vote is a vote.
And just because the hard left and hard right hate Mr Tony doesn't mean we all do.
And mocking his wife's appearance is a poor look
Blue Valkyrie
Not seen such Bravery!
Too right. I'd vote for President Blair for sure.Let me stop you there.
A vote is a vote.
And just because the hard left and hard right hate Mr Tony doesn't mean we all do.
And mocking his wife's appearance is a poor look
- Jan 3, 2012
- 16,594
Yes - because the whole thing of having anybody unelected in a position of authority - even if they have no real power - is wrong and perpetuates the class system which means we get a government of the sort we have at the moment……