BlueHammer85
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 13 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 40,610
Unbelievable irony.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The British Monarchy
- Thread starter west didsblue
- Start date
Unbelievable irony.
staffsblue
Well-Known Member
The Federal Republic of GB and NI. Yeah! Bye bye kings, queens, princes, princesses, Lords, Ladies, Dukes, Barons and Earls. Democracy, you know it makes sense.
Would love to see the UK have an elected head of state. Baroness Benjamin would be my first choice for president!
However, the recent voting habits of the UK public would suggest we'd end up with some egotist like Lord Sugar or Branson.
mancity2012_eamo
Well-Known Member
Would love to see the UK have an elected head of state. Baroness Benjamin would be my first choice for president!
However, the recent voting habits of the UK public would suggest we'd end up with some egotist like Lord Sugar or Branson.
Magicpole for King!
Last edited:
kaz7
Well-Known Member
The king has visited where the kids were stabbed , he has met with victims and relatives and the parents are meeting with him in london tomorrow
Happy now
Happy now
BlueHammer85
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 13 Oct 2010
- Messages
- 40,610
The king has visited where the kids were stabbed , he has met with victims and relatives and the parents are meeting with him in london tomorrow
Happy now
so he is allowed to get involved? make up ya mind.
kaz7
Well-Known Member
Stop wumming , you know full well i said not whilst the riots were on and only when starmer tells him he can do the supportive visitsso he is allowed to get involved? make up ya mind.
Mr Kobayashi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2020
- Messages
- 17,873
Does self-education not extend to the use of punctuation?
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
NoDoes self-education not extend to the use of punctuation?
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
I think the Monarchy, on balance, should probably go. I think it’s time.
But its power and potential for positive impact, with visits like today, is undeniable.
It’s just not enough anymore imo.
But its power and potential for positive impact, with visits like today, is undeniable.
It’s just not enough anymore imo.
mancity2012_eamo
Well-Known Member
Go where?I think the Monarchy, on balance, should probably go. I think it’s time.
But its power and potential for positive impact, with visits like today, is undeniable.
It’s just not enough anymore imo.
gordondaviesmoustache
Well-Known Member
Lose their status as Head of State. Cease to exist, through that prism.Go where?
mancity2012_eamo
Well-Known Member
Would you elect a head of state? Would your church and state be separated?Lose their status as Head of State. Cease to exist, through that prism.
What would happen to their state assets? Properties etc.
Kirkstall Blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 22 Dec 2008
- Messages
- 8,171
- Location
- St Helens. Formally Manchester
- Team supported
- Manchester City
Tax payers money pays for the upkeep of all the historic houses and the King is caretaker of what is ultimately the wealth of the nation.
You can go and visit most of the castles, houses even Buckingham Palace if you want to pretend you live there, they are open to the public.
We pay them to meet and greet the public on our behalf certainly plenty of people delighted to see the King in Southport
Tax payers money pays for the upkeep of all the historic houses and the King is caretaker of what is ultimately the wealth of the nation.
You can go and visit most of the castles, houses even Buckingham Palace if you want to pretend you live there, they are open to the public.
We pay them to meet and greet the public on our behalf certainly plenty of people delighted to see the King in Southport
Highly inaccurate. For example, Windsor Castle belongs to the king or the royal family not the nation, which is why you can visit the gallery of Buckingham Palace as the ticket income paid for the repairs to Windsor after the fire and for other upkeep.
Sandringham and Balmoral Castle are the private property of the king……etc.
Last edited:
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 14,916
Would you elect a head of state? Would your church and state be separated?
What would happen to their state assets? Properties etc.
I'm no republican, but it's clear the case for having a royal family is diminishing over time and I imagine all those problems are solvable. I am more worried that such a significant constitutional change would be fucked up by "politicians". If we have learned anything in the last decade it must be that structural changes must have overwhelming support and be properly thought through. I have zero confidence in the British political class to see that through. I am much more confident that keeping the royal family will cause much less chaos, tbh.
RiversideBlue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 19 Feb 2020
- Messages
- 2,888
- Team supported
- Man city
Not a massive Royalist but there are some positives which I think still out weigh the need to get rid of them. Off the top of my head, they make the country a fortune from American Tourists.
The TV speech the queen gave during covid "we will meet again" helped a lot of people get through a very difficult time. They still have that power. King Charles may lack some personality but William and Kate qould make an excellent King and Queen.
They do a lot of good work publicising charities, etc.
The TV speech the queen gave during covid "we will meet again" helped a lot of people get through a very difficult time. They still have that power. King Charles may lack some personality but William and Kate qould make an excellent King and Queen.
They do a lot of good work publicising charities, etc.
Australia had a referendum on becoming a republic a few years ago. Despite a decent majority in favour of the idea, they voted it down. Why? Because the politicians buggered it up by reserving the right to elect the president to themselves in parliament and not elected directly by the people.I'm no republican, but it's clear the case for having a royal family is diminishing over time and I imagine all those problems are solvable. I am more worried that such a significant constitutional change would be fucked up by "politicians". If we have learned anything in the last decade it must be that structural changes must have overwhelming support and be properly thought through. I have zero confidence in the British political class to see that through. I am much more confident that keeping the royal family will cause much less chaos, tbh.
halfcenturyup
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 14,916
Australia had a referendum on becoming a republic a few years ago. Despite a decent majority in favour of the idea, they voted it down. Why? Because the politicians buggered it up by reserving the right to elect the president to themselves in parliament and not elected directly by the people.
That was the only reason?
Well no, there are always multiple reasons but most commentators put the election method as the most common one for switching from yes to no.That was the only reason?
Public opinion was in favour before that decision.
Last edited: