The British Monarchy

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

As opposed to the people of such fine calibre the Windsor family puts up?

They’re powerless though whereas, electing a President, would be entirely different. I suppose they are the classic definition of using ‘soft power’ similarly to the BBC.
That being said, I’ve no idea why they need to own 19 houses, why they need to fly everywhere (especially whilst lecturing everyone else about climate change) plus much of all the other nonsense that accompanies them.

 

[blueparrot]

So we're not ruled over by Charles III, but remove him as head of state and insert an elected head of state and we'd be ruled over by that person.

There's zero logic to that argument.

There's every logic, anyone standing for an election will have a manifesto and probably a political background though not necessarily, to be fair, so they would need some powers to implemnt that manifesto. An unelected , lifetime, head of state in more a ceremonial position that needs no powers and have very few powers. Either way though neither would rule and neither would have authority above Parliament, so to say we are ruled by Charles III is just nonsense.

 

[domalino]

They’re powerless though whereas, electing a President, would be entirely different. I suppose they are the classic definition of using ‘soft power’ similarly to the BBC.
That being said, I’ve no idea why they need to own 19 houses, why they need to fly everywhere (especially whilst lecturing everyone else about climate change) plus much of all the other nonsense that accompanies them.

If you believe they are powerless to intervene in runing the country, and that's why the Queen did things like Ok-ing Johnson making Lebedev a lord, or not using the constitutional powers she had when Johnson illegally prorogued parliament, then all their powers already belong to the PM and we are already being ruled over by someone like Liz Truss or Boris Johnson.

So by having a proper head of state you'd actually be removing power from the PM and putting it back into the hands of 2 people as was the intent when the constitutional monarchy was invented.

 

[bluethrunthru]

Odd because in the post Hysel ban on UK teams I seem to recall European football managed well enough without us. Never learns does he?

 

[blueparrot]

If you believe they are powerless to intervene in runing the country, and that's why the Queen did things like Ok-ing Johnson making Lebedev a lord, or not using the constitutional powers she had when Johnson illegally prorogued parliament, then all their powers already belong to the PM and we are already being ruled over by someone like Liz Truss or Boris Johnson.

So by having a proper head of state you'd actually be removing power from the PM and putting it back into the hands of 2 people as was the intent when the constitutional monarchy was invented.

That's fair enough if you want a president that has political powers, I get that view, I think though the majority and my veiw is we don't want another elected political head of state. Waht you have posted there confirms the manarchy don't rule us.

 

[Corky]

Odd because in the post Hysel ban on UK teams I seem to recall European football managed well enough without us. Never learns does he?

Yeah and on return we had been left behind.

 

[domalino]

That's fair enough if you want a president that has political powers, I get that view, I think though the majority and my veiw is we don't want another elected political head of state. Waht you have posted there confirms the manarchy don't rule us.

You keep writing majority, 46% is not a majority.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

President Thatcher, President Blair, President Johnson ;-(, i'd sooner get a season ticket in the Stretford End.

I hear you, but yourself and KB seem to be using the American model of presidency.
We have a constitutional President that fulfils the same role as your monarch and most European countries that have one operate the same.
You would merely be changing the personnel not the function.

Just clarification. It’s your own business at the end of the day.

 

[bluethrunthru]

Ha ha

They have changed their mind - now they are going into full house arrest mode

 

[Blue and true]

What a melt.

 

[Kirkstall Blue]

So you'd rather we were ruled over by people who werent elected and have simply inherited the right to rule by convincing people it was given to them by god?

The Queen inherited her right by the god “Odin”, that’s how far back her ancestry goes. I think he was a Norse god!
Yes I’m happy its not the 17th century and we all know they are human but it’s preferable to any other system for me.
The devil I know is preferable to the one I don’t.

In some ways democracy is quite young the rules have evolved and it leaves a gap for people to agitate for change I am happy I won’t change my view on our democracy.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Yeah and on return we had been left behind.

Sounds awfully similar to how Brexit is likely to pan out.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

You keep writing majority, 46% is not a majority.

It was 47.2% when twosips posted the twitter post about Andrew.

 

[philiph20]

I hear you, but yourself and KB seem to be using the American model of presidency.
We have a constitutional President that fulfils the same role as your monarch and most European countries that have one operate the same.
You would merely be changing the personnel not the function.

Just clarification. It’s your own business at the end of the day.

But you can guarantee our Prime Ministers or at least some of them with their ego's and messiah complexes would love to be something akin to an American president. The Irish presidents and Toaiseach's in my lifetime with the possible exception of Charles Haughey seem to be a bit less ego driven and from the outside looking in far more bearable.

 

[domalino]

But you can guarantee our Prime Ministers or at least some of them with their ego's and messiah complexes would love to be something akin to an American president

They literally already are. No, that's not true because the USA has 8 year limits and states have their own governments. The British PM has more control over the country.

If the Royal family is symbolic and ceremonial, all their "powers" as head of state belong to the Prime Minister, who has no limit on how long they can be in charge.

 

[Dirty Harry]

Genuinely cannot stand this fucker, he’s one of those people who thinks because he has some @booming” voice, it gives him some credence and gravitas, wanker.

Anyway, I voted yes for a Monarchy, but far more streamlined than what it is.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

I think that’s an excellent principle until you look at the calibre of people we (and seemingly everyone else) keeps electing….

Anyone can go up for election.
You don’t need to be a politician.

There’s good and bad about that. We had Dana running for prez a couple of times.

It used to be a payoff for service to the party over here. Like a retirement home but Mary Robinson changed all that by running and winning election.

I have been more than pleased by the performance of duties by our last three presidents.
Mary Robinson
Mary McAleese
Michael D Higgins

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

So we're not ruled over by Charles III, but remove him as head of state and insert an elected head of state and we'd be ruled over by that person.

There's zero logic to that argument.

He rules the waves apparently.
He did a few good ones the other day, it must be said.

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

Keep Farage out of politics.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

Am absolutely shocked that the self publicist and utter twat Farage is being an self publicist and utter twat.