The Harry and Meghan fuss

[sir baconface]

What a truly genuine, and inspiring, dutiful, and loyal young man. Oh how I wish HE was our king.

And he clearly believes the official story about his mother’s death is a load of bollocks. As does anybody capable of independent thought.

Now he’s got a world stage, why doesn’t he major on his mother’s death, and on Charles’s flagrant infidelity, instead of on trivia about broken necklaces and stuff?

Why doesn’t he renounce his titles voluntarily now he’s set up financially and living outside the UK?

Why did the press and public initially embrace Meghan warmly, only to turn against her later?

There seems to be so many contradictions and these are just a few.

 

[inbetween]

Anyone who claims to believe in democracy cannot support the fact the head of state is undemocratically put in power by blood lineage.

I don't like the Tories, or Rishi Sunak, but they were democratically elected.

The King is completely partisan because that's his role. If anything his role is the only thing protecting your democratic rights because the politicians would remove them completely if they could get away with it.

Look at the Tories, they're the ones who would love to take away your right to strike. Unfortunately that's happening because people voted the Tories in but fortunately we have a system which means we'll likely boot those people out in a years time. The King is the one who will boot the Tories out if you vote for it.

The danger to me isn't the monarchy, it's Parliament and politicians who want to get into power and do everything to retain that power and that can be magnified in a republic. Look at how the last election went down in the US and look at what's happening in Brazil today.

Those scenarios are very possible here but the King provides a key role in checks and balance and continuity. If the people vote for a Labour government next time then the King will facilitate that. There will not be some illegal power cling on as there is in other countries because the King is the only one who can dissolve or grant a government.

This is precisely why the armed forces swear an allegiance to the King and not Parliament.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

It's so tragic that you actually think someone should be the ultimate authority over your life because the convinced people 1000 years ago that God put them on the throne.

I cannot comprehend being that subservient.

It's largely a ceremonial role now surely? I can't remember any decision or act by the monarchy that has impacted on me in any way, apart from an odd bank holiday for jubilees, weddings etc.
I count myself as a monarchist although I totally get the archaic nature of aristocracy, class and the royal family, and completely get the argument for a republic. I'm not what I'd call a forelock tugger and will never be one of those that hound royals or queue up to see them. The £1.29 they cost each of us a year is probably one of the most transparent parts of the tax spend, and frankly one least worth worrying about - it's not going to get rid of food banks, solve the energy or cost of living crisis or save the NHS. I quite like the traditional/historical aspects of it, but for me they serve the useful and hopefully redundant purpose of being a constitutional obstruction to the rise of a dictator. Not something I'd have thought necessary 20 years ago, but with politics turning into a race to the bottom via social media I think this now matters.

 

[Metal Biker]

The King is completely partisan because that's his role. If anything his role is the only thing protecting your democratic rights because the politicians would remove it completely if they could get away with it.

Look at the Tories, they're the ones who would love to take away your right to strike. Unfortunately that's happening because people voted the Tories in but fortunately we have a system which means we'll likely boot those people out in a years time.

The danger to me isn't the monarchy, it's Parliament and politicians who want to get into power and do everything to retain that power. Look at how the last election went down in the US and look at what's happening in Brazil today.

Those scenarios are very possible here but the King provides a check and balance on that. If the people vote for a Labour government next time then the King will facilitate that. There will not be some illegal power cling on as there is in other countries because the King is the only one who can dissolve or grant a government.

This is precisely why the armed forces swear an allegiance to the King and not Parliament.

At least you're trying to explain it to him.

I await his mental gymnastics to counter what you said.

 

[M18CTID]

Now he’s got a world stage, why doesn’t he major on his mother’s death, and on Charles’s flagrant infidelity, instead of on trivia about broken necklaces and stuff?

Why doesn’t he renounce his titles voluntarily now he’s set up financially and living outside the UK?

Why did the press and public initially embrace Meghan warmly, only to turn against her later?

There seems to be so many contradictions and these are just a few.

Wrong. Certain sections of the press went after her from day one. Did you miss Harry's statement from 2016?

Prince Harry attacks press over 'wave of abuse' of girlfriend Meghan Markle

Royal condemns ‘racial undertones’ in media reports as palace sources reveal he feared for safety of actor and her family

www.theguardian.com

 

[domalino]

It's largely a ceremonial role now surely? I can't remember any decision or act by the monarchy that has impacted on me in any way, apart from an odd bank holiday for jubilees, weddings etc.
I count myself as a monarchist although I totally get the archaic nature of aristocracy, class and the royal family, and completely get the argument for a republic. I'm not what I'd call a forelock tugger and will never be one of those that hound royals or queue up to see them. The £1.29 they cost each of us a year is probably one of the most transparent parts of the tax spend, and frankly one least worth worrying about - it's not going to get rid of food banks, solve the energy or cost of living crisis or save the NHS. I quite like the traditional/historical aspects of it, but for me they serve the useful and hopefully redundant purpose of being a constitutional obstruction to the rise of a dictator. Not something I'd have thought necessary 29 years ago, but with politics turning into a race to the bottom via social media I think this matters.

Either it's a ceremonial role and there's no reason to not divorce them entirely from the running of the country.

Or they are an imporant stop check on parliament and the PM in which case why the fuck is an important part of our system of governance decided by blood lineage?

 

[domalino]

The King is completely partisan because that's his role. If anything his role is the only thing protecting your democratic rights

What has the Royal Family ever done to protect democratic rights in this country? Name a single action.

Jesus Christ you're talking about the crown stopping the tories subverting democracy when the Queen facilitated the Tory Prime minister's illegal prorogation of parliament not 4 years ago.

Were you not born in 2019? Did you not witness the Tory government illegally suspending parliament to avoid the fact they'd lost a working majority and needed to force through a Brexit agreement?

That's your democracy being subverted, something the Supreme Court ruled to be illegal, and the Queen didn't stop it, she supported it.

And then you have the gall to pretend the monarch is protecting our democratic rights.

 

[west didsblue]

You can't be a figurehead (which by definition has no power) and have power over the PM + country.

Again, make your mind up which one it is, you're arguing 2 directly opposing positions.

You should know that he can hold two opposing views at the same time and not be wrong with one of them because he is never ever wrong about anything.

 

[west didsblue]

King isn't in 'power', they're a figurehead. They can be influenced by the public, but queenie had given up getting involved with politics by that point and I doubt Charlie is too fussed either.

Or do you just mean in general? Well no, you don't vote for Kings, but I didn't vote for this Prime Minister, this Government to be in power, or my local MP to be sent to Parliament. If anything I feel my voice is even more ignored because I was at least consulted and yet it meant nothing. And if we had a President and I voted for the opposition, I now have to accept someone I didn't want to have supreme power over me because democracy?

But hey, democracy means fairness, right. And us being a Republic will make that better or worse?

When did the Queen get involved in politics and when did she stop?

 

[Brewster's millions]

What has the Royal Family ever done to protect democratic rights in this country? Name a single action.

Jesus Christ you're talking about the crown stopping the tories subverting democracy when the Queen facilitated the Tory Prime minister's illegal disolution of parliament not 3 years ago.

Were you not born in 2019? Did you not witness the Tory government illegally dissolving parliament to avoid the fact they'd lost a working majority and needed to force through a Brexit agreement?

That's your democracy being subverted, something the Supreme Court ruled to be illegal, and the Queen didn't stop it, she supported it.

And then you have the gall to pretend the monarch is protecting our democratic rights.

I think you’re referring to the prorogation of Parliament, not the dissolution, and the prorogation in fact occurred more than 3 years ago.

The dissolution led to a democratic election and a clear majority being delivered. Hardly a black day for democracy.