Matthew Le God Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 63 years as Head of State for not only this great nation but many other Commonwealth ones too and hardly a mistake worth mentioning in all those years. And yet you find this to be a unremarkable record somehow? Bizarre. So its just longevity you find remarkable, not anything she has actually done. Just that she has lived a long time. How is that an achievement? You say "hardly a mistake", but can you provide an example of the type of thing she could possibly have done that you would have labelled as a mistake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 The main thrust of your counter argument keeps coming back to money. As I said in post #23... Your argument largely appears to come down to money. I object to the monarchy on a matter of the principle that I don't think the descendants of successful warlords should be the head of state through fluke of birth. Whether or not they help with tourism is irrelevant to that matter of principle. Money, international relations, tourism and thousands of jobs. Apart from that, no you're right she is pointless. Besides, nobody voted that you should live in the UK. You were just born here, not elected. We should send you to Africa and vote for the people we want to live in Britain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 How do you know for certain her mental condition? In any case, her family has had hundreds of years to learn how to bring up children in such an environment. I really don't think its a big achievement to be one of the most privileged humans in history. I think we know for certain your mental condition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 Money, international relations, tourism and thousands of jobs. Apart from that, no you're right she is pointless. There are benefits to the monarchy, I don't deny that. But my main objection is the principle of descendants of successful warlords through fluke of birth, regardless of ability being in a position of power and influence within our country. We aren't truly democratic until the monarchy is gone and the second house reformed into a proper democratic system. Besides, nobody voted that you should live in the UK. You were just born here, not elected. We should send you to Africa and vote for the people we want to live in Britain. That is a ridiculous analogy. Being born British doesn't mean you are born into a position of constitutional power and influence. The Prime Minister is never going to ask you if they can form a government, and why... because you weren't born into the royal family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 The idea of birthright being the only thing you need to be head of state is barmy. I can't see anyone coming up with a decent argument for it because it's indefensible. Forget the money, forget what you'd replace it with - these are just hiding places for Monarchists. Personally I'd replace them with absolutely nothing - no need for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 I think we know for certain your mental condition. You've won the thread with that retort. It really helped further your case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 So its just longevity you find remarkable, not anything she has actually done. Just that she has lived a long time. How is that an achievement? You say "hardly a mistake", but can you provide an example of the type of thing she could possibly have done that you would have labelled as a mistake? Again read what I said. This women could have damaged the monarchy - and her nation - with a single ill-advised remark or undiplomatic reaction. And yet there is little or no cause for complaint against her and indeed to the best of my knowledge every Prime Minister she has known during her long reign has commented on how valuable her counsel has been at times. You may not value that - they seemingly did. When someone not only does a job well, but does well for six decades, then I think most reasonable people would consider that is worthy of praise. Oh and what you choose to depict as ''privilege'' others see as ''duty'' - a duty she has performed admirably the majority of the British people think. But if you name a better Head of State then by all means do so. I await your reply with interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 (edited) This women could have damaged the monarchy - and her nation - with a single ill-advised remark or undiplomatic reaction. And yet there is little or no cause for complaint against her and indeedto the best of my knowledge every Prime Minister she has known during her long reign has commented on how valuable her counsel has been at times. You may not value that - they seemingly did. Why should she have been in that position of influence at such a high level of this country? She was born into it, she didn't earn it. This women could have damaged the monarchy - and her nation - with a single ill-advised remark or undiplomatic reaction. Her husband is a walking time bomb of racist remarks and she took the decision to marry him. Edited 9 September, 2015 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 (edited) I'm not anti-royal because they do add a fair amount to the British brand. Face it, no one visits Britain for the weather or beaches, our main USP is our history and traditions and I expect the Queen more than makes up for what she costs. But, all the lesser/unknown royals should be stripped of their wealth and forced to sweep the streets. And all this 'duty', 'performed admirably' stuff is nonsense though, for the amount of cash she has got, the least she should do is do her ****ing job. Edited 9 September, 2015 by aintforever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 How do you know for certain her mental condition? In any case, her family has had hundreds of years to learn how to bring up children in such an environment. I really don't think its a big achievement to be one of the most privileged humans in history. Would you like to be king mlg? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 I'm a staunch republican, but want her to keep going as long as she can - keeping Chuck off the throne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 (edited) Why should she have been in that position of influence at such a high level of this country? She was born into it, she didn't earn it. Well if the UK were a new thing in the world then I don't suppose we would invent a hereditary monarchy from scratch. But this old nation is very far from being a 'new birth' and a part of the national identity we have forged together in these islands over our long history is the monarchy. This is a important aspect of what it means to be British that many of our people still value highly - however illogical you may view it. The heart of the matter here is that all the evidence shows that most British people are perfectly happy for that (successful) constitutional monarchy to continue as it has proved to be remarkably stable and popular arrangement over time. Were that not the case then we would almost certainly have become a Republic centuries ago as our France neighbours did. Now obviously you disapprove of that - but the problem for you is that British republicanism remains stuck in a minority situation that shows not the slightest sign of ever becoming a majority. Edited 9 September, 2015 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 (edited) Would you like to be king mlg? That is a ridiculously hypothetical question. Ok, yes I would. Then I'd use my position to bring about the ending the monarchy and the start of a republic from a position of influence, but I'd also keep the wealth, land and property as assets of the family after the monarchy is abolished. Edited 9 September, 2015 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 That is a ridiculously hypothetical question. Ok, yes I would. Then I'd use my position to set about bringing about ending the monarchy and the start of a republic from a position of influence, but I'd also keep the wealth, land and property as assets of the family after the monarchy is abolished. It's not ridiculously hypothetical it's just hypothetical. It strikes me that you are quite jealous of Liz. Are you descended from a downtrodden serf who was persecuted in the distant past? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 (edited) It strikes me that you are quite jealous of Liz. Are you descended from a downtrodden serf who was persecuted in the distant past? Perhaps... Its all making sense now... It shouldn't even be her... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ru024qcTpaA But then this confuses things... Edited 9 September, 2015 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 9 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 9 September, 2015 fluke of birth The existence of the universe is a fluke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamplemousse Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 I'd much rather have the Queen or Charles or William as our head of state than any elected career politician. She is completely neutral and immune to lobbyists or other 'corrupt' influences. And they don't have any real power, the real decision makers are elected (apart from the Lords which should be elected) by us. I think they're harmless and am happy with the current system than being a republic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 (edited) The existence of the universe is a fluke. No, it's quantum physics, or maybe some grand master plan by an omniscient super being. As for the Monarchy, if we can jump a generation and go straight to William then maybe that wouldn't be so bad, but Charles's personal judgement is suspect - married to Diana and yet he jumps into bed with Camilla, ( and then there's the "squidgy" tapes ). Edited 9 September, 2015 by badgerx16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 9 September, 2015 Share Posted 9 September, 2015 I'd much rather have the Queen or Charles or William as our head of state than any elected career politician. She is completely neutral and immune to lobbyists or other 'corrupt' influences. And they don't have any real power, the real decision makers are elected (apart from the Lords which should be elected) by us. I think they're harmless and am happy with the current system than being a republic. The Charles letters to the pm did make me laugh. They built it up as some huge thing and then it was basically him looking after some badgers. You are right, they essentially have no influence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted 10 September, 2015 Share Posted 10 September, 2015 So briefly looking through this thread it seems like people like Mrs Windsor because she hasn't screwed anything up (this constitutes being a "good" monarch), even though they then say she hasn't actually any power to screw things up anyway. Seems like she can't lose then eh? Then perversely people don't want Charlie Windsor to become King because they don't like him and may abuse his apparently non-existent powers? Well that's the whole point of the system innit - you don't get to choose. It's Charlie's right to be monarch and you're just subjects. Your opinion doesn't count and doesn't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igsey Posted 10 September, 2015 Share Posted 10 September, 2015 The argument that MLG and other like-minded posters are making is that it doesn't matter how "good" Queenie is at her job - the fact is that the job shouldn't exist in the first place purely because she was born into it. About the best analogy I can think of is a son taking over as CEO in a company owned by his father; but even then he would be accountable to a board of directions or shareholders who could remove him for a better candidate. We have no such powers over the royal family, and as such they should not be born into a role of power and wealth. All other arguments about tourism and political relations are completely irrelevant to the main point. The royal family does not have any place in a democracy. Neither does the House of Lords for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 10 September, 2015 Share Posted 10 September, 2015 I am not sure I want someone as King who said he wanted to be Camilla's tampon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 10 September, 2015 Share Posted 10 September, 2015 The argument that MLG and other like-minded posters are making is that it doesn't matter how "good" Queenie is at her job - the fact is that the job shouldn't exist in the first place purely because she was born into it. About the best analogy I can think of is a son taking over as CEO in a company owned by his father; but even then he would be accountable to a board of directions or shareholders who could remove him for a better candidate. We have no such powers over the royal family, and as such they should not be born into a role of power and wealth. All other arguments about tourism and political relations are completely irrelevant to the main point. The royal family does not have any place in a democracy. Neither does the House of Lords for that matter. In reality a monarch who proves to be unsuitable can be removed by the (elected) political class of this country - see the 1936 abdication crisis for details. But the fundamental reason we still have a constitutional monarchy in this country is because the British People will it so. In the last poll I saw conducted on this question the percentage of those supporting a move to a British Republic was as low as 17% - which is quite remarkable result I think. Perhaps we will have a proper referendum one day to make it official, but far from having ''no place'' in a democratic system as far as we can tell the vast majority of the British people are of the opinion that their constitutional monarchy serves them perfectly well and that they wish to retain it into the foreseeable future. So the will of the people prevails, and what could possibly be more democratic than that? Looking back at the historical record of a comparable European republic, such as France of example, its rather hard to argue that their republican system (born in a veritable bloodbath) has generated a noticeably more politicly stable society or that their population enjoy a greater degree of personal liberty than we do here in the UK - indeed history shows that may well be the opposite of the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 10 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 10 September, 2015 But the fundamental reason we still have a constitutional monarchy in this country is because the British People will it so. Indeed. The sustained existence of the monarchy underlines, rather than undermines, democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 10 September, 2015 Share Posted 10 September, 2015 Liz has been a consummate pro, so fair play to her. As for the other hangers ons, who needs them? The Civil List should be limited to the Queen/King and their consorts and the rest should get proper jobs. Also I don't get the tourism bit. People come here because of The Queen? They do know that she doesn't greet them at Heathrow don't they? Buckingham Palace from the outside is one of the least impressive buildings of any capital city. Surely people come here for the history, not for a glimpse of an old biddy in a dodgy hat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 10 September, 2015 Share Posted 10 September, 2015 Liz has been a consummate pro, so fair play to her. As for the other hangers ons, who needs them? The Civil List should be limited to the Queen/King and their consorts and the rest should get proper jobs. Also I don't get the tourism bit. People come here because of The Queen? They do know that she doesn't greet them at Heathrow don't they? Buckingham Palace from the outside is one of the least impressive buildings of any capital city. Surely people come here for the history, not for a glimpse of an old biddy in a dodgy hat? The old 'Civil List' was actually abolished back in 2012. The only royals who were directly funded from this source were: HM The Queen The Duke of Edinburgh The Queen Mother Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 10 September, 2015 Share Posted 10 September, 2015 I'd much rather have the Queen or Charles or William as our head of state than any elected career politician. She is completely neutral and immune to lobbyists or other 'corrupt' influences. And they don't have any real power, the real decision makers are elected (apart from the Lords which should be elected) by us. I think they're harmless and am happy with the current system than being a republic. So the Lords need to be elected , but not the Head of State. Are there any other jobs that you're OK being passed down to your children? Lord mayor of London, Southampton Manager , head of BBC ? Is there another job in the civil service that forbids Muslims & Catholic's from doing it ? Whether she is neutral, corruptible or immune to lobbyists is totally irrelevant. She's got the gig regardless of her behaviour, so has Charlie boy and so has Good old Willie . Still, at least you know who you're doffing your cap to for a few more years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecuk268 Posted 10 September, 2015 Share Posted 10 September, 2015 It'll be interesting to see what happens when Liz departs this world. I think that a lot of people who don't particularly care one way or the other about the monarchy still have a degree of respect for the Queen. When she's gone things could change. Personally, I'd like to see Charlie get the job. We have a long history of slightly bonkers monarchs and he'd be more interesting the rather bland and boring lot we have now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highfield Saint Posted 10 September, 2015 Share Posted 10 September, 2015 I do object to being a "subject" and all that infers rather than a citizen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 10 September, 2015 Share Posted 10 September, 2015 The argument that MLG and other like-minded posters are making is that it doesn't matter how "good" Queenie is at her job - the fact is that the job shouldn't exist in the first place purely because she was born into it. About the best analogy I can think of is a son taking over as CEO in a company owned by his father; but even then he would be accountable to a board of directions or shareholders who could remove him for a better candidate. We have no such powers over the royal family, and as such they should not be born into a role of power and wealth. All other arguments about tourism and political relations are completely irrelevant to the main point. The royal family does not have any place in a democracy. Neither does the House of Lords for that matter. I'd say it was more akin to a company making, "Aunt Margret's finest pork pies" The company has been going for over a hundred years, when it was established by the original 'Aunt Margret' who baked the pies herself. However for the last couple of decades the pies have been mass produced in a factory but retained the name 'Aunt Margret' because it was traditional, a well known global brand with a reputation for good quality. Aunt Margret's great great grand daughter still appears as a picture on the packaging but she doesn't make any pies and has no influence in the boardroom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 10 September, 2015 Share Posted 10 September, 2015 The old 'Civil List' was actually abolished back in 2012. The only royals who were directly funded from this source were: HM The Queen The Duke of Edinburgh The Queen Mother Didn't know that. Are any of them getting money from the State through other sources? I assume Charlie still gets a wedge from the Duchy of Cornwall? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 10 September, 2015 Share Posted 10 September, 2015 ... Whether she is neutral, corruptible or immune to lobbyists is totally irrelevant. She's got the gig regardless of her behaviour, so has Charlie boy and so has Good old Willie . Still, at least you know who you're doffing your cap to for a few more years. Well you as one of our more noisy '17 percenters' on here are bound to disagree of course. Most reasonable British people however would I think consider that being politicly neutral, incorruptible, and less prone to undue influence were all excellent qualities to seek in a Head of State. It is of course the very fact that HM The Queen holds her position in our (unwritten) constitution due to the hereditary principle that ensures that all those qualities are more likley to be found in our Head Of State than they are in many republican states I could mention - or are you telling us that a someone of the calibre Nicolas Sarkozy would do the job better than Queen Elizabeth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 10 September, 2015 Share Posted 10 September, 2015 Well you as one of our more noisy '17 percenters' on here are bound to disagree of course. Most reasonable British people however would I think consider that being politicly neutral, incorruptible, and less prone to undue influence were all excellent qualities to seek in a Head of State. It is of course the very fact that HM The Queen holds her position in our (unwritten) constitution due to the hereditary principle that ensures that all those qualities are more likley to be found in our Head Of State than they are in many republican states I could mention - or are you telling us that a someone of the calibre Nicolas Sarkozy would do the job better than Queen Elizabeth? It's great that she's politicly neutral, incorruptible, and less prone to undue influence. But she is just a ****ing face on a stamp and someone to wheel out at special occasions - it's not like she actually runs the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highfield Saint Posted 10 September, 2015 Share Posted 10 September, 2015 or are you telling us that a someone of the calibre Nicolas Sarkozy would do the job better than Queen Elizabeth? No - but a good idea to begin a list of names. When we have that perhaps we could vote to see who we think would do the best job... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 10 September, 2015 Share Posted 10 September, 2015 No - but a good idea to begin a list of names. When we have that perhaps we could vote to see who we think would do the best job... Sepp Blatter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 10 September, 2015 Share Posted 10 September, 2015 due to the hereditary principle that ensures that all those qualities are more likley to be found in our Head Of state This was the very same argument used by people against reforming the lords . 2015 and we still have people believing in a class system , where people are born to rule, where certain " qualities" are more likely in the ruling classes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pamplemousse Posted 10 September, 2015 Share Posted 10 September, 2015 So the Lords need to be elected , but not the Head of State. Are there any other jobs that you're OK being passed down to your children? Lord mayor of London, Southampton Manager , head of BBC ? Is there another job in the civil service that forbids Muslims & Catholic's from doing it ? Whether she is neutral, corruptible or immune to lobbyists is totally irrelevant. She's got the gig regardless of her behaviour, so has Charlie boy and so has Good old Willie . Still, at least you know who you're doffing your cap to for a few more years. Unlike in some other countries however, our Head of State has very little power. And even if there was an election, it would be completely pointless considering the Queen has approval ratings politicians can only dream of having. She'd win hands down every single time. As would Charles, and William after that, and eventually George. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 10 September, 2015 Share Posted 10 September, 2015 Unlike in some other countries however, our Head of State has very little power. And even if there was an election, it would be completely pointless considering the Queen has approval ratings politicians can only dream of having. She'd win hands down every single time. As would Charles, and William after that, and eventually George. Maybe we should have an election to shut them up. She would win by a landslide and they couldn't whinge anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted 10 September, 2015 Share Posted 10 September, 2015 Maybe we should have an election to shut them up. She would win by a landslide and they couldn't whinge anymore. At least it would give legitimacy, and, of course, it wouldn't be a monarchy anymore but an elected head of state. So provided there were regular elections to re-affirm that mandate then I wouldn't have a problem - it's what republicans are asking for. Personally I see no need for a head of state apart from the prime minister but I wouldn't argue with an elected one who is accountable, not above the law and can be removed by common consensus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 10 September, 2015 Author Share Posted 10 September, 2015 I still think the best reason for having a monarchy is how much it p*sses off the republican minority Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 10 September, 2015 Share Posted 10 September, 2015 Maybe we should have an election to shut them up. She would win by a landslide and they couldn't whinge anymore. What a terribly modern idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Biscuits Posted 10 September, 2015 Share Posted 10 September, 2015 Quite enjoying the arguments in here. Of course no one seems to get the point that had ANY of the Prime Ministers who have been in power since Liz got promoted could have removed her as head of state at any point. But they didn't. I wonder why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 10 September, 2015 Share Posted 10 September, 2015 Quite enjoying the arguments in here. Of course no one seems to get the point that had ANY of the Prime Ministers who have been in power since Liz got promoted could have removed her as head of state at any point. But they didn't. I wonder why. No they couldn't . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 10 September, 2015 Share Posted 10 September, 2015 Like it or not, there will no referendum in the UK on the republican issue (in the foreseeable future anyway) because politicians, like turkeys, don't vote for 'Christmas' as it were. Not even that diehard republican Jeremy Corbyn, or even committed separatists such as Nicola Sturgeon, are daft enough to propose such a move because they know damn well that the overwhelming popularity of our constitutional monarchy ensures not only defeat in such a referendum but probable political oblivion for those proposing this move too. Some republicans hold onto the (forlorn) hope that Prince Charles will somehow prove to be a disaster as Head of State and that therefore public opinion will change. Well all I can say to that is that Charles seems to me a perfectly decent - if fallible like the rest of us - Human Being and I strongly suspect he will prove to be a perfectly acceptable monarch to the British people. He has afterall been preparing for the job all his life. I do expect that before very long certain Commonwealth States that still have HM The Queen as their Head of State will eventually change their constitutions and select their own Heads of State. However, I don't personally see that change oversees radically effecting British public opinion anytime soon. We have now what we have had for ages past in this nation - i.e. a vocal MINORITY of malcontent's calling for a republic because they are either jealous of the wealth and position of the Royal Family, or they don't much like the 'Hereditary Principle'. With all due respect to those who express that view, I see not a shred of evidence that they represent anything approaching a majority view in these islands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 10 September, 2015 Share Posted 10 September, 2015 We have now what we have had for ages past in this nation - i.e. a vocal MINORITY of malcontent's calling for a republic because they are either jealous of the wealth and position of the Royal Family, or they don't much like the 'Hereditary Principle'. With all due respect to those who express that view, I see not a shred of evidence that they represent anything approaching a majority view in these islands. Complete and utter rubbish . Republicans are not vocal , there's hardly any debate and nobody is pretending it's anything other than a small minority . It is not anything to do with jealously at all . Despite being a minority position it is a consistent argument . Arguing against hereditary peers , for equality and against the class system whilst doffing your caps to The Royals is not . 100 years ago most people believed we were descended from Adam & Eve , 50 years ago we locked up homosexuals . One day every man & women will be born equally in this country , a Muslim or catholic could attain head of state . I doubt I'll be around to see it , but you're deluded if you think this backward looking institution will last . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toadhall Saint Posted 10 September, 2015 Share Posted 10 September, 2015 Maybe we should have an election to shut them up. She would win by a landslide and they couldn't whinge anymore. At least the people would get a chance to have their say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 10 September, 2015 Share Posted 10 September, 2015 Quite enjoying the arguments in here. Of course no one seems to get the point that had ANY of the Prime Ministers who have been in power since Liz got promoted could have removed her as head of state at any point. But they didn't. I wonder why. Clearly they couldn't have done any such thing. Maybe they could have organised a republican referendum but politicians don't tend to stage referendums when they know they would get annihilated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 10 September, 2015 Share Posted 10 September, 2015 Complete and utter rubbish . Republicans are not vocal , there's hardly any debate and nobody is pretending it's anything other than a small minority . It is not anything to do with jealously at all . Despite being a minority position it is a consistent argument . Arguing against hereditary peers , for equality and against the class system whilst doffing your caps to The Royals is not . 100 years ago most people believed we were descended from Adam & Eve , 50 years ago we locked up homosexuals . One day every man & women will be born equally in this country , a Muslim or catholic could attain head of state . I doubt I'll be around to see it , but you're deluded if you think this backward looking institution will last . I don't really let it worry me. As you say it isn't going to change in our lifetime so let's just enjoy our own lives rather than worrying about something which in the scheme of things doesn't really matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 10 September, 2015 Share Posted 10 September, 2015 Complete and utter rubbish . Republicans are not vocal , there's hardly any debate and nobody is pretending it's anything other than a small minority . It is not anything to do with jealously at all . Despite being a minority position it is a consistent argument . Arguing against hereditary peers , for equality and against the class system whilst doffing your caps to The Royals is not . 100 years ago most people believed we were descended from Adam & Eve , 50 years ago we locked up homosexuals . One day every man & women will be born equally in this country , a Muslim or catholic could attain head of state . I doubt I'll be around to see it , but you're deluded if you think this backward looking institution will last . This. People are much less pro Royal now than my Nan's generation. People are happy with the Queen because they have grown up with her and that's all they have ever known. You just have to look at these Royal events, all old grannies and swivel eyed loons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 10 September, 2015 Share Posted 10 September, 2015 100 years ago most people believed we were descended from Adam & Eve , 50 years ago we locked up homosexuals . One day every man & women will be born equally in this country What a strange statement from someone who likes to moan and mock the "EUSSR" and is a proud UKIP voter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now