| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
I have always been an anti-royalist as I think it an absurd concept and I refuse to bow, kow-tow or pledge allegiance to anyone merely because they were born in a particular bed - but it seems that the younger royals also have problems with being put on such a pedestal and all that comes with it.
The younger royals do seem a lot more human than their predecessors but their roles must be a curse for them as a result.
One thing I’ve noticed lately is that there is a lot of faux outrage over the supposed ‘woke’ (alt right buzzword it seems) activities of Harry and Meghan.Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie
How dare they this, how dare they that from the usual crap mediaZ
Yet the one who hangs around with rich rapists gets a nice ride.
What a wonderful time we live in!
I agree with you and CardiffIrish2 makes a good point about Prince Andrew.
I disagree in many important ways with the previous posts, since I used to be a Royalist. I have seen good men die " for Queen and country", and was once prepared to risk that myself.
However , in recent decades I regret to say that the royal family and the Crown has let the people and the country down so often and so badly that they are no longer entitled to the privileged position they hold.
All they had to do was keep out of politics and maintain a dignified presence to ceremonially represent the achievements and sacrifices of the past, but they were not satisfied with that. Perhaps the Sovereign might have gone further and spoken up privately against some of the dreadful acts of cultural vandalism by politicians. Unfortunately she did not.
At this point we have the offspring of Princess Disco Airhead making a mockery of the whole thing by courting publicity when they want to virtue signal on some trendy issue, but going nuts when these publicity stunts result in press and public scrutiny. An echo from recent family history actually.
In short, this circus has gone too far and so have the antics of MP's and the politically appointed second House, so personally I think it's time to declare a Republic
I like the Royals
Somehow saw RB's post before logging in properly. No-one dies for the Queen, surely.
Liking them as human beings is not the same as the concept of royalty itself.
I don't dislike any of them in particular, but I am completely against the concept of a royal family.
They know that these days they are only kept there through ongoing public support, much like any politicians, with the exception that they aren't held accountable for anything much.
Yeah they do Taunton.
At least that's the figurative theme. The Sovereign is the figurehead of the armed services and so that's what is said. The actuality is usually something vastly different, but that's another subject.
So do many Mericans, outdated concept.
I detest all of the benefit scroungers and the entire concept; it's an affront to human dignity. None of them have done a hard day's work in their life but they receive masses of Universal Credit.
Tony Benn on the monarchy from 2004:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/...archy.politics
We claim that this country is a democracy. But the Queen always refers to Britain as a constitutional monarchy because, technically, she summons and dissolves parliament, and approves the composition of her majesty's government, each of whom has the oath of a privy councillor administered to them, requiring them to defend the Queen "against all foreign princes, persons, prelates, states or potentates". Every MP has to swear an oath of allegiance and the royal assent is required before any bill becomes an act of parliament.
All peerages are created by the crown, as are archbishops and bishops, and each new bishop has to declare in his homage "that your majesty is the only supreme governor of this your realm spiritual, ecclesiastical things as well as temporal".
In practice the Queen has no power: bishops do not believe their homage; MPs owe their allegiance to their constituencies; their party and their conscience and privy councillors, who are subsequently made commissioners in Brussels, then swear another contradictory oath pledging themselves not "to seek or to take instructions from any government".
The prime minister is the real beneficiary of all this nonsense since he is the one who exercises these crown powers of patronage, war-making and treaty-making that allow him to behave like a dictator.
Every prime minister is confident that his party, in parliament, would never challenge him, because of his power of patronage and because MPs know that any such challenge might cost them seats in an election; so the Queen and the prime minister have a common interest in maintaining the status quo.
But apart from this political power system, the existence of a monarchy which doles out peerages, bishoprics and a full range of honours effectively preserves a feudal class system which keeps everyone in their place.
Bring on the republic!
Perhaps the backlash against Harry and Meghan's discontentment is a concern they might happen upon the idea that this ludicrous institution is there to serve the desperate and their need to maintain a particular identity.
It's also a callous charade; you get the top job when one of your parents dies and you have to keep it until you drop. Maybe that coldness is in the bones of the country and explains why we often favour duty over humanity.
the ones located in the Royal County of Berkshire
And the president, who shall we have
We would still get a lot of marching,military hats ,flags , special residency,saluting and oh yes expense
Nigel seems the obvious choice
This applies equally to the Crown and the traitors in Parliament.
I'd vote for him ,he's is man of conviction,best mates with his Trumpness , so a ready made army at hand ,save some dosh there ,we could become the 51st State.
Benn said Liz claims Blighty is a constitutional monarchy.
I read recently, but haven't checked its veracity, that just two countries on the planet have no written constitution: UK and Saudi Arabia.
Not so. I bet most people can't even think of one German President. The role of president need not be akin to that of the United States.And the president, who shall we have
We would still get a lot of marching,military hats ,flags , special residency,saluting and oh yes expense
Gerhart Shoeder. I did think Willy Brandt, but he was Chancellor not president . He was a Russian spy too of course.
You'd need a proper constitution to have a POTUK with a similar profile to the POTUS, and I can't see the political elite tolerating that.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
