Queens speech, now the Kings speech

[poc]

Re: Queens speech, now the Kings speech

Somebody got out the wrong side of the bed this morning! :xmashehe:

somebodies on the wrong forum :xmashehe:

[JamesWales]

Re: Queens speech, now the Kings speech

Republics can also have neutral Heads of State, as in Germany.

Such a Head of State should not have strained their position due to the bed he was born in.

Neither is he the Supreme Leader of the Protestant Church.

Elected members of Parliament shouldn't have to pledge an oath of allegiance to the King or Queen. Such a system rigs any chance of abolishing the royal family, which is outrageous.

Proof of corruption, immorality and ineptitude can have such Heads of State removed.

He or she wouldn't necessarily own enormous tracts of land all around the country housing a multitude of places and country homes.

Neither would it be expected that they would have any exemptions in law.

Nor would they wield the power to have individuals to receive establishment-approved honours and be installed in the second house.

They wouldn't expected to be unilaterally bowed to and deference to them in a National Anthem.

They wouldn't even own the swans throughout their country.

The list goes on.

Don't disagree with much of that, but as I say, given their practical lack of power, it just doesn't worry me. I get the symbolism, but as mentioned, we currently have the most outrageously undemocratic upper chamber in the western world. We also have a bunch of the electorate keen to transfer real powers back to people we haven't elected.

They are bigger symbolic and real world democratic issues for me

[jon1959]

Re: Queens speech, now the Kings speech

Don't disagree with much of that, but as I say, given their practical lack of power, it just doesn't worry me. I get the symbolism, but as mentioned, we currently have the most outrageously undemocratic upper chamber in the western world. We also have a bunch of the electorate keen to transfer real powers back to people we haven't elected.

They are bigger symbolic and real world democratic issues for me

Any reason we can't dump the monarchy at the same time as the House of Lords?

The problem with an hereditary monarchy goes way beyond symbolism - although the symbolism is bad enough. By convention they don't exercise much power (only some power!) but their legal position in the unwritten British constitution is much bigger than the conventions suggest. Tony Benn spent decades lecturing on that madness.

They also own vast swathes of land and own dozens of big properties. All because some ancestor was a bigger violent bastard than the other violent bastards around at the time.

It is embarrassing and demeaning. We need a republic and an elected head of state even if the job is purely ceremonial.

There is a good case for a liberal Parliamentary Democracy to have a second chamber - one that brings expertise and relevant experience into the process of scrutinising laws and holding the executive to account. But it should be elected if it has a law-making function. No problem with some form of appointment system to ensure knowledge is brought in - but that must be in a supportive and advisory role.

Is it right that only the UK and Iran have clerics 'as of right' in their legislature? That is the company we keep?

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Re: Queens speech, now the Kings speech

Any reason we can't dump the monarchy at the same time as the House of Lords?

The problem with an hereditary monarchy goes way beyond symbolism - although the symbolism is bad enough. By convention they don't exercise much power (only some power!) but their legal position in the unwritten British constitution is much bigger than the conventions suggest. Tony Benn spent decades lecturing on that madness.

They also own vast swathes of land and own dozens of big properties. All because some ancestor was a bigger violent bastard than the other violent bastards around at the time.

It is embarrassing and demeaning. We need a republic and an elected head of state even if the job is purely ceremonial.

There is a good case for a liberal Parliamentary Democracy to have a second chamber - one that brings expertise and relevant experience into the process of scrutinising laws and holding the executive to account. But it should be elected if it has a law-making function. No problem with some form of appointment system to ensure knowledge is brought in - but that must be in a supportive and advisory role.

Is it right that only the UK and Iran have clerics 'as of right' in their legislature? That is the company we keep?

How can the royal family be abolished by an act of parliament when those wanting it to happen can't take their place as an MP without pledging loyalty to The Crown?
It's a stitch-up.

[ToTaL ITK]

Re: Queens speech, now the Kings speech

I normally watch it, but I didn't this year as dinner was slightly delayed and also I am a big fat pig on Christmas day and had second helpings.

Seemed like a reasonable message from Charlie though.

when is it not