So when Queen Liz dies (Phil is looking like he is about to fall off his perch any time), Charlie (Chuck to the Americans) gets the job he wanted, with that dour looking Camilla as his Queen. So William needs to have a quiet word with his daddy soon…you can have the job, get ‘crowned’ then you abdicate the day after…else I will make noise in a big way about how you treated my mommy, while you went off bonking with Camilla in your plentiful spare time.
Then when King William gets the job, he can then sort out a few other issues:
Allow Scotland to secede. Republic of Scotland.
Tell Northern Ireland to get into bed with the Republic of Ireland…as he will tear up the documents signed by the King about 100 years back that let them stay in the UK. That also fixes any Brexit “Hard Border” issue (though Scotland would create one).
What to do with the Welsh? Dunno.
England can the become the Republic of…(Pommy Bastards maybe).
Then the Monarchy can retire from life and oversight of politics and live off their ill gotten gains.
According to The Express , Prince Charles has noted how “touched” he is that Prince William has taken an interest in the Duchy, saying “When I saw it, I couldn’t believe it, I was deeply touched and moved by what he said. It practically reduced me to tears because I suddenly thought, well, just hearing that from him, has made the last 50 years worthwhile.”
You may be joking but the future of NI is supposed to be governed by the Good Friday Agreement and the potential for a border poll at some time in the future. British royalty don’t have any part in it.
Yup you’re on the ball. The wealth is astronomical and way higher than what it’s commonly stated. They own a lot and I mean a lot of land including large areas of London. Brian is on the ball here.
I for one am supportive of the monarchy. I like having a non-partisan head of state. Too many times when the President you don’t like gets elected it’s always ‘Not my president’.
I feel that partisan Presidents can and do cause gridlock and a feeling of lack of representation.
If it’s not, or never your party, then you feel unrepresented.
If the Head of State and Parliament are from different parties, then you can get a stubborn President that refuses to sign bills into law that parliament passes. Italy has been known to do this…and Parliament PICKS the president.
For the President in a Presidential system, you can likely get what is happening now, like the Dems controlling the house with a Republican president, and both have lawmaking powers, causing chaos. Depending on your opinion can be seen as a witchhunt when they disagree as both have democratic mandates.
No way. I am a staunch monarchist. We have a strong system that has been proven to be just as, if not more free and democratic. The Queen’s job is to make sure we don’t kill ourselves and let tyrants into power and will not bend to partisanship. Partisanship isn’t bad, but her job as head of state is to be the head of the sovereign state, the leader, the indifferent actor. I prefer our monarchy. Leave partisanship to Parliament and lawmakers.
And that should go without saying that the monarchy has given places like Canada and the UK distinctive traits, although small, that sprinkles a bit of uniqueness to the land. The crowns are an interesting touch. The tourism brings in amazing amounts of revenue. It’s part of the history and culture that remains alive. They cost us less in taxes because they’re profitable. It’s nice that we can share a common bond with 16 other countries that enable me extra rights…and it’s not hurting either country’s ability to generate wealth and prosperity. In Canada in particular, we pay the monarchy absolutely nothing. A president would be an extra $300 000 of tax payers money alone in salary, not including security detail and other expenses.
Well we got rid of them before after a long bloody civil war, cavaliars (royalists) versus the round heads (New Model Army).
Only problem being that Oliver Cromwell became rapidly unpopular after seizing power and the royalists wriggled back in through Charles II
There are different types of parliamentary democracies. You can have an elected figurehead with little executive power as the President instead of somebody who happened to inherit the title. At least you get to choose them.
Why do you think it’s right one family gets to inherit that position of power and prestige ?
That’s certainly a good point and is what Italy and Ireland do. However, who really decides? Who gets to decide? Do we let anyone nominate themselves? Do we just elect recognised members who have contributed a great deal? Celebrities? Sports players? Former career politicians? How do we narrow the choice without making it seem unfair? Should someone have experience like a career politician? If experience isn’t necessary, then someone has to train them? Should any Joe and Susan be on the ballot? Should the ballot be hundreds long? Who narrows the choices down? How do we narrow the choices down without making it feel unfair to someone? What if average joe creates a conflict of interest simply because he doesn’t like the party in power? How should the president be chosen? Elected by the people or elected through a committee? Not every (genuinely free) parliamentary republic puts their presidents up for a general election.
Italy and Ireland both have politicians as Presidents. Former President Napolitano was a Democrat and Michael D Higgins is a former Labour member. Should they sign the bills parliament presents to him? Or should he deny them in favour of their parties?
Michael D Higgins campaigned in an election. What if I wanted Liadh Ní Riada(Sinn Féin) to be president? Only 43% of the people even bothered to show up in the last election for the Irish Presidential Election, 2018…So only 25% of the Irish voting populace even chose the president. It might even be seen as an expensive waste of millions of euro to run an election for someone whose job is to do nothing except collect a salary to keep watch in case Parliament goes rogue. Something we already achieve for negative money in the Commonwealth Monarchy.
I might argue that they’re not in power or prestige.
Being born into the Monarchy means your job is essentially predetermined the minute you are conceived. You don’t really have much of a choice and if you don’t fufill the job, you need to give it all up and away if you intend to go elsewhere. We, the common folk put glamour and glitz to the job. Restrictions on the job are extreme. Members of the monarchy sacrifice their political opinions and fundamental freedoms so that we may have them, while people here on this forum balk at me if I censor a swear word. They have to be 100% strictly neutral at all times in order to be considered as ‘doing their job’ because ANY opinion can be considered a conflict of interest. The fact that the Queen is likely going to call the year ‘bumpy’ is front page news, while we are free to go anywhere anytime and say whatever the hell we want. It has only been recently that they have been allowed to marry whomever they wanted. And this comes in a job that acts like a president in a parliamentary democracy, so they’re toothless. We exploit them for tourist dollars to the point that they’re actually profitable for the industry and the economy. We pay less tax because of that. I’m not saying there aren’t perks to it, but there are downsides too. If you are a royal, you live your entire life doing everything everyone tells you to do and you have to look at them and smile. Either we install a boring President which still costs money in salary, housing, security, travel etc… while losing some of what makes us unique. Or keep the monarchy and the effect on my life is minimal and there is fun stuff about it. Interesting things are when you can make a claim few if no othes have. Japan is the only remaining ‘empire’. USA has unprecedented cultural outreach. Etc… Most of the world’s monarchies either modernised(commonwealth)or got booted(ROC). Ours is modernised.
It is weird looking at the how they (people advising them) are trying to get the younger ones liked via trash culture.
It won’t work. Phone zombies that watch the X factor don’t care about them.
It could well go to pot once the Queen has gone.
Charles said the world would end in 7 years in the year 2000 (sounds like a actress from Sweden) if I remember correctly. Utter nonsense. He also talks to plants.
If they don’t like it, let them do something about it. Go on strike. Stage a walkout. The Royals can end this thing more easily than anything else can.
Granted, they haven’t much in the way of marketable job skills. But if they squirrel enough money away first, they’ll be set for life. Or they could get a TV show. Meet The Kardashians meets Arrested Development.
Yup no argument there, he was from the area most of the fundamentalist pilgrims originated from , the Eastern area of England. (He was also to be honest a very shrewd and intelligent general or let’s say successful commander ). However, yes I agree he committed genocide , he even massacred many of his own people too. I’m not sure if he started with those intentions though but certainly finished up that way)
