1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Meghan Markle

Discussion in 'Rant and Rave' started by Aromulus, Sep 29, 2019.

  1. PorkAdobo
    Offline

    PorkAdobo Active Member

    The monarchy (with a lower case "m") plays an important role in Britain's constitution (hence recent drama about the PM lying to HRH). That is their first and foremost role. Being a tourist attraction like chimps in the zoo is way down on their list of priorities.

    Having Wee Little Prince George (who I’m sure is a lovely kid) being entitled to this constitutional role simply by birth right does not sit well with me.

    Let Charles and then William seek public approval every 10 years. I might even give Charles the thumbs up as he seems like an alright individual to represent the UK. However, it’s only by pure chance that someone like Fred West isn’t heir to the throne (we dodged a bullet with Andrew, eh?). In this day and age it should not be granted automatically simply because you came from the right sperm.

    As for keeping the public happy, loads of you guys are very unhappy over speculative, unfounded tabloid headlines about the Queen’s African American granddaughter-in-law. Have we learned nothing from Diana?
  2. John Stevens
    Offline

    John Stevens Active Member

    https://fullfact.org/economy/royal-family-what-are-costs-and-benefits/

    https://www.royal.uk/role-royal-family

    A bargain compared to the house of lords
    https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk...revealed-the-true-cost-of-the-house-of-lords/

    And both parliament and the house of lords costs

    https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/parliamentary-monitor-2018/cost
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 2
  3. bigmac
    Offline

    bigmac Well-Known Member Trusted Member

    so who will be the next monarch ?
  4. aposhark
    Offline

    aposhark Well-Known Member Lifetime Member

    OK, take out the finance issue, they're still an anachronism.
    • Disagree Disagree x 5
  5. Markham
    Offline

    Markham Guest

    First in line is Charles followed by his older son, William followed by all his children in turn.
  6. Mattecube
    Offline

    Mattecube face the sunshine so shadows fall behind you Trusted Member

    The Royal's and charity work, estimated the present queen has helped raise over £1 billion in her lifetime for charities.



    https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertai...s-royal-family-spend-doing-charity-work.html/

    Helps stabilize a multi faith culture both in the UK and abroad

    Granting of Royal Warrants, pretty sure businesses with such benefit in sales and orders and this will result in employment opportunities and training.
    • Like Like x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  7. aposhark
    Offline

    aposhark Well-Known Member Lifetime Member

  8. aposhark
    Offline

    aposhark Well-Known Member Lifetime Member

    The 1997 ITV telephone poll result showed that 66% of voters wanted a monarch and 34% did not.
    I bet the figure for not wanting monarchy is more than 1/3 now.
  9. bigmac
    Offline

    bigmac Well-Known Member Trusted Member

    do you think the queen should abdicate and let Charles have a go ?
  10. Mattecube
    Offline

    Mattecube face the sunshine so shadows fall behind you Trusted Member

  11. Mattecube
    Offline

    Mattecube face the sunshine so shadows fall behind you Trusted Member

    no she will carry on she's a young 91!
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  12. PorkAdobo
    Offline

    PorkAdobo Active Member

    There, in a nutshell, is everything that's wrong with the monarchy.

    An old lady *could* decide she wants to retire, and without any vetting process she hands the job to her eldest son. Because she can.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. John Stevens
    Offline

    John Stevens Active Member

    When Kennedy was assassinated Johnson took over without a vote because he was next in line.
    When Tony Blair stood down no one voted Gordon Brown in as PM.

    End of the day much more of a benefit to the country than not.
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  14. PorkAdobo
    Offline

    PorkAdobo Active Member

    Johnson and Brown inherited their new roles for life? Thanks, was unaware of that vital information.
  15. John Stevens
    Offline

    John Stevens Active Member

    Sorry I must of missed the bit you said for life.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_leaders_of_North_Korea


    From 1948 to 1972, the nominal head of state was the Chairman of the Standing Committee of the Supreme People's Assembly (SPA). In 1972, the constitution was amended to create an executive presidency. Kim Il-sung, who had served as Premier of North Korea since the DPRK's inception, was unanimously elected President of North Korea by the Supreme People's Assembly on December 28. He held this office until his death on 8 July 1994 when he was proclaimed the "eternal President of the Republic". Since then, the practical functions of the head of state have been exercised by the President of the Presidium of the SPA.

    After the death of Kim Il-sung, his son Kim Jong-il was understood to have inherited his father's near-absolute control over the country.[1][2][3] Although he had been his father's designated successor since at least 1991, it took him three years to fully consolidate his power. He was elected general secretary of the party in 1997, and was reelected Chairman of the National Defence Commission (NDC) in 1998. During his rule he was given a range of titles. He ruled the country until his death

    Then his son took over
  16. PorkAdobo
    Offline

    PorkAdobo Active Member

  17. John Stevens
    Offline

    John Stevens Active Member

    No I'm pointing out to you the some presidential roles are for life after you pointed out the the monarchy job is for life.

    So in some respects they are the same there is no real advantage of a republic over a constitutional monarchy.
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  18. PorkAdobo
    Offline

    PorkAdobo Active Member

    All the non-monarchy countries who have "presidents for life" are dictatorships.

    Look for another line of argument.
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  19. John Stevens
    Offline

    John Stevens Active Member






    dictator
    /dɪkˈteɪtə/
    Learn to pronounce
    noun
    noun: dictator; plural noun: dictators
    1. a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force.

      • a person who behaves in an autocratic way.
      • (in ancient Rome) a chief magistrate with absolute power, appointed in an emergency
    China is a republic and a one party state they still elect a leader(you could possibly say chairman Mao was a dictator but then
    chiang kai shek would also count as the same) .
  20. aposhark
    Offline

    aposhark Well-Known Member Lifetime Member

    We are discussing the UK monarchy.
    By my calculations, 20 million do not want them.
    That is a LOT of people who couldn't care toohoots about them.
    • Dislike Dislike x 1

Share This Page