23 Mar 05
Originally posted by Joe FistBritish royalty are entertainers.
What I don't get is why isn't there a mass revolution by the citizens of England to throw this supposed "royality" (Charles, the boys, the Queen, etc) out on the street and to use all of that wasted money to keep them living in the lap of luxury for any other much more worthwhile purpose?
I mean what does the Queen do in any political sense now? W ...[text shortened]... on to society accept for spending money that is not hers? I would be pissed if I was a citizen.
24 Mar 05
Originally posted by trawets113I think all Brits need to start judging people on their abilities and forget the sound of the voice.
I feel that it is wrong and that they are twisting it to their means. I think oif charles wants to marry camilla he should abdicate.
"As long as people accept the Caste system, justice is a prisoner to rumor and tea bound mongerers with upturned noses."
Another famous old saying,,, yada yada, etc.
24 Mar 05
Originally posted by invigorateI say let jamie oliver take over for both of them he is doing more for the country than either of them.
They entertain. They earn money. They are too polite to defend themselves. I would rather have the queen more than president Blair. Charles wants to marry so he can have another mistress.
24 Mar 05
Originally posted by RedmikeThanks for the info.
Yes, she has the power to dissolve parliament, and to refuse to sign off legislation. The fact that they haven't done this for a while doesn't alter the fact that they can.
If a governement was to try to abolish the monarchy, they'd need the monarch's assent to do this.
25 Mar 05
Originally posted by trawets113Er...after reading the whole thread, I'm still none the wiser re your initial statement - what is being twisted to who's means?
I feel that it is wrong and that they are twisting it to their means. I think oif charles wants to marry camilla he should abdicate.
26 Mar 05
Why can't England just get rid off the royal family?
If you go back in history, then you'll see that they aren't that civilised, Henry VIII for example who had six wives, and he beheaded those who weren't 'useful' anymore. Quite barbaric, if you ask me. And it is anti-democratic, 'cause you can't vote for your own 'leader'. Its a matter of ethics.
26 Mar 05
Originally posted by StarValleyWyIt riles me this talk of a British caste system. The UK has infinitely more social mobility than the US. Sure Blair comes from a pretty comfortable background, but his cabinet is staffed with plenty of working glass northeners. And much as I hated them, both Major and Thatcher became PMs without the benefits of an upper class background. I'm not arguing that the class system is dead - it remains important to a small minority of toffs - but it has very little bearing on the centres of political power. I'd contrast this with the US, where politicians generally need heavy financial backing if they want to get anywhere.
I think all Brits need to start judging people on their abilities and forget the sound of the voice.
"As long as people accept the Caste system, justice is a prisoner to rumor and tea bound mongerers with upturned noses."
Another famous old saying,,, yada yada, etc.
Rich.
27 Mar 05
Originally posted by richhoeyPoint 1. You can tell a lot about a British person by their voice. However you no require "received pronounciation" to advance yourself.
It riles me this talk of a British caste system. The UK has infinitely more social mobility than the US. Sure Blair comes from a pretty comfortable background, but his cabinet is staffed with plenty of working glass northeners. And much as I hated them, both Major and Thatcher became PMs without the benefits of an upper class background. I'm not arguing th ...[text shortened]... where politicians generally need heavy financial backing if they want to get anywhere.
Rich.
I believe our free education system and state comprehensive system does deliver a good opportunity for all at the start of their lives.
Point 2: You can't replace the royals until you have devised a superior system of governence. At least people are not suspicious of the monarch's motives - something that cannot be said of anyone who has ever said "vote for me - I want to be in a positon of power"
27 Mar 05
8 edits
Originally posted by trawets113The whole thing is a farce and inevitable given our stupid constitution. When Henry VIII wanted to divorce one of his many wives he seperated from the Catholic Church and made himself head of the Church of England - this is total nonsense now of course as the UK is largely recongnised as a secular state.
I feel that it is wrong and that they are twisting it to their means. I think oif charles wants to marry camilla he should abdicate.
However, Charles' position as prospective head of the Church of England, which still frowns on second marriages / divorces, has a worried General Synod unsure of whether to give its blessing, concerned about the long-term implications for the relationship between church and state; a relationship that would probably be severed if Charles eventually became King anyway, as he's suggested in the past that he would like to be known as Head of Faiths, in keeping with today's multicultural British society.
But this untimely marriage has brought it all to a head and left the current Monarch in an awkwardly tough position!
30 Mar 05
Originally posted by trawets113Charles can marry any woman he likes - or any man come that. Now that would give a whole new meaning to the phrase "Queen of England".
I feel that it is wrong and that they are twisting it to their means. I think oif charles wants to marry camilla he should abdicate.
And there is nothing you snivelling little monarchists can do about it. You just have to contine fawning over Charlie and whatever he chooses - you have absolutely no choice in the matter. He will be your King and Camilla will be Queen - and it makes absolutely no diference to me.
Compared with poor confused Charlie and his crazed first wife, I think Camila is actually an improvement.