The Royal Family

[revolution saint]

3 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

They aren't, there are many variations on the theme, including religious theocracy ( Afghanistan ) and military junta ( Myanmar ). What would your alternative be to granting the Prime Minister absolute control over our ( unwritten ) constitution ? I assume you want the Lords to be dissolved as well - replaced by what ? Following the Bolshevik policies of 1918, or the French in 1793, only creates more problems. It is easier for countries like Australia and Barbados to declare themselves a republic as their Monarch was only ever at arms length, and their constitutional apparatus is a far more modern design than ours.

Yeah I'd replace them with nothing.  That's democracy.  Are you arguing that the Queen is an effective measure over granting the prime minister absolute power?  In which case shouldn't we entrust it to someone who has better qualifications than simply who her parents were?

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

Yeah I'd replace them with nothing.  That's democracy.  Are you arguing that the Queen is an effective measure over granting the prime minister absolute power?  In which case shouldn't we entrust it to someone who has better qualifications than simply who her parents were?

I am saying that simply stripping out layers of the constitutional apparatus such that the PM is left without checks and balances to his/her power is a recipe for trouble. I am, and always have been, a republican, but the starting point for any reform has to be a consultation on a written constitution. After that reform the Lords into an elected second chamber, and remove any reliance on or influence from the Royals, ( without decapitating them ). At the same time get rid of FPTP in favour of a representative system that reflects proportionally the political demographic.

[revolution saint]

2 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

I am saying that simply stripping out layers of the constitutional apparatus such that the PM is left without checks and balances to his/her power is a recipe for trouble. I am, and always have been, a republican, but the starting point for any reform has to be a consultation on a written constitution. After that reform the Lords into an elected second chamber, and remove any reliance on or influence from the Royals, ( without decapitating them ). At the same time get rid of FPTP in favour of a representative system that reflects proportionally the political demographic.

Well it sounds like splitting heirs then (pun intended).  Obviously we're not going to behead them, which is a shame cos it would be a big money maker.  I'd do a lottery style televised event on a Friday night - guaranteed to get viewers in.  Probably some wheel with all their names on it that you'd spin, and another with the method of execution.  The actual execution goes out live on PPV the following Saturday.  Anyway, never going to happen.  Yeah, we'd need to actually write a constitution, reform the house of lords and all that.

[Tamesaint]

Queenie and the constitutional role of the monarch are areas to debate. To me (and I suppose that at heart jI am a bit of a monarchist) it is the minor royals who need to be relegated to the ranks of commoners. Prince pervert, his younger brother, sister and all their offspring need to lose all their state funding and privileges. Harry can be chucked as well. Who gives a toss where he lives and with whom?

To be fair, Anne's kids don't have titles . Prince P 's however are still called Princess and get state weddings at Windsor Castle.    Shouldn't they be chucked?

[Manuel]

I used to be anti-royal, saw it as pointless and antidemocratic.  But I never read much about historical English monarchy until fairly recently due to an interest in the Northern Irish troubles.  That'll take you back to Henry VIII, and I went further back in history out of curiosity and found it fascinating.  

The current institution of monarchy is very much watered down and more of a historical curiosity.  Exactly as it should be...but I wouldn't want it dissolved.  Too much history there to treasure, and to criticise and learn from.  Considering the monarchs of the past, our current Queen is a competent, responsible monarch and I respect her.  

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

It is easier for countries like Australia and Barbados to declare themselves a republic as their Monarch was only ever at arms length, and their constitutional apparatus is a far more modern design than ours.

Australia isn’t a republic.
 

Their “constitutional apparatus “ is in fact a Constitutional monarchy, like………The UK. 

[badgerx16]

28 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Australia isn’t a republic.
 

Their “constitutional apparatus “ is in fact a Constitutional monarchy, like………The UK. 

Polling suggests that there is a majority of the electorate in Australia that supports transition to a republic, and the Labour Party, Greens, and many Liberal politicians support it as well. It will happen.

[moonraker]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Australia isn’t a republic.
 

Their “constitutional apparatus “ is in fact a Constitutional monarchy, like………The UK. 

That was not what was written, what was written is that it is easier for those countries to become republics.  I would bet that over the next 10 - 30 years the vast majority of countries that currently have QEII as their constitutional head of state will become republics.  I have no issue with QEII or indeed Charles, however I believe that we need to move on from a constitutional monarchy, FPTP and an unelected second chamber, , the whole "political" system in the UK of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is more antiquated and less fit for purpose than Fratton Park.   

[skintsaint]

4 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Polling suggests that there is a majority of the electorate in Australia that supports transition to a republic, and the Labour Party, Greens, and many Liberal politicians support it as well. It will happen.

Nah the gen public here love the Royals. Think the last poll I saw last year was only about a third in favour.

Edited 6 January, 2022 by skintsaint

[badgerx16]

7 hours ago, skintsaint said:

Nah the gen public here love the Royals. Think the last poll I saw last year was only about a third in favour.

I read different, but bow to your local knowledge.

[benjii]

7 hours ago, skintsaint said:

Nah the gen public here love the Royals. Think the last poll I saw last year was only about a third in favour.

Even the sweaty nonce ones?

[Warriorsaint]

17 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Australia isn’t a republic.
 

Their “constitutional apparatus “ is in fact a Constitutional monarchy, like………The UK. 

Ahhh, there he/she is. Found a job yet?

[Weston Super Saint]

19 hours ago, revolution saint said:

Well it sounds like splitting heirs then (pun intended).  Obviously we're not going to behead them, which is a shame cos it would be a big money maker.  I'd do a lottery style televised event on a Friday night - guaranteed to get viewers in.  Probably some wheel with all their names on it that you'd spin, and another with the method of execution.  The actual execution goes out live on PPV the following Saturday.  Anyway, never going to happen.  Yeah, we'd need to actually write a constitution, reform the house of lords and all that.

I assume you'll be working on the 3rd of June then when the rest of us have an extra bank holiday to celebrate 70 glorious years of her maj....

[revolution saint]

25 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

I assume you'll be working on the 3rd of June then when the rest of us have an extra bank holiday to celebrate 70 glorious years of her maj....

I'm a republican not stupid.  If there's a day off then I'll take it.  There's nothing to suggest I have to celebrate Mrs Saxe-Coburg-Gothe on that day but the rest of you lot can if you want.  I've got better things to do.

[Weston Super Saint]

39 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

I'm a republican not stupid.  If there's a day off then I'll take it.  There's nothing to suggest I have to celebrate Mrs Saxe-Coburg-Gothe on that day but the rest of you lot can if you want.  I've got better things to do.

Sounds like an MLG Xmas excuse  

[whelk]

1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Sounds like an MLG Xmas excuse  

Bet he spends money with her head on it too

[Lord Duckhunter]

On 05/01/2022 at 19:01, badgerx16 said:

 as their Monarch was only ever at arms length, 

 

21 hours ago, moonraker said:

That was not what was written, what was written is that it is easier for those countries to become republics.  

 Nope.

You wouldn’t write “their monarch WAS only ever at arms length “, you’d write “their monarch IS only ever at arms length. 

Edited 6 January, 2022 by Lord Duckhunter

[badgerx16]

10 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

 

 Nope.

You wouldn’t write “their monarch WAS only ever at arms length “, you’d write “their monarch IS only ever at arms length. 

You could start an argument in an empty room.

[CB Fry]

5 hours ago, revolution saint said:

I'm a republican not stupid.  If there's a day off then I'll take it.  There's nothing to suggest I have to celebrate Mrs Saxe-Coburg-Gothe on that day but the rest of you lot can if you want.  I've got better things to do.

You've got to be something of a twat to refer to the queen by that name. Which is not and never has been her name.

What are you, fucking Rick from the Young Ones?

[revolution saint]

44 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

You've got to be something of a twat to refer to the queen by that name. Which is not and never has been her name.

What are you, fucking Rick from the Young Ones?

I'll refer to her anyway I choose to. Free country and all that. Obviously hit a nerve though for which I don't give a single tiny shit.

[Whitey Grandad]

52 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

I'll refer to her anyway I choose to. Free country and all that. Obviously hit a nerve though for which I don't give a single tiny shit.

Respect is due to an old lady whatever her name or occupation.

[CB Fry]

58 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

I'll refer to her anyway I choose to. Free country and all that. Obviously hit a nerve though for which I don't give a single tiny shit.

I think it's nice that some people never grow out of their student digs.

You be you and don't be giving any of those tiny shits now x x x x

[StDunko]

1 hour ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Respect is due to an old lady whatever her name or occupation.

Why? That seems such a stupid concept to me.

What if the the old lady is an absolute cunt?

To be clear I'm not saying Queenie is a definitely a cunt; I've never met her, so I'm not going to pass judgement.  But you seem to be suggesting respect would be due to (for example) Myra Hindley if she'd reached 95 years old...which in my mind is bonkers.

[buctootim]

On 05/01/2022 at 19:06, revolution saint said:

Yeah I'd replace them with nothing.  That's democracy.  

You can argue a constitutional monarchy is the least worst option. New Zealand basically decided to replace the monarch about 10 years ago with public support - but when the options were laid out there was insufficient support for the alternatives. 

Anyhow there is a reason most stable countries separate President / Monarch from PM  

Edited 7 January, 2022 by buctootim

[AlexLaw76]

9 hours ago, revolution saint said:

I'll refer to her anyway I choose to. Free country and all that. Obviously hit a nerve though for which I don't give a single tiny shit.

I bet you still wear a donkey jacket

[badgerx16]

Terry Pratchett summing up my view of monarchies in general;

 

"Royalty was like dandelions. No matter how many heads you chopped off, the roots were still there underground, waiting to spring up again.It seemed to be a chronic disease. It was as if even the most intelligent person had this little blank spot in their heads where someone had written: "Kings. What a good idea." Whoever had created humanity had left in a major design flaw. It was its tendency to bend at the knees."

 

"Royalty pollutes people’s minds, boy. honest men start bowing and bobbing just because someone’s granddad was a bigger murdering bastard than theirs was."

[Turkish]

Great to see Andrew is paying his own legal fees!!

[revolution saint]

 

9 hours ago, buctootim said:

You can argue a constitutional monarchy is the least worst option. New Zealand basically decided to replace the monarch about 10 years ago with public support - but when the options were laid out there was insufficient support for the alternatives. 

Anyhow there is a reason most stable countries separate President / Monarch from PM  

Yeah, it really depends on how the options are laid out.  Australia had a shit alternative and it never got through - the alternative didn't replace the Monarchy with anything democratic.  I think if someone is head of state and they owe their position to the hereditary process then that's a problem.  There needs to be a fair, open and transparent process to appoint the best person for the job, they need to be accountable and there needs to be a process for removing them.  I don't necessarily think we'd need to replace the monarchy with a president in the US or France sense.  

3 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

I bet you still wear a donkey jacket

Why?  You got a thing for blokes in donkey jackets Jamie?  I ain't judging -whatever floats your boat.

[mack rill]

6 hours ago, Turkish said:

Great to see Andrew is paying his own legal fees!!

yer with mummy's feckin money.

[Fan The Flames]

On 06/01/2022 at 19:11, Lord Duckhunter said:

 

 Nope.

You wouldn’t write “their monarch WAS only ever at arms length “, you’d write “their monarch IS only ever at arms length. 

Just like you wouldn't write 'in nets' you would write 'in goal' or you wouldn't write 'pony' you would write 'shit'.

[Mystic Force]

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/12/judge-rejects-prince-andrews-bid-to-dismiss-epstein-accuser-virginia-giuffres-lawsuit.html

 

So looks like we will have to use his mums money not his friends, to pay off his accuser for being a (insert word in imagination to describe what he did to avoid me or Steve being sued)

[mack rill]

That's  Andy being roasted in time for mummy's little knees up muver brown then 

[The Left Back]

This is how they tidy up mess at the palace.

BBC News

The Duke of York's military titles and royal patronages have been returned to the Queen, Buckingham Palace has announced.
Prince Andrew will also stop using the style His Royal Highness in an official capacity, a royal source added.
The duke's roles will be distributed among members of the Royal Family.
It comes as he faces a civil case in the US over claims he sexually assaulted a woman when she was 17, which he has consistently denied.
A judge ruled on Wednesday that the case brought by Virginia Giuffre could continue, after he tried to have it dismissed.
Buckingham Palace said in a statement: "With the Queen's approval and agreement, the Duke of York's military affiliations and Royal patronages have been returned to the Queen.

[egg]

16 minutes ago, The Left Back said:

This is how they tidy up mess at the palace.

BBC News

The Duke of York's military titles and royal patronages have been returned to the Queen, Buckingham Palace has announced.
Prince Andrew will also stop using the style His Royal Highness in an official capacity, a royal source added.
The duke's roles will be distributed among members of the Royal Family.
It comes as he faces a civil case in the US over claims he sexually assaulted a woman when she was 17, which he has consistently denied.
A judge ruled on Wednesday that the case brought by Virginia Giuffre could continue, after he tried to have it dismissed.
Buckingham Palace said in a statement: "With the Queen's approval and agreement, the Duke of York's military affiliations and Royal patronages have been returned to the Queen.

Nice, I bet he was sweating after getting that news. 

[Sheaf Saint]

Oh the grand old Duke of York

He had ten thousand men

And a fair few women as well, it would appear. 

[egg]

12 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Oh the grand old Duke of York

He had ten thousand men

And a fair few women as well, it would appear. 

Some barely women though it would seem. Bad lad. 

[rallyboy]

Fair play to the Queen, she's not taking prisoners.

Now she needs to summon her PM for a chat about integrity, leadership - and shutting the door on the way out...

[badgerx16]

Apparently going round the Tory MPs' whatsapp groups

 

Edited 14 January, 2022 by badgerx16

[Toadhall Saint]

[Weston Super Saint]

18 hours ago, egg said:

Some barely women though it would seem. Bad lad. 

Looks like there are two people at that particular party that have now been royally fucked  

[Manuel]

Don't you think the palace would have waited for a guilty verdict before effectively disowning him?  Especially as he has continually denied the allegations.  

 

[Whitey Grandad]

17 minutes ago, Manuel said:

Don't you think the palace would have waited for a guilty verdict before effectively disowning him?  Especially as he has continually denied the allegations.  

 

Didn’t that take such action so that he could defend himself more equitably?

[Manuel]

14 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Didn’t that take such action so that he could defend himself more equitably?

Ah ok.  I read that he had brought the family/armed forces "into disrepute" so they distanced themselves from him, which I could understand.  Personally though I expected them to stand by their man until the matter had been dealt with in court.  

[Whitey Grandad]

2 hours ago, Manuel said:

Ah ok.  I read that he had brought the family/armed forces "into disrepute" so they distanced themselves from him, which I could understand.  Personally though I expected them to stand by their man until the matter had been dealt with in court.  

That’s also a possibility. It may be that what I have suggested is just a plausible excuse.

[rallyboy]

The fact that he chose to hang around with a convicted sex offender is the action that got him thrown out - socialising with Epstein brought the Palace into disrepute.

The court cases will just chuck more fuel on that fire.

[Whitey Grandad]

Just now, rallyboy said:

The fact that he chose to hang around with a convicted sex offender is the action that got him thrown out - socialising with Epstein brought the Palace into disrepute.

The court cases will just chuck more fuel on that fire.

Very true. But was Epstein a convicted sex offender at the time that he was hanging around? Guilty by association.

[31cc]

3 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Very true. But was Epstein a convicted sex offender at the time that he was hanging around? Guilty by association.

Epstein was first convicted of procuring under age girls in 2008, Andrew was still associating with him in 2010 (Wikipedia).

[Whitey Grandad]

7 hours ago, 31cc said:

Epstein was first convicted of procuring under age girls in 2008, Andrew was still associating with him in 2010 (Wikipedia).

Ta. My wife insisted on watching that programme about Andrew and Ghislaine last night but to be honest there was nothing definitive.

[AlexLaw76]

Randy Andy may have gotten his way.

 

[badgerx16]

3 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Randy Andy may have gotten his way.

 

At the cost of a "substantial" financial contribution.