St Landrew Posted 27 March, 2009 Share Posted 27 March, 2009 Just abdicate... That's the only reform I'm interested in. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7967142.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jillyanne Posted 27 March, 2009 Share Posted 27 March, 2009 Is this the correct forum for this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamster Posted 27 March, 2009 Share Posted 27 March, 2009 Is this the correct forum for this? Have we got a Death to parasitic leeches forum? Scum the lot of them (imho of course) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tombletomble Posted 27 March, 2009 Share Posted 27 March, 2009 Just abdicate... That's the only reform I'm interested in. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7967142.stm Damm right. Outdated and not required. The Royal family are nothing more than a tourist attraction. I think the Queen should be our last Monarch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jillyanne Posted 27 March, 2009 Share Posted 27 March, 2009 Damm right. Outdated and not required. The Royal family are nothing more than a tourist attraction. I think the Queen should be our last Monarch I am not a fan but thats a lot of revenue this country would lose tbf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 27 March, 2009 Share Posted 27 March, 2009 I am not a fan but thats a lot of revenue this country would lose tbf. Sorry Jilly, but that's rubbish. Does the French tourist economy suffer from not having a royal family ? Do the US, or Italy, or Switzerland ? Tourists come to see the sites, not the fossils. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamster Posted 27 March, 2009 Share Posted 27 March, 2009 We'd have to change all our coinage though, would tie in nicely with joining the Euro praps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 27 March, 2009 Share Posted 27 March, 2009 People go to see the buildings, they don't actually meet the queen, do they? I'm hoping that in this time of economic struggle people will start to question the role of the monarchy and the inexcusable amount of money that they have by nothing more than birth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 27 March, 2009 Share Posted 27 March, 2009 Sorry, I thought this was a thread about Crystal Palace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 27 March, 2009 Share Posted 27 March, 2009 "Royalty pollutes people's minds. Honest men start bowing and bobbing just because someone's grandad was a bigger murdering bastard than theirs was." :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rattlehead Posted 27 March, 2009 Share Posted 27 March, 2009 What the f*ck is the one eyed Scottish idiot doing? Hasn't he got more important things to be sorting out? What a clueless c*ck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scummer Posted 27 March, 2009 Share Posted 27 March, 2009 What the f*ck is the one eyed Scottish idiot doing? Hasn't he got more important things to be sorting out? What a clueless c*ck. Have to admit that was my first thought. We're in the middle of a financial crisis yet he finds time to spout off on something this trivial. What a clown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 27 March, 2009 Share Posted 27 March, 2009 Get ****ing rid of them! Only 18% of population wanted a Republic according to the BBC...Bull****! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorpe-le-Saint Posted 27 March, 2009 Share Posted 27 March, 2009 Have to admit that was my first thought. We're in the middle of a financial crisis yet he finds time to spout off on something this trivial. What a clown. It is obviously a diversion tactic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 27 March, 2009 Author Share Posted 27 March, 2009 Blimey, I think I should move this to the Lounge. Some semi-serious answers about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 27 March, 2009 Share Posted 27 March, 2009 Have to admit that was my first thought. We're in the middle of a financial crisis yet he finds time to spout off on something this trivial. What a clown. You mean, he strolled into Buck House and said 'Oh whilst I'm here your Maj, let's change the succession / royal marriage malarky, shall we?" I bet she dictates the discussions, not him. However, and forgive me for being serious on this thread , it has always been a principle of the Labour party that people should not be discriminated against because of sex / religion. So nothing new there, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 27 March, 2009 Share Posted 27 March, 2009 Blimey, I think I should move this to the Lounge. Some semi-serious answers about. Which ones are they then, St L ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 27 March, 2009 Author Share Posted 27 March, 2009 Which ones are they then, St L ? Well, there are a few that make reasonable sense, and some that provide debate and counter debate. A bit un-TMS behaviour, so I moved it here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecuk268 Posted 27 March, 2009 Share Posted 27 March, 2009 A word in their defence. Constitutionally, the armed forces and, I think the police, swear allegience to the monarchy not the government. If some power-mad prime minister decided to abolish parliamentary democracy and establish a dictatorship, the monarch could order the armed forces to kick him out and restore normal government. Having said that, I do believe that they could scale things down a bit. Do they really need Buck House, Windsor Castle, Sandringham, Balmoral, Kensington Palace etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 27 March, 2009 Share Posted 27 March, 2009 A word in their defence. Constitutionally, the armed forces and, I think the police, swear allegience to the monarchy not the government. If some power-mad prime minister decided to abolish parliamentary democracy and establish a dictatorship, the monarch could order the armed forces to kick him out and restore normal government. Having said that, I do believe that they could scale things down a bit. Do they really need Buck House, Windsor Castle, Sandringham, Balmoral, Kensington Palace etc? But other countries seem to manage OK. I can't recall too many dictatorships being established recently in the western world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legod Third Coming Posted 27 March, 2009 Share Posted 27 March, 2009 This is brilliant PR by a labour government who have fecked us all over twice or more... Instead of concentrating on all those people losing jobs and homes let's divert attention to the Royal family. Personally, I have nothing against the Royals. The immediate family do attract tourism and also spend countless hours working on promoting our country and companies abroad. The royal warrant is valued around the world. Ask anyone who has worked their whole life and been given an honour by the monarch whether it matters to them and you will find it does. So would you rather give the Queen 32p a year - which I think is what she costs us all. Or give the bankers £2,500 grand, which I think is what we've all given them SO FAR!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 27 March, 2009 Share Posted 27 March, 2009 Constitutionally, the armed forces and, I think the police, swear allegience to the monarchy not the government. If some power-mad prime minister decided to abolish parliamentary democracy and establish a dictatorship, the monarch could order the armed forces to kick him out and restore normal government. I think that constitutionally the Oath of Allegiance to The Queen is symbolic of swearing allegiance to the country. The Monarch is not the controller of the armed forces, and as far as I am aware he/she rules at the request of Parliament - go back to William and Mary and the Glorious Revolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 27 March, 2009 Share Posted 27 March, 2009 It costs each of us about 60p a year to maintain the Royal family. Whoop-de-do. Hardly worth getting your arse in a cramp about, is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGTL Posted 27 March, 2009 Share Posted 27 March, 2009 Exactly, and it would only go to some single pikey mum somewhere otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolution saint Posted 27 March, 2009 Share Posted 27 March, 2009 So Gordon backs the proposal to end discrimination when it comes to succession? Isn't heriditary rule inherently discrimatory? Regardless of ability one person will end up as head of state. I expect a lot of people will spout the money argument and frankly I don't care about that - it's about whether it's fair and a monarchy has no place in a fair, just or equal society. Bunch of tossers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 27 March, 2009 Share Posted 27 March, 2009 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/jun/27/monarchy.davidhencke A report on the civil list from 2002. It's not just the unit cost of the royals, it's the flunkeyism and fawning feudal attitudes the monarchy induce in certain social aspirants and people who are dazzled by excessive demonstration of pillaged wealth and faux pomp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintwarwick Posted 27 March, 2009 Share Posted 27 March, 2009 I think that constitutionally the Oath of Allegiance to The Queen is symbolic of swearing allegiance to the country. The Monarch is not the controller of the armed forces, and as far as I am aware he/she rules at the request of Parliament - go back to William and Mary and the Glorious Revolution. You are required under the army act 1955 and air force act 1955 to swear allegience to the queen. HTH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 27 March, 2009 Author Share Posted 27 March, 2009 So Gordon backs the proposal to end discrimination when it comes to succession? Isn't heriditary rule inherently discrimatory? Regardless of ability one person will end up as head of state. I expect a lot of people will spout the money argument and frankly I don't care about that - it's about whether it's fair and a monarchy has no place in a fair, just or equal society. Bunch of tossers. I'll leave out the tossers bit, as that is quite unecessary. Please note that RS. But as far as the rest, I couldn't agree more. It isn't the money, it's the principle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludwig Posted 27 March, 2009 Share Posted 27 March, 2009 It costs each of us about 60p a year to maintain the Royal family. Whoop-de-do. Hardly worth getting your arse in a cramp about, is it? Probably is worth it, what with all the tourist revenue it brings in, multiplier effect etc. Benefits us, if anything, seeing as they don't really have power but provide a basis for 'cultural' unity/identity we can identify with. Even if we can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 27 March, 2009 Share Posted 27 March, 2009 You are required under the army act 1955 and air force act 1955 to swear allegience to the queen. HTH That is because the monarch is the figurative and titular head of the nation, NOT because they wield any constitutional power to disrupt or overrule the lawfully elected Government. Effectively, you are swearing allegiance to the country, very much as they do in the USofA, Canada, Eire, etc. HTH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 28 March, 2009 Author Share Posted 28 March, 2009 That is because the monarch is the figurative and titular head of the nation, NOT because they wield any constitutional power to disrupt or overrule the lawfully elected Government. Effectively, you are swearing allegiance to the country, very much as they do in the USofA, Canada, Eire, etc. HTH In which case, anyone can be the Monarch. Except anyone can't..! You have to be born into the line, and that's completely wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 28 March, 2009 Share Posted 28 March, 2009 In which case, anyone can be the Monarch. Except anyone can't..! You have to be born into the line, and that's completely wrong. Absolutely, bring on the revolution :smt041:smt041:smt041 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint lard Posted 28 March, 2009 Share Posted 28 March, 2009 The whole concept of having a royal family is discriminatory,be it first born,female,Roman Catholic whatever the outdated laws dictate. Only a few from a particular bloodline can be the monarch so therfore it is in itself discrimination,only way for it not to be is for us to become a republic and be able to have anyone installed as a president.IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 28 March, 2009 Share Posted 28 March, 2009 You lot leave her alone. Signed, Hatch Windsor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 28 March, 2009 Share Posted 28 March, 2009 Have to admit that was my first thought. We're in the middle of a financial crisis yet he finds time to spout off on something this trivial. What a clown. I think you'll find that the Private Members' Bill was promoted by Dr Evan Harris, the Liberal MP for Abingdon. If such a Bill is on the agenda, the Prime Minister is duty bound to discuss the matter with the Queen as it materially affects her. So he wasn't 'spouting about this when there were more important things to worry about, was he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 28 March, 2009 Author Share Posted 28 March, 2009 I think you'll find that the Private Members' Bill was promoted by Dr Evan Harris, the Liberal MP for Abingdon. If such a Bill is on the agenda, the Prime Minister is duty bound to discuss the matter with the Queen as it materially affects her. So he wasn't 'spouting about this when there were more important things to worry about, was he? Well, all people who keep an eye on such things knew BTF, and I nearly posted something similar to your own a couple of times, but I couldn't be arsed. It's not as if the Brown haters are going to come around on a little thing like that, are they. Let's just hope he didn't bow in her presence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintwarwick Posted 28 March, 2009 Share Posted 28 March, 2009 That is because the monarch is the figurative and titular head of the nation, NOT because they wield any constitutional power to disrupt or overrule the lawfully elected Government. Effectively, you are swearing allegiance to the country, very much as they do in the USofA, Canada, Eire, etc. HTH "I (name) swear by almighty god that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to her majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, and that I will be, as in duly bound, honestly and faithfully defend her majesty, her heirs and successors in person crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of her majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me so help me god". A requirement when I joined the armed forces, basically you swear allegiance to queen and country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 28 March, 2009 Share Posted 28 March, 2009 "I (name) swear by almighty god that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to her majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, and that I will be, as in duly bound, honestly and faithfully defend her majesty, her heirs and successors in person crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of her majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me so help me god". A requirement when I joined the armed forces, basically you swear allegiance to queen and country. You take the oath of loyalty to the monarch because he / she is the FIGUREHEAD representing the nation. According to the constitution of this country the monarch rules at the request of Parliament. This started in 1660 with the return of Charles the Second, continued when William the Third was invited by Parliament to replace James the Second, ( having agreed to be bound by the Bill of Rights before he was enthroned ), and was most recently brought to light when the Prime Minister effectively forced the abdication of Edward the Eighth. Also, the Queen cannot choose her successor - the line of succession is set in law and the reigning monarch has no say in the matter. Therefore, for instance, she cannot state that Prince William is to become King on her death or abdication. The whole point of the discussion that prompted this thread is that royal marriages are governed by the Royal Marriages Act, an Act of Parliament by which all the royals in the line of succession are bound. The powers of the monarch are enshrined in the Royal Prerogative, which lists those actions that the reigning monarch could theoretically excercise independently of Parliament. In practice these powers, which include the declaration of war, will only be enacted in name only, after the monarch has been advised by the Prime Minister and/or the Privy Council. Indeed, the declaration of war against Iraq was done by the Prime Minister without any public statement or involvement from the Queen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now