You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Meh - corruption and class. Of course they are found everywhere - sadly inevitable. But I find it nigh on impossible to believe that removing the royals wouldn't spark a far reaching conversation about class, privilege, proprietariness, and the need for a modern system of government for a modern world.
The royals embody the scleroticism of British Government and society. The good chap principle of govt - FFS! FPTP - FFS! That these things work so well for vested interests is reason enough to blow them up and try something different.
I mean, what I hear from Royal Defenders is: This is as good as it's going to get. THat might not be their intent, but it's what I hear, and that is profoundly depressing.
I simply pointed out that removing the royal family will do nothing to the class system. Plenty of countries without a royal family have corruption and thriving class systems.
Yup, abolition of the monarchy is often used as a sop to placate the people. For example the fascist right-wing military dictatorship which ruled Greece from 1967-74 banned elections but held a referendum on the abolition of the monarchy, despite already having abolished it.
Abolition of the monarchy means very little in itself. Although this does not mean that the monarchy has any role to play in an advanced democracy, it clearly hasn't imo.
Has anyone stopped to think about the long-term impact of abolishing the monarchy on the commemorative ceramics industry?
Be careful what you wish for
Me too Binners.
And me.
I quite liked the Queen. She seemed nice, was a bit of a petrolhead, carried on working until she dropped and was broadly inoffensive. We've had worse figureheads. When she died it was sad, not for cap-doffing reasons but because a family had lost a mother and grandmother. You can be anti-royal without being a sociopath.
But queuing up for hours on end to see a wooden box? That's just bloody weird. Unless you're a dyed-in-the-wool forelock-tugger then the only justification I can see is to be able to say "I was there" and, well, it's hardly Live Aid.
Abolishing and expropriating the royals would return billions of assets to the state, and save millions in unncessary expenditure.
They sound like big numbers, but in national budgetary terms what you've got there is a massive house that's kinda falling down a bit and some pocket change.
The bit that I really don’t like about the monarchy is the huge amount power they still have. I fully accept that they rarely use even a tiny part of the power they have but why do they even still have it?
Given the present Parliamentary incumbents, I wish they exercised their power more.
The bit that I really don’t like about the monarchy is the huge amount power they still have. I fully accept that they rarely use even a tiny part of the power they have but why do they even still have it?
Given the present Parliamentary incumbents, I wish they exercised their power more.
That’s another multi page thread on its own.
I do think getting rid of the monarchy would be far reaching because in my mind all the silly titles dished out go as do all the Lords and a new second chamber set up.
Indeed. The idea of an elected head of state seems like a great idea for about half a millisecond, before you look at the recent voting-record of the British public. President Boris anyone?
The only hope would be if there were enough people who could orchestrate a campaign to elect Count Binface as our head of state, just for a laugh
But I find it nigh on impossible to believe that removing the royals wouldn’t spark a far reaching conversation about class, privilege, proprietariness, and the need for a modern system of government for a modern world.
Having a load of dumb ignorant folk
That’s is a big red flag for the intelligence of the ‘majority
Very very odd behaviour.
Stupid pig thick ignorant ones.
Could you square that circle for me?
relapsed_mandalorian
Full Member
Deference innit?
Certainly does enforce and promote the idea of a class born to rule, rather than a meritocracy.The USA doesn’t have a monarchy but an absolutely thriving class system. In a lot of ways worse than ours.
A lot of new money adding to that divide as well. Meritocracy doesn’t negate ego and cruelty.
Your answer has nothing to do with my statement.
Deference toward inherited power is unhelpful and undemocratic.
The less of it we have, the better.
The fact we have a Royal Family legitimises deference as a default position in our society.
To think otherwise is disingenuous at best.
Is it just deference to inherited power you have an issue with?
Me personally, I have an issue with deference to any power, inherited or earned via a meritocracy.
Deference to 'earned' power is one of the reasons this country is a bit of a shitshow, I'd argue more than inherited.
So I'm not sure who's being disingenuous here.
relapsed_mandalorian
Full Member
Is it just deference to inherited power you have an issue with?
No, of course not.
All abuse of power is abhorrent, be it domestic violence or institutionalised prejudice.
It does appear to be a part of human nature. Surely any attempt to minimise it is a positive step?
Removal of the RF would appear to be such a step forward.
I mean, what I hear from Royal Defenders is: This is as good as it’s going to get. THat might not be their intent, but it’s what I hear, and that is profoundly depressing.
You hear what you want to hear. I'm all in favour of them being reduced in numbers and cost, abolish them if that's what the public want, but my opinion - which is worth **** all, obviously, as are everyone else's- is that it won't solve any of the issues the Republicans seem to think it will. They so rarely -if ever - use their supposed powers to overrule the government it won't change anything there, it will create a vacuum to be filled by some chancer.
So less "it's as good as it gets" and more "better the devil you know".
Plenty of countries have done fine without a monarchy, we might do as well.
And edited to add - what other more important stuff will not happen while we all focus on abolishing the monarchy. Took hours of Parliamentary time to try and stop fox hunting
Removal of the RF would appear to be such a step forward.
It would, but I'm not convinced the impact would be as significant as you would hope. I would much rather turn my effort and energy to sorting out the shitshow that is how we are governed currently. The absence of any true accountability for our 'leaders' is comical.
If that was a little more effective and efficient then the impact on other connected institutions would play out and time would very clearly show if they're fit for purpose alongside a refreshed way of being governed. My gut tells me quite a few institutions would fold as a result, or at least reform to suit.
The Royals get a significant amount of money from the public purse, I understand that annoys people and I fully respect that POV, but like or not we see where that money goes, in some areas the taxpayer can benefit from it (I absolutely accept that if the royal estate was more open after abolishment, more of it could be enjoyed). Now let's have a convo about PPE contracts...
Which is the bigger 'waste' of taxpayer money? Where are there repetitions of waste, cronyism, and corruption?
I'm sure there's many in Westminster who like the Monarchy/Republic argument, keeps a portion of the population away from be interested in what ****ery they're up to.
It would, but I’m not convinced the impact would be as significant as you would hope.
It would be a step in the right direction, no?
It would send a very powerful message to those who believe they can continue to abuse their power without consequence.
It would send a very powerful message to those who believe they can continue to abuse their power without consequence.
No, I don't think it would in the slightest. Having Tony Blair and senior members of the Labour government that facilitated an illegal war on trial would probably have been more effective. Likewise with these dodgy PPE contracts. I mean I'm less bothered about them going to mates, more bothered the fact that many simply failed to deliver anything at all.
I honestly don't think binning off the Monarchy sends a message to anyone in Westminster. Accountability is fully absent, aided by a complicit media and a population who will ride or die for their corner no matter what.
Has anyone stopped to think about the long-term impact of abolishing the monarchy on the commemorative ceramics industry?
Be careful what you wish for
My Grandmother would be beside herself if there were a lack of porcelain collectable like this. Think of the pensioners!
No, I don’t think it would in the slightest.
Then we shall have to agree to disagree!
They sound like big numbers
I have two responses:
1) The annual budget is not massive. The assets are. And in any case I tend to believe that any million quid that is spent on social workers or pensions or even anti-tank weapons for Ukraine instead of on royals is a good thing.
2) Please send me £100 a year. It sounds like a big number, but you wouldn't even notice it over the course of a year, it's pocket change, not worth worrying about, so you should just do it.
My Grandmother would be beside herself if there were a lack of porcelain collectable like this. Think of the pensioners!
Without meaning to be rude about anyone's grandparents, that right there is a good reason for upper age limits as well as lower limits...
For example, Brexit wouldn't have happened without old biffers who are no longer in the workforce. And Scottish Indy would be a slam dunk, but for the folks over 60.
Experience is great and all, but...
Yes, but without royal memorabilia to purchase the elder generation could become dangerously radicalised...
I struggle with all this talk of deference. I was brought up in a pro monarchy, Forces household and went all through Cubs and Scouts promising to do my duty to the Queen.
To me, the Queen/royals are nothing more than symbols of the country, as opposed to the ever changing series of politicians or whoever.
I feel no deference to them. They are just people, as lucky/unlucky/****ed up as I am.
We absolutely should be getting rid of the royal family - take a look at the interference they have on laws that impact them, the huge sums of taxpayer money spent etc, cash in briefcases... Assuming that you'd have a useless president in replacement like Donald Bonespurs isn't a good enough reason - lots of other countries have a president that does their job well and doesn't cost the earth. It does'nt have to be a political appt either, could easily be someone like Attenborough or Maxine Peake if you design the system properly.
We need to get rid of FPTP, reform HoL and honours system, we need to get rid of all private schooling (the biggest inequality driver) and we need efficient taxation - but all of those things can be done at the same time as getting rid of the monarchy
I struggle with all this talk of deference.
Same. If feels a bit of an "if you love the EU so much, why don't you live there" argument. It is possible to not despise the royal family without being a sycophantic cockney ****er cliché.
I'd expect that most UK citizens are ambivalent about them, they're something that just exist. It's an interesting discussion, but I feel as strongly about the King / former Queen as I do about Paul McCartney.
We need to get rid of FPTP, reform HoL and honours system, we need to get rid of all private schooling (the biggest inequality driver) and we need efficient taxation – but all of those things can be done at the same time as getting rid of the monarchy
Did you forget to kick off your clown shoes and get out of character when you typed that? We had a binary vote on something not too long ago that has left a dirty, festering wound in our political and social fabric; do you honestly think we're in any sort of place to manage that much change all at once?
If you do, as a sidebar, the sneering condescension didn't work out too well last time as a tactic, so I'd suggest before you try and foist that amount of change on the 'thicko majority' I'd think very carefully about your strategy.
Some of the self-styled intelligencia on here do come off as daft and naive at times.
I’d expect that most UK citizens are ambivalent about them, they’re something that just exist. It’s an interesting discussion, but I feel as strongly about the King / former Queen as I do about Paul McCartney.
Ha! Another of my pet rants - how wildly over-rated the Beatles are/were and the fact that Macca needs to bow out of the limelight...
The Islington Bugle is this afternoon laying out yet more convincing evidence of why the Royals are a festering sore among many that the UK seems adapt at fostering at present.
Another of my pet rants – how wildly over-rated the Beatles are/were
I have long been amazed how some people bizarrely understate the Beatles profound influence in so many areas.
The Beatles had a profound influence not only on music but also on fashion, films, and comedy. They directly changed people's perceptions of Great Britain globally and Britian was seen as the coolest country on earth with the birthplace of rock n roll, the USA, taking second place. They elevated Merseyside to almost the same status as Britian's capital city. They brought untold wealth to Britian through exports and tourism. A multitude of British bands launched their careers in the wake of the Beatles. No other entertainment act in British history has come close that.
Having said all that the Beatles have never been my cup of tea. I have always been more of a Rolling Stones person, unlike the Beatles I am not sure that the Stones have ever produced shite. And early Stones stuff especially is vastly superior to the Beatles imo. But it would be disingenuous to deny the totally unique and profound influence that the Beatles had.
Thats all total nonsense.
The only reason that the Beatles are held in such reverence is because a succession of scousers have basically rattled on about them so endlessly and relentlessly that in the end we all just agree with them just so they'll shut up.
Unfortunately, this only encourages them and they then start going on about Kenny Dalglish
Dalglish is a Glaswegian
Not sure if Liverpool was a step up or down....
take a look at the interference they have on laws that impact them
1) Which laws are you referring to?
2) Should there not be a greater concern around potential interference with laws which affect us?
Ha! Another of my pet rants – how wildly over-rated the Beatles are/were and the fact that Macca needs to bow out of the limelight…
Honestly, I chose Macca fairly randomly. My first thought for an example was Elton John but I worried that someone might start pecking at me for having "Elton John" and "Queen" in the same sentence.
The Beatles had a profound influence not only on music but also on fashion, films, and comedy. They directly changed people’s perceptions of Great Britain globally
Thats all total nonsense.
Sorry Binners, you know I love you but I'm with Ernie on this one. I've written about this before, but trying to explain to Americans where I'm from, the only reliable constant I've found is "near Liverpool." "Ah, The Beatles!" they'll exclaim.
I mean, they've no ****ing idea where Liverpool is geographically, it could be on the Shetland Islands or in the Sea of Tranquillity for all they know. But it's a cultural reference anchor that has never failed me.
But they'll only have known about the Beatles in the first place because they'll have found themselves cornered in a bar somewhere by a scouser talking their bloody ears off about them
Honestly, theres no escape from them anywhere on the globe... they get everywhere. Like Irish bars.
1) Which laws are you referring to?
Quite a few. First hit on google:
examples of secret lobbying by Buckingham Palace are contained in documents unearthed by the Guardian in the National Archives. They reveal how the monarch has used an arcane parliamentary process known as Queen’s consent to secretly press ministers to amend legislation.
The only reason that the Beatles are held in such reverence is because a succession of scousers have basically rattled on about them so endlessly and relentlessly that in the end we all just agree with them just so they’ll shut up.
Don't be silly.
Everyone likes the Beatles (and ABBA).
Disliking them is just an affectation, like buying a Gibson, wearing glasses without lenses, driving a German car, drinking IPA from cans or voting Lib Dem.
Quite a few. First hit on google:
Oh, I wasn't asking which laws exist. I was asking which laws Ed was objecting to.
We put up with McCartney and his tiny guitar only because of his supposed yet non-populous status. And the Stones prolifically sang at least once racist song therefore promoting racism. Two things they both have in common with the Monarchy.
Don’t be silly.
Everyone likes the Beatles (and ABBA).
While this is true (and I'd also add the Bee Gees to that list) the reason for their ubiquitous global recognition is because Scousers have colonised the globe while simultaneously refusing to shut up about them.
There time in Hamburg was essentially a dress rehearsal for this
... from that Guardian link, as far as I can interpret:
Something about the preservation of national monuments in 1982 which looks to be a Tory power grab; a proposed law attempting to apply public road laws to private land in 1968; and a threat of "escalat[ing] their complaints to a senior minister" over a proposed bill in 1975 to make local authorities responsible for permitting development on private land. All of which were eventually agreed by the crown.
Well I'm convinced. Crack out the guillotine.
We put up with McCartney and his tiny guitar only because of his supposed yet non-populous status. And the Stones prolifically sang at least once racist song therefore promoting racism. Two things they both have in common with the Monarchy.
You do know it was an entirely different Queen who headlined Live Aid, yes? Not known for her Rickenbacker, our Liz.
😁
Tiny guitar? That's a Hofner bass!
Bloody heathens.......
Man's a ledge, as opposed to Jagger, who is a letch.
Mind you, early 70's heroin addicted Stones were fun and they wrote some decent toons. And they gave Mick Taylor, one of our finest ever guitarists a job.
Saint Macca's thumbs aloft, dope smoking, bad dye job persona is just the topping.
And the reason we forgive him for Maxwell's Silver Hammer, Obla whatsit and all the illegitimate kids he fathered before leaving Murkeyside.
Dodgy barnets and fathering lots of illegitimate kids before leaving Liverpool?
Are you sure you're not getting confused with Raheem Sterling?
… from that Guardian link, as far as I can interpret:
Something about the preservation of national monuments in 1982 which looks to be a Tory power grab; a proposed law attempting to apply public road laws to private land in 1968; and a threat of “escalat[ing] their complaints to a senior minister” over a proposed bill in 1975 to make local authorities responsible for permitting development on private land. All of which were eventually agreed by the crown.
Well I’m convinced. Crack out the guillotine.
...you're convinced that the Royal Family and their representatives involve themselves in policy and changing laws to their benefit? I mean it's hardly controversial even though it's generally done out of sight and not available to freedom of information requests. I'm not giving details but have had personal experience. In the public domain is the following:
The Queen's Private Secretary, Sir Christopher Geidt, reportedly lobbied the Scottish Parliament to change a draft law on land reform in 2015.
In 2019, Prince Charles wrote a letter to the then Prime Minister Theresa May expressing concerns about a proposed environmental bill.
In 2013, Prince Charles was reported to have held 36 meetings with government ministers over a period of three years, leading some to accuse him of "meddling" in politics.
In 2011, it was revealed that Prince Andrew had lobbied the government to change bribery laws, in order to make it easier for UK businesses to win contracts overseas. This was seen as controversial, as it appeared to conflict with the UK's anti-corruption efforts.
In 2008, it was reported that Prince Charles had privately expressed concerns to ministers about a proposed EU directive on herbal medicines, which he believed would lead to the closure of many natural remedy practitioners in the UK.
In 1999, it was revealed that the Queen had lobbied the government over proposed changes to the Civil List, which is the public funding that supports the royal family. The Queen reportedly wrote to then-Prime Minister Tony Blair, expressing her concerns about the proposed changes and requesting a meeting to discuss the matter.
In 2017, it was revealed that Prince Charles had lobbied the government to relax hunting restrictions on foxes and other wild animals. This sparked controversy, as the UK public generally opposes hunting for sport.
In 2014, it was reported that the Queen had privately expressed concerns about a Scottish independence referendum, which she feared could lead to the breakup of the United Kingdom. Her remarks were seen as unusual, as the monarch is expected to remain politically neutral.
In 2005, it was reported that Prince Charles had written to then-Prime Minister Tony Blair to express his opposition to a proposed ban on hunting with dogs. The letter was seen as controversial, as it appeared to challenge the government's efforts to address animal welfare concerns
.
Tiny guitar? That’s a Hofner bass!
...strung upside down to be played left handed, utterly pointlessly as there's no left handed pianos and very few left handed classical musicians reconfigure their instruments to be played with the other hand. Fner fner. And in so doing he inspired a generation of left handed bedroom musos to learn with instruments strung the wrong way, and hence unable to try out shop or other folks' guitars. The impact is still playing out here in the guitarists of singletrack thread.
Also, the Frog Chorus.
No one, not even Lord Macca of Walton has hair the colour of Ronseal Red Cedar.
And yes, it would appear he was no fan of rubber before they worked it into an album title.
Allegedly.
Scousers have colonised the globe
To be fair if you came from Liverpool you would, come from Liverpool.
Also, the Frog Chorus.
A Lennonist conspiracy.
Implanted memories, never existed.
Well I’m convinced. Crack out the guillotine.
You mean the Halifax Gibbet? (Taking back control).
That’s money that could be spent on teachers, social workers and pensions
It’s not either or, we can do both those things.
TBH mate if you want to pay a small voluntary premium to fund the royal family (like Danish or German taxpayers can voluntarily fund the established church) or compensate them for expropriation as well as pay for social workers, that's fine by me. I'd be perfectly happy to see a subscription model used to support the royal family in whatever they want to do. OnlyFans is desperate for new non-adult content creators.
But as long as government has limited means, I'd much rather spend a million on social workers or pensions than a million on the royals. Sorry if this seems controversial.
To be slightly serious for a minute, Liverpool/Manchester rivalry, whether over music, football or politics is the consequence of engineered outrage initially perpetrated by shithouse local journalists lacking the intelligence to understand the consequences of their actions.
The hatred and misinformation directed towards Liverpool by the mainstream media (utterly ****ing shameful coverage of Hillsborough, cover ups, lies etc) stems from the demonisation of a perfectly ordinary city.
The fact that you, and I mean pretty much most of you, now view Scousers as something 'other', people less worthy of our consideration than the general population is proof of how powerful the media is.
…you’re convinced that the Royal Family and their representatives involve themselves in policy and changing laws to their benefit
Every other group affected by legislation lobbies and/or has the chance to input at the consultation stage. While the Royal option is a bit arcane, I suspect they haven't ****ed us mortals over as often as big energy and finance
Every other group affected by legislation lobbies and/or has the chance to input at the consultation stage.
Barrel - scraped. Excuses - threadbare.
1) legislation doesn't require consultation of anyone. Royal consultation and lobbying happens on a different and privileged track to consultation (if any) of the public.
2) how many meetings with ministers have you had in the last 3 years?
In 2013, Prince Charles was reported to have held 36 meetings with government ministers over a period of three years
The hatred and misinformation directed towards Liverpool by the mainstream media (utterly **** shameful coverage of Hillsborough, cover ups, lies etc) stems from the demonisation of a perfectly ordinary city
Indeed. Leeds where I'm from is as rough, significantly more so in footy terms, and generally less of a fun place. My wife is very undeniably Scouse, which isn't an excuse for joking as above but means I'm too much in the habit
Barrel – scraped. Excuses – threadbare.
Blinkers - on
Blinkers – on
Points - dodged. Ignorance about how legislation is passed - glossed over. Big Hitter status - confirmed! 🤣🤣🤣
…you’re convinced that the Royal Family and their representatives involve themselves in policy and changing laws to their benefit? I mean it’s hardly controversial even though it’s generally done out of sight and not available to freedom of information requests. I’m not giving details but have had personal experience. In the public domain is the following:
Well, no.
I asked (and subsequently clarified) that I was asking what laws Ed was referring to. Someone else popped up and leapt to the same conclusion you just did, citing three incidents from the 60s, 70s and 80s that ended up in laws being passed regardless.
Your wall of text may well be true but without citing a source for all the things that were "reported" and "revealed" about "expressing concerns" there it might as well be Daily Mail headlines and there isn't a single outcome mentioned in any of that. I'm concerned that it might rain tomorrow.
Because, again, so what? The monarch formally known as the prince expressed concerns about herbal medicine. What happened next? Did the EU change their legislation?
Consider:
a) is all this verifiably true? (I am inclined to believe you but I can't be arsed looking it all up)
b) assuming it is, did it actually change anything or did Parliament nod and smile until the plant whisperer buggered off?
c) if it did, does that actually affect us?
Do you have any actual concrete examples of where the monarchy overruled parliament in the last, oh, I don't know, our living memory? If not then it's whataboutery, students can lobby.
Do you have any actual concrete examples of where the monarchy overruled parliament in the last, oh, I don’t know, our living memory?
And now we get into catch 22 territory since whilst we do know about several cases either due to them being released to the national archive (plus 30 years) or where its obvious (the exception of the Duchy of Cornwall from leasehold law reforms) in most cases we just know they have the right and since FOI was changed to protect them we dont know if they exercise it.
One which came out fairly recently is the requirement for police to ask permission before entering the private estates of the sovereign is problematic given, for example, that the police have investigated several cases of wildlife crime at Sandringham.
Whilst investigating those are difficult at the best of times its going to be even harder when the police have to wait to be allowed in.
If not then it’s whataboutery, students can lobby.
Such a good comparison.
The fact that you, and I mean pretty much most of you, now view Scousers as something ‘other’, people less worthy of our consideration than the general population is proof of how powerful the media is.
Mate, much as I love you, I think you’re overthinking this. this is proof of nothing more than I’ve got a load of scouse mates who I love taking the piss out of, and the piss-taking is very much a two way street, believe me
We don’t do Hillsborough, we don’t do Munich, we don’t do murderers or victims. We just don’t, for obvious reasons.
Some people do, but they’re a minority of idiots
We’re going seriously off-topic now though. How did we get from Macca’s wig to this?
in most cases we just know
So, no, then.
If you do not believe that the Royal family regularly interfere in democratic politics when we have loads of evidence of this I have a bridge to sell you
Do you have any actual concrete examples of where the monarchy overruled parliament in the last, oh, I don’t know, our living memory? If not then it’s whataboutery, students can lobby.
No-one is suggesting that the Sovereign has formally overruled the legislature recently. That's a straw man you have invented. However:
1) the point of lobbying is to mould or head off legislation before it is passed, and to set expectations for future similar efforts. If lobbying doesn't have an impact, you stop doing it. They keep doing it.
2) It is unarguable that by hook (the convention that the Sovereign should be consulted on matters that directly impact them) or by crook (the access they have in practice to legislators and administrators), the Royals have a privileged position that is different to the likes of ordinary dickheads like you and me. That is unacceptable - especially when one of the supposed advantages of the Royal Family is that they are "above politics".
Big Hitter status – confirmed
According to the magazine article, I only made the shortlist,and not the final cut.
Not that I'm bitter.
You'd have probably made the list if the editor had told you in advance it was going to be published, and given you a chance to make private representations...
So, no, then.
Emmn no I gave several fairly recent examples but hey ho.
I think it can be best summed up by the response by Scottish civil servants when asked for how she interfered into laws there with one known example protecting balmoral from the same green laws as other places.
"If the content of these consultations became known, it might serve to undermine the appearance of the political neutrality of the sovereign, and so the rights of the sovereign could not be exercised effectively without this expectation of confidentiality."
Whether other laws got altered in more subtle ways is unclear because its kept secret.
Indeed we can look back to Bagehots not dissimilar comment about needing not to let daylight in since then people would start asking questions.
However keep comparing it to students. Incidentally its hilariously you accused others of whataboutterying whilst doing so yourself.
You’d have probably made the list if the editor had told you in advance it was going to be published, and given you a chance to make private representations…
I think you'll find Hannah is beyond reproach and influencing!
Though this may have been back when Chipps was in charge, so I may have missed a trick....
I'm seeing a lot of florid language but no actual facts. Suggested, believed, interfered, meddled, vetted, ooh but it's a secret.
I don't disbelieve it, but in any case it's all nothing that affects us. In the grand scheme of things I'm struggling to lose sleep over the Queen refusing to allow them to lay pipes under the palace or the police having to ring the doorbell before they stroll on in. Yes, it's arguably an abuse of privilege, but I can't quite bring myself to care. I'll probably do the same when I'm Queen.
I’m seeing a lot of florid language but no actual facts.
Really because you actually manage to acknowledge multiple recent cases but then casually dismiss them.
However you win. There is no point trying to have a discussion with someone who sneers away with "ooh its a secret" and inane comparisons to "student lobbying".
This law was changed by the rf before it even went to parliament
Surely it's simply more evidence that out system of governance needs updating? How many laws have been influenced by other undemocratic means?
I think the one thing a great many agree on is Westminster is a clown show so there seems to be the best place to start, things on the periphery (royalty) will simply need to adapt or they will die.
Improving that element of governance (which has a larger consensus of agreement it seems) will set the conditions for change in a more impactful way and would be a more effective way of creating momentum further change, or we could go the way of Brexit and start with an incredibly divisive topic and see where that takes us.
IMO removing the royals doesn't impact that lines the benches in Westminster, they'll still tap up their mates for favours and fingerbang aides on work time regardless of having a Monarch mooching about with a crown on at a jaunty angle.
Why do people worship them ?
Born lucky .... I'd sooner follow Bezos than that lot 🙁
For the same reason they voted Brexit. They fall for the Land of Hopeless Glory line every time
Why do people worship them ?
Same question could be asked why of religion, celebrity, etc.
Surely it’s simply more evidence that out system of governance needs updating? How many laws have been influenced by other undemocratic means?
Exactly - the royal family is a symptom, not the cause, and focusing just on them won't solve the underlying issues.
Whataboutery ^^^.
This thread is about HRH and the royals.
They're pricey as per the guardian piece above, may not be central to govt policy but do have influence (chatgpt pulled out the examples I cited, Inc refs which I didn't post), and bring a bunch of negatives for many of us. Positives for others of course: continuity, tradition, focal point for the nation etc, ongoing soap...
Yes there are other problems we face that republics do too. But let's just at least scale back the bloody royals whilst we worry about the more intractable stuff
Really because you actually manage to acknowledge multiple recent cases but then casually dismiss them.
I acknowledge multiple claims. I don't see any multiple facts and and I don't see any multiple replies on here to "this affects us how?"
The entire argument is "the royals are interfering with our laws in secret." Are they? How would you know if it's a secret?
And why shouldn't they, isn't that what they're supposed to do? Commons > Lords > Monarchy is how our sovereign representative democracy is founded. I don't like it either, it's inherently ****ed at every level and the populace demonstrably can't be trusted with direct democracy either. But here are. What the preferable alternative is I do not know.
However you win. There is no point trying to have a discussion with someone who sneers away with “ooh its a secret” and inane comparisons to “student lobbying”.
Am I wrong? I might be. I probably am. Show me.
You appear to have fixated on a throwaway comment yet have neatly ignored "so what?" and I'm not quite sure why. What exactly are you objecting to, privileged people being privileged? That's reasonable but you're in the wrong country if so, the British class system is turtles all the way down.
Cameron > May > Johnson > Truss > Sunak. You want to depose the monarchy, be careful what you wish for.
Cameron > May > Johnson > Truss > Sunak
are/were PMs; HRH is head of state, entirely different roles. Like others I favour an irish model for the latter, but whatever. QEII was head of state for 54 countries at the start of her rain, 16 by the end. Countries don't automatically go to wrack and ruin when they lose the royals as head of state.
The rest seems to be saying you've not had it demonstrated to your satisfaction that the royals interfere with legislation, but fine if they do? You're entitled to an opinion, if that's it?
You’re entitled to an opinion, if that’s it?
Ahh, but you're talking to the guy who said other people aren't entitled to their opinions [about steam] when they're based on pig ignorance [about science]. So that could be a bit awkward for someone that's recognised what the royals do is an abuse of privilege, and whose ignorance of the historical record has become clear... 🤐
are/were PMs; HRH is head of state, entirely different roles.
Thanks for pointing that out, I wouldn't have realised.
My point was, the grass isn't always greener.
Ahh, but you’re talking to the guy who said other people aren’t entitled to their opinions [about steam] when they’re based on pig ignorance [about science].
I have never in my life suggested that people aren't entitled to their opinions.
Rather that everyone else is equally entitled to call those opinions bollocks.
Cameron > May > Johnson > Truss > Sunak. You want to depose the monarchy, be careful what you wish for.
My point was, the grass isn’t always greener.
On the other side or this side?
Cameron > May > Johnson > Truss > Sunak all occurred as prime ministers under a constitutional monarchy. Does that make the monarchy a good idea? Did the monarchy somehow curtail their powers?
I am struggling to understand why the last 13 years would have been worse had the UK been a republic.
Cameron > May > Johnson > Truss > Sunak all occurred as prime ministers under a constitutional monarchy.
Its a rather special counterargument isnt. Be careful what you wish for otherwise you get what we got?
Did the monarchy somehow curtail their powers?
Well we did have the time when the Queen declined to illegally prorogue parliament.
Oh wait no she didnt. We needed the courts to sort that out.
Yes there are other problems we face that republics do too. But let’s just at least scale back the bloody royals whilst we worry about the more intractable stuff
Er, yes, that's kind of what I've been saying.
Has anyone noticed how similar he looks to star treks commander Data?