I think it should stay as it is.Agreed. In fact one of the latest blogs of my local MP is about that very subject. He points out the various reasons why it should stay as it is.
I think it should stay as it is.Reasoned argument, such as you repeatedly demand of others, would be nice.
The current one should be binned: it is anachronistic, is not fit for purpose and is undemocratic. At the same time bin the monarchy and remove the 'established' status of the CofE so as to clear out privilege from our political governance arrangements.Good point, and one I've considered myself, but if we're to have one, then I think my suggestion makes sense.
I fail to see why a second chamber is required at all: I can't see why, within a re-jigged wholly-elected parliament, having done the above, it shouldn't be possible to implement processes that allow for a sufficient review of legislation before it is implemented - and without the need for a second chamber at all.
A mish-mash of hereditary peers and appointees, none of them elected? What have you got against democracy?It smells of Lynx and has perfect teeth?
Try this link:He's a bloody Tory, but I suppose even tories aren't always wrong about absolutely everything. He doesn't come up with much in the way of objective argument, though. What does he have against electing the upper house? Is he a democrat, or not?
http://www.desmondswaynemp.com/ds-blog/not-reforming-the-lords/
He's a bloody Tory, but I suppose even tories aren't always wrong about absolutely everything. He doesn't come up with much in the way of objective argument, though. What does he have against electing the upper house? Is he a democrat, or not?Electoral colleges should be the order of the day. College of public servants, college of academics, college of world view, College of commerce, college of labour elect for life
The current one should be binned: it is anachronistic, is not fit for purpose and is undemocratic. At the same time bin the monarchy and remove the 'established' status of the CofE so as to clear out privilege from our political governance arrangements.Just because you can't see why the whole lot can't b binned, doesn't make it the right thing to do!! :D
I fail to see why a second chamber is required at all: I can't see why, within a re-jigged wholly-elected parliament, having done the above, it shouldn't be possible to implement processes that allow for a sufficient review of legislation before it is implemented - and without the need for a second chamber at all.
Electoral colleges should be the order of the day. College of public servants, college of academics, college of world view, College of commerce, college of labour elect for lifeYou do realise, I suppose, that that is pure facism? It was the main plank in the platform of the British Union of Fascists.
He's a bloody Tory, but I suppose even tories aren't always wrong about absolutely everything. He doesn't come up with much in the way of objective argument, though. What does he have against electing the upper house? Is he a democrat, or not?
You do realise, I suppose, that that is pure facism? It was the main plank in the platform of the British Union of Fascists.Citation please.
Citation please.
Everyone would fall into a category and get to elect the electorate, that way everyone would be represented.
An elected house would just return a huge house of commons surely
Steve, I went to a debate about ridding ourselves of the House of Lords, it was held at the Covent Garden conference hall, the Opera house, it was one of those intelligence squared debates, I dare say you can find it on YouTube somewhere, anyway, I went in having it set in my mind that these people should stand for some kind of election so that they could only have a place in T H L based on merit, well I can tell you I came out of there and I no longer know the answer, the only thing I haven't changed my mind about is the blindingly obvious wrong of holding seats especially for Bishops, (no problem with a Bishop in the H O L, on merit but certainly not as of right).The whole thing is - there isn't a way of doing things that is so much better, so much more efficient, so much a part of British life, that it can take over; and unless something superior is available, can be tried and tested and shown to be superior, then it ain't broke - don't fix it. Yes, it will probably change gradually, as things do, but not in a hurry. I personally think it will be the Bishops who will quietly (well, perhaps not quietly on their part, but it will have to be quiet because they'll know it is inevitable!! ) go first and thatwill be because a larger number of people recognise the total lack of any believed-in god, especially because of continued religious fanaticism.
If you can find the debate on Y T go for it it's worth taking the time, I still feel there's something wrong about the set up of this House but no longer have any idea how to resolve my, at present, feelings about the place.
Regards ippy
Just because you can't see why the whole lot can't b binned, doesn't make it the right thing to do!! :D
However, just think that through. You do realise, don't you, that the way of life, legislation, and a million other things would become so completely disrupted that chaos would prevail. There absolutely has to be a gradual, evolving change, not a revolution.
The current one should be binned: it is anachronistic, is not fit for purpose and is undemocratic.Anachronistic isn't an argument.
At the same time bin the monarchy and remove the 'established' status of the CofE so as to clear out privilege from our political governance arrangements.I don't see any need to change the monarchy. We have a constitutional head of state whose sole purpose is to appoint the government and open parliament. The exact duties should, perhaps, be better defined by law but there is no decision taking going on, so having a hereditary head of state is no different to electing somebody.
I fail to see why a second chamber is required at all: I can't see why, within a re-jigged wholly-elected parliament, having done the above, it shouldn't be possible to implement processes that allow for a sufficient review of legislation before it is implemented - and without the need for a second chamber at all.MPs have to look out for their own narrow interests. With SteveH's idea (or the current system) you would have a body of people who can look beyond the end of the election cycle.
and that is as close as we'll get to a rational argument from you, going on previous experience.LONG LIVE THE MONARCHY and The House of Lords.
Citation please.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Union_of_Fascists
Everyone would fall into a category and get to elect the electorate, that way everyone would be represented.
An elected house would just return a huge house of commons surely
The BUF was anti-communist and protectionist, and proposed replacing parliamentary democracy with executives elected to represent specific industries, trades or other professional interest groups—a system similar to the corporatism of the Italian fascists. Unlike the Italian system, British fascist corporatism planned to replace the House of Lords with elected executives drawn from major industries, the clergy, and colonies. The House of Commons was to be reduced to allow for a faster, "less factionist" democracy.
I make no apology for being a Royalist, or supporting the House of Lords. Heaven help up us if the UK became a Republic and we had a cretin like Trump as a president. >:(I didn't ask you to apologise for anything; I just suggested that something in the way of an argument might not go amiss.
They have served us well over the years, The Queen has done an excellent job and it will be sad when she goes.
Nothing I say will convince you Republicans otherwise, so I might as well remove myself from this thread before my BP hits the ceiling.
Before your BP hits the ceiling, I suppose it must feel good, doing the equivalent of, catching a pick pocket with their hand in your pocket, having to thank them for specially choosing your pocket and bowing or curtsying as you back away with all humility and reverence, as you do so.
Waite till that big eared, talking to his plants, prat gets placed in that position, we got Betty by luck alone, choice didn't come into it.
I expect Phill the Greek has used the bathroom 365 times over the last year, so that'll be another 365 medals for him.
Regards ippy
Before your BP hits the ceiling, I suppose it must feel good, doing the equivalent of, catching a pick pocket with their hand in your pocket, having to thank them for specially choosing your pocket and bowing or curtsying as you back away with all humility and reverence, as you do so.Ohdearohdearohdearohdear....Just step back and think a minute!!! It doesn't matter what Charles does, how eccentric he might or might not be, or how uninteresting; he will do the job he has to do, whether happily, or grudgingly, or somewhere in between. His wife will support him and things will chug along nicely until he dies and William moves into the role.
Waite till that big eared, talking to his plants, prat gets placed in that position, we got Betty by luck alone, choice didn't come into it.
I expect Phill the Greek has used the bathroom 365 times over the last year, so that'll be another 365 medals for him.
Regards ippy
Blimey, so much hate. Take a chill pill.
Ohdearohdearohdearohdear....Just step back and think a minute!!! It doesn't matter what Charles does, how eccentric he might or might not be, or how uninteresting; he will do the job he has to do, whether happily, or grudgingly, or somewhere in between. His wife will support him and things will chug along nicely until he dies and William moves into the role.What role? What does she do that's remotely necessary?
When have you had to bow or scrape or back away? The Queen is a little old lady who is remarkable for her age, bearing in mind that she stands, walks and sits with poise and stamina; who does not look down her nose at anyone she meets - on the contrary, people afterward say how lovely she was and I bet people feel somewhat protective towards her.
In conclusion, name someone who could fill that role better than the Queen, and of course better than Charles, and then William.
In conclusion, name someone who could fill that role better than the Queen, and of course better than Charles, and then William.
Gordon
It occurs to me that what you believe to be necessary and say about royalty and government amounts to personal incredulity!! :D
Surey you must concede that a better system needs to be available and in detail before those who want to drag the whole system down are allowed to proceed?
Quite. These smart-arses who regularly say that the best argument against a republic is the two words "President Blair" (or Thatcher, depending on political persuasion) ignore the fact that the prime minister is already the person with the real power, so it wouldn't really make a difference - and in any case, it'd be easy to build in checks and balances, to prevent the head of state having things too much their own way (one thing the yanks have got right).
Using the Trump argument as a pretend trump card is silly. We don't have an executive monarchy ... why should we have an executive presidency?
Waite till that big eared, talking to his plants, prat gets placed in that position, we got Betty by luck alone, choice didn't come into it.
well, all you miserable killjoys, find yourselves an island or somewhere where you can have colourless, dull, terribly clever politicians and leaders who will not give you any incentive to have fun or see what people have been doing to brighten up your lives, while we continue to enjoy colour ,spectacle, fun and interest. You can feel suitably self-righteous and justified in draggin down tradition and history, having put in their place self-seeking, ... ... I give up!!!!
Okay, I shan't be here, but don't you dare take away that aspect of life for my granddaughters and their future families!
Interesting that a number of ardent atheists, who sneer at any mention of God or church, are keen supporters of an institution at least as illogical and anachronistic.
Sorry j p, but I'm a republican it's more about the positionBut I don't see a reasoned case from you for doing away with the monarchy.
the people involved didn't have a say, some of them are wasters not Betty, by luck alone, there has to be a better way, something based on merit.The job doesn't require any merit. The head of state pretty much has to appoint the person who can put together a government and has no choice about signing the laws. What would be gained by having a state sponsored popularity contest to appoint the HoS?
Solving constitutional problems isn't really my forte, I know and understand the history of royalty but I want to see this one/lot go, surly it makes more sense to expect merit before hereditary, there has to be a better way than the one we have?It wouldn't be merit though, it would be by popular vote.
I meant to say some of the annoyance I've conveyed is because I see the present Royal system as an insult to the intelligence.I see it as a tribute to British political intelligence. Over the last thousand years, all of the power ofd the monarchy has been transferred to a more or less democratically elected parliament with only three major civil wars (in England, if not Scotland).
But I don't see a reasoned case from you for doing away with the monarchy.
The job doesn't require any merit. The head of state pretty much has to appoint the person who can put together a government and has no choice about signing the laws. What would be gained by having a state sponsored popularity contest to appoint the HoS?
It wouldn't be merit though, it would be by popular vote.
I see it as a tribute to British political intelligence. Over the last thousand years, all of the power ofd the monarchy has been transferred to a more or less democratically elected parliament with only three major civil wars (in England, if not Scotland).
I think it should stay as it is.
The current one should be binned: it is anachronistic, is not fit for purpose and is undemocratic. At the same time bin the monarchy and remove the 'established' status of the CofE so as to clear out privilege from our political governance arrangements.
I fail to see why a second chamber is required at all: I can't see why, within a re-jigged wholly-elected parliament, having done the above, it shouldn't be possible to implement processes that allow for a sufficient review of legislation before it is implemented - and without the need for a second chamber at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Union_of_FascistsInconclusive. There is no mention of what I would enshrine, that at some point in the college system every person of a certain age and beyond has a democratic vote in electing their college.
Note in particular
Ippy:- "Waite till that big eared, talking to his plants, prat gets placed in that position, we got Betty by luck alone, choice didn't come into it.
I expect Phill the Greek has used the bathroom 365 times over the last year, so that'll be another 365 medals for him."
Unbelievably rude.
Yes Rob, and I was holding back.I'm not going to allow you to get away with that last comment! :) I am not *taken in*, I am not a fool, I see all the positive aspects of the huge number of jobs of all sorts and in many and varied aspects of life that go with the current way of things. And Remember that we have evolved, via random mutations, natural selection etc, and during that 2.5 million-year evolution, there has never been any indication that enjoyment of spectacle, tradition, and multiple aspects of entertainment is likely to show any sign of extinction. It would be no good either suggesting, for instance, that historic houses, stately homes, etc would be just as visited if the system of which they are a part was binned. The fact that the system muddles along in as sprightly and interesting a way as always makes it WORK.
Surly most of us could do all sorts of charitable works if we had the path in front of us swept everywhere we went.
The waster you speak of more than likely had everything charitable set up for him, like most royals, they use these, set up for them, charitable works for propaganda purposes, performed so that people forget that that these royals are in positions that are not needed any more, redundant, and there are, unfortunatly, plenty of people still around
that allow themselves to be taken in by this simple child like royalist propaganda.
Regards ippy
I'm not going to allow you to get away with that last comment! :) I am not *taken in*, I am not a fool, I see all the positive aspects of the huge number of jobs of all sorts and in many and varied aspects of life that go with the current way of things. And Remember that we have evolved, via random mutations, natural selection etc, and during that 2.5 million-year evolution, there has never been any indication that enjoyment of spectacle, tradition, and multiple aspects of entertainment is likely to show any sign of extinction. It would be no good either suggesting, for instance, that historic houses, stately homes, etc would be just as visited if the system of which they are a part was binned. The fact that the system muddles along in as sprightly and interesting a way as always makes it WORK.
You still don't get it, do you!
Your brain is so full of bile that you cannot even see what is obvious to other people. Charles is not in charge of his own life. He is only permitted to do what others permit him to do. He is a prisoner.
He does "charitable work" because (other than playing soldiers in his mother's own army) he is not allowed to do anything else. He is not "a waster", his humanity is being wasted because - thanks to the British constitution - he is being preserved to be the biggest puppet in the world.
You betray your own humanity by your arrogant, vacuous and (to quote Robbie) rude utterances,
I'm so sorry that the nasturtiums I plant on the cuddly little Royal system seems to upset you people, why should I have take up this lovie-dovie drooling over this anachronistic system too?Sow where in, for instance, my posts is there any 'lovey-dovey drooling'? It is practical, clearly thought-out common sense.
Regards ippy
Sow where in, for instance, my posts is there any 'lovey-dovey drooling'? It is practical, clearly thought-out common sense.
And, yes, I have visited Versailles. Apart from the fact that the French monarchy did not survive, and particularly not in the way the British monarchy has, and there are no equivalent palaces in this country.
I have also visited the Hermitage in St Petersburg, where the Communist leaders and government enjoyed having their offices. They did not destroy it - even they knew one way or another it needed preserving.
One thing that was learnt - too late - from the invasion of Iraq was that you don't destroy something like even a bad government unless you have something better, and thoroughly and better-thought-out, to replace it.
One thing that was learnt - too late - from the invasion of Iraq was that you don't destroy something like even a bad government unless you have something better, and thoroughly and better-thought-out, to replace it.
I wouldn't have wanted to chop off heads, but at that time that was how many people were when in rebellion at that time in history although that doesn't mean I approve of these methods.
I don't see it in any way sensible or in any way justifiable to support any people including our royalty with undue privilege.
When I refer to undue privilege, it doesn't mean that I think this present head of state hasn't done a remarkable job, but it is to my mind plain silly to rely on the luck of the draw as to who we have performing this important job as head of state.
It's the principle for me I would rather burn the money that's taken from my taxes than contribute it to these kept people that should have been consigned to history long ago.
I cannot see where any common sense comes in this antiquated idea, you wouldn't bow and scrape to me or anyone similar why to these people? They're no better than the next person, it's a totally artificial idea.
Why do people look up to these royals that have been fed off of the fat of the land at no expense to themselves or look up to anyone else brought up in exactly similar circumstances? There is no sensible reason to do so.
They, the royals are no longer needed, they're surplus to requirements, they must go.
Regards ippy
I'm so sorry that the nasturtiums I plant on the cuddly little Royal system seems to upset you people, why should I have take up this lovie-dovie drooling over this anachronistic system too?
Regards ippy
What do you mean, "you people"? I am no royalist - there are several posts in this forum attesting to this. The difference between you and me on this matter, however, is that whereas you prance around like some latter day Robespierre (he lost his head, too, remember) I try to treat it with humanity. Charles is far more a victim of an inequitable system than you are.
Charlie's a nice enough chap in a bumbling, vague sort of way. He's put a lot into the Dumfries House project - I'll give him that. But his manner is somewhat cold...unless hes rehersed it first. Try bumping into him when he's walking his untrained mutts in the esteate (There's no law of trespass in Scotland). I've nothing against the chap personally, though I'll never bow and scrape and salaaam with cretious title like "HRH£ or tripe like that. As Burns wrote "A prince can mak a belted knight, A marquise, duke an a' that But an honest man's abune his might Guid faith, he mauna fa' that. For a that, and a, that, his dignities an a that The honest man, though er' sae poor is higher rank than a' that!
Interesting that a number of ardent atheists, who sneer at any mention of God or church, are keen supporters of an institution at least as illogical and anachronistic.
Sorry, I only do Scottish when there are sub titles involved.
However I'll do my best: He puts money that's been given to him into projects, any of the work is done by others.
For some reason we're, I don't know about you, not supposed to speak to these, mostly drones, unless they speak to us commoners first, something I would make a point of ignoring, the best answer is to not go anywhere near them in the first place.
Wish I could go to somewhere like Ecuador to live for something like the next six months, wanna join me, you know why, warm sunny climate, radio and T V all in Spanish and I think it might be far enough away, yawn yawn if it isn't.
Regards ippy
P S In England you're only trespassing, provided you haven't damaged anything when getting into private land areas, if you don't leave when asked to do so by the owner or their agent, you would be trespassing, if you leave quietly when asked to do so you're not trespassing, it's probably different on government land or MOD land, I don't know.
Hod it, Robbie. Why should Phillip be known as "Duke of Edinburgh"? He's not Scottish, british, had no connection with the city - I don't even knw if he's eaten Edinburgh rock - and when he dies - and may that be a long time coming, his son Edward will inherit the title. Edward has even less connection with Edingurgh than Phillip has! Up here, Chairlie's "Duke of Rothsey" - the main town of the isle of Bute. I have it on the best authority, that his nibs has visited the island precisely twice - the last time while he and Diana were married. Up here we have a less formal attitude to the royals....we always have. Titles mean nothing, so why use them. William's latest child is called 'prince'. That's supposed to mean leader....leader of what? Doesn't that suggest the bairn was born with a silver spoon rammed into its' mouth (other parts of the anatomy are available)? The whole shower of flummery and rigmarole (good Scots word, that) should be given all the sarcasm, derision and disdain it deserves, whilst wishing no harm to the poor saps who bear the daft titles in the first place.What the hell are you on about?
I'm on about the daft titles these people inherit with their mum and dad having sex in the right bed, and why we should treat those said titles with disdain. Isn't that obvious?
OK.....just for you.
Burns nails it.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2pGWkjwOBw
What's "Burnsian" about pouring ridicule and disdain on the 'dukedoms' bestowed on Phillip and Chairlie? Or laugghing at William's title - up here, he's 'Earl of Strathearn', apparently. I find it laudable to pour scorn on such flummery. Or is "rigmarole" the word you're having issues with? That's a lot older than Burns....it stems from the "Ragman Role" Longshanks forced the then community of the realm of Scotland to sign after his genocide at Berwick. That document was treated with the same disdain as we should treat the Windsors' titulary.The whole lot is going to go into meltdown at the succession where the millions who don't understand inherited monarchy let alone anything they aren't allowed to get angry with while being backed up by ''The Sun says it should be William'' and The mail suggests Rees Mogg as Lord Protector.
It's possible to be republican/anti-monarchist without resorting to personal venom and nicknames which are just ignorant & ill mannered. Steven H. doesn't do that & he's a republican, as are others but Stephen is an educated & cultured man so one would not expect him to resort to stupid name calling.this implies that you think Anchorman to be uneducated and uncultured?
I wonder about some posters on here who seem to take a delight in being enraged at the slightest thing - which probably doesn't affect any of them personally. How childish, are they resentful and jealous I wonder. Do they automatically resent anyone (with lower profiles than the royals) who have more money and privilege than themselves.
On Saturday morning I'm going to be in work in a - relatively - poor area of Bromley, Kent, where the people will be celebrating Prince Henry's wedding & enjoying it all with absolutely no jealousy at all. I'll be proud to be amongst such people.
It's possible to be republican/anti-monarchist without resorting to personal venom and nicknames which are just ignorant & ill mannered. Steven H. doesn't do that & he's a republican, as are others but Stephen is an educated & cultured man so one would not expect him to resort to stupid name calling.
I wonder about some posters on here who seem to take a delight in being enraged at the slightest thing - which probably doesn't affect any of them personally. How childish, are they resentful and jealous I wonder. Do they automatically resent anyone (with lower profiles than the royals) who have more money and privilege than themselves.
On Saturday morning I'm going to be in work in a - relatively - poor area of Bromley, Kent, where the people will be celebrating Prince Henry's wedding & enjoying it all with absolutely no jealousy at all. I'll be proud to be amongst such people.
It's possible to be republican/anti-monarchist without resorting to personal venom and nicknames which are just ignorant & ill mannered. Steven H. doesn't do that & he's a republican, as are others but Stephen is an educated & cultured man so one would not expect him to resort to stupid name calling.
I wonder about some posters on here who seem to take a delight in being enraged at the slightest thing - which probably doesn't affect any of them personally. How childish, are they resentful and jealous I wonder. Do they automatically resent anyone (with lower profiles than the royals) who have more money and privilege than themselves.
On Saturday morning I'm going to be in work in a - relatively - poor area of Bromley, Kent, where the people will be celebrating Prince Henry's wedding & enjoying it all with absolutely no jealousy at all. I'll be proud to be amongst such people.
I know that, wasn't talking about Anchor who has his prejudices but is educated.He calls the royal family names, you think that is not educated. So how is anyone meant to know what you mean?
So while Israel murders Palestinian children, the lead story on the main BBC news is Meghan Markle's dad. Yep, keep eating the bread and watching the circuses!
It's ill mannered and unpleasant, NS. Would've thought you could see that I but wasn't targeting Anchor.If you think it is ill mannered and unpleasant, and Anchorman does it, which he does, then you are stating that about Anchorman.
Before I went to work this morning I was looking at the BBC news and was horrified that the toll was 55 dead Palestinians, when husband woke I told him & we talked about the horrors of it for a while before getting ready for work. Couldn't care less about Meghan Markle's dad except that the current story must be embarrassing for her & I'm sorry for that. We can take in different types of news you know, I expect you do, not just the doom and gloom. I don't know why you're having a go at me.
OK NS. Read my previous post please (or not if you don't want to), I was modifying it while you were posting.
Doesn't matter anyway, I care not what you think of me.
I'd moved on from that one, you haven't. My last post was more about media, serious and trivial.I didn't say you were targeting Anchorman. Just that your point states that. If you didn't want to say that then you can choose to explain what you got wrong.
Previously I was not specifically targeting Anchorman but if you think I was, if it looked that way, so be it, it matters not a whit to me nor, would I think, to Anchorman.
I do actually understand how many Scots feel differently about the monarchy and our government & have some sympathy with their views even if I don't like how they are expressed.
End of please.
It's possible to be republican/anti-monarchist without resorting to personal venom and nicknames which are just ignorant & ill mannered. Steven H. doesn't do that & he's a republican, as are others but Stephen is an educated & cultured man so one would not expect him to resort to stupid name calling.Thanks for the compliment, but I have been known to be rude! However, I've nothing against the royals as people.
I wonder about some posters on here who seem to take a delight in being enraged at the slightest thing - which probably doesn't affect any of them personally. How childish, are they resentful and jealous I wonder. Do they automatically resent anyone (with lower profiles than the royals) who have more money and privilege than themselves.
On Saturday morning I'm going to be in work in a - relatively - poor area of Bromley, Kent, where the people will be celebrating Prince Henry's wedding & enjoying it all with absolutely no jealousy at all. I'll be proud to be amongst such people.
Good for you but tho' I've seen you bluster I've never seen you be rude. I'll take your word for it that you are sometimes.
My only objection was to people calling them "Big Ears", "Betty" and "Phil the Greek"; I was brought up not to call people by nicknames without their permission. That's extremely rude.
Don't care about anyone's views on monarchy, etc. We all vary on that issue.
So Rob, the institution of the monarchy isn't an insult to the fair minded? Fair minded, you know, the ones that think for themselves and ignore the daily overdose of pro royal propaganda.
Regards ippy
So people who are anti royal haven’t been influenced by the anti royal propaganda thatvis also in our daily papers?
This about sums up my views:Tatchell is a hero and I agree with the vast majority.
Royal wedding symbolises privilege & unequal UK. This is a private wedding. The public should not fit the bill
Commenting on Saturday’s royal wedding between Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, human rights campaigner and anti-monarchist, Peter Tatchell said:
“I wish Harry and Meghan every happiness but this is a private wedding and the public should not be picking up any of the bill. They are making it a public event and should therefore fund it out of their own pockets, like any other couple getting married.
“London LGBT Pride has to pay for road closures, policing and suspension of parking bays. So should Harry and Meghan.
“Meghan and Harry live an exceptionally privileged lifestyle, with wealth and opportunities that are denied to most young people. They have their own luxurious home and access to six royal palaces. Many people their age have no prospect of ever owning any own home.
“The royal wedding is escapist nonsense; a real-life soap opera for people who fantasise about fame, riches, status and fairy-tale romance. Good luck to Meghan and Harry but don’t expect me to fawn over them.
“Royalty is an outdated, feudal, aristocratic and anti-democratic institution that should be consigned to history. It is time we had an elected head of state, not an inherited dynastic one. Monarchism is incompatible with democracy and equal human rights,” he said.
Tatchell is a hero and I agree with the vast majority.
The failure of his last statement though can be summed up in two words:
President Farage.
I understand this to a degree, and if we were talking about a Presidential system like America or France then maybe it would be worrying.If it is purely ceremonial then reviewed status quo should surfice.
Personally I would prefer a purely ceremonial role, with the business of government left to government.
Equally there is no guarantee that somebody as repugnant as Farage could not be thrust upon us via the monarchy with much less opportunity for removal as things currently stand.
If it is purely ceremonial then reviewed status quo should surfice.
I don't understand your last sentence.
What do you mean by reviewed status quo? And how does that address the basic issue of privilege and influence gained and exerted purely by an accident of birth/history?If it is merely ceremonial then our royal family are OK for the job by mere dint of being a tourist attraction.
My last sentence looks perfectly clear to me.
But in plainer language you could potentially get a thoroughly nasty person in the royal family; they do after all have a history of this, how do you think they got to be the royal family in the first place? It certainly was not by throwing nice garden parties; who becomes monarch and who is then much more difficult to remove.
Having a presidential system means you can at least get rid of them every 5/7 years if they do turn out to be Farage.
You’ll find, Ippy, that generally those papers that are supposedly ‘pro royal’ are also the most savage. You won’t find pap shots of private moments or articles slagging off Kate’s weight or Meghan’s heritage in publications whose readership isn’t interested in the royals.
The English though, motivated by the media and press are going to sleepwalk into a constitutional crisis at the succession by inevitably wanting a vote on whether Charles should be King and then it will be Jacob Rees Mogg Lord Protector or some thing like it..
It is possible, I suppose, that public sentiment could be enlisted into the abolition of the monarchy ...
I'd sign-up for that: right now, and without hesitation.Then every five years would be like a mini Brexit while the public would try to sort out the most unsuitable article to be POTUK and then vote for them.
Then every five years would be like a mini Brexit while the public would try to sort out the most unsuitable article to be POTUK and then vote for them.
Expect Lord Buckethead to have his moment in the sun.
You’ll find, Ippy, that generally those papers that are supposedly ‘pro royal’ are also the most savage. You won’t find pap shots of private moments or articles slagging off Kate’s weight or Meghan’s heritage in publications whose readership isn’t interested in the royals.
More snouts looking for space at the trough.Worse it just shows that the HoL is something that can be made to agree with the govt. And that's leaving aside it supporting privilege across the board.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44167066