The save the wild life so that I can shoot it merchant has retired, oh wow.

[SusanDoris]

Yes, far better to continue on that 'rational' position of hereditary. That's how I choose my doctors

Non sequitur is a phrase I avoid using, just in case I mis-use it, but I think it applies to your post here!

In my opinion, there is no comparison between the choice of a doctor and the position of a Queen

[SusanDoris]

Not even sure we need a ceremonial Head of State in the first place.

No, we may not need one, but we've got one, and it works, and the events where the Queen appears are well looked forward to and enjoyed by large numbers of people always; and remembered and talked of with a smile and pleasure.  I think perhaps the right adjective for those who would turn the colour of monarchy into the monochrome of its absence, is 'killjoy'?

[SusanDoris]

And it wasn't even close, more than twice as many people wanted William rather than Charles.

But it's not going to happen that way, is it? The constitution doesn't work that way, and when Charles becomes king, everyone - okay, not the killjoys!! - will watch the Coronation , the parades, the colour and comment on the weather just as we always do. I hope I live long enough to see it, but bearing in mind the Queen's robust health, and her mother's long life, this might not be so.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, we may not need one, but we've got one, and it works, and the events where the Queen appears are well looked forward to and enjoyed by large numbers of people always; and remembered and talked of with a smile and pleasure.  I think perhaps the right adjective for those who would turn the colour of monarchy into the monochrome of its absence, is 'killjoy'?

I'm not a monarchist, but I'd accept that the Queen works. But that doesn't mean that Charles, William, George or whoever comes after them will work.

The big issue we have is that due to longevity we are going to have to accept that we will have 'future' monarchs kicking their heals waiting and waiting and waiting for the job they were 'born into' for 60 or 70 years. Reputations aren't enhanced in our media age by being perceived as a hanger on all that time - we've seen it with Charles - when he was a young man he was very popular, but his popularity has declined over the years. Sure William is currently popular but who knows what scandals etc lie in wait over the next 20 years or so that he'll be waiting for the job.

[ProfessorDavey]

But it's not going to happen that way, is it? The constitution doesn't work that way, and when Charles becomes king, everyone - okay, not the killjoys!! - will watch the Coronation , the parades, the colour and comment on the weather just as we always do. I hope I live long enough to see it, but bearing in mind the Queen's robust health, and her mother's long life, this might not be so.

But whichever way it happens will be a problem for the monarchy.

If it goes by pure inheritance and Charles becomes King then that won't be the preferred outcome of (probably) a majority of the country and their loyalty to him, and by inference the monarchy, will be diminished.

If there is a constitutional settlement that bows to public opinion and the monarchy skips a generation, then not unreasonably people will begin to ask why they don't have a greater say again in who is our head of state.

[Nearly Sane]

Non sequitur is a phrase I avoid using, just in case I mis-use it, but I think it applies to your post here!

In my opinion, there is no comparison between the choice of a doctor and the position of a Queen

Why? In what sense does inheriting the title of head of state make any rational sense?

[SusanDoris]

Why? In what sense does inheriting the title of head of state make any rational sense?

Ah, but that's just it - it doesn't have to make rational sense - but it still works!

[Nearly Sane]

Ah, but that's just it - it doesn't have to make rational sense - but it still works!

And it supports inequality, the House of Lords, the established church and bishops voting. As noted earlier your position is similar to those who supported bear baiting because people enjoyed it.

Or indeed those who support homeopathy on the NHS.

[Gordon]

Ah, but that's just it - it doesn't have to make rational sense - but it still works!

It doesn't, Susan: the monarchy/aristocracy is offensive anachronistic nonsense that we should dispose of at the earliest opportunity.

It makes as much sense as having hereditary mathematicians.

[ProfessorDavey]

Ah, but that's just it - it doesn't have to make rational sense - but it still works!

As I've said before - it only works because of the Queen.

Imagine if there is a future monarch who is bonkers - or completely uninterested in doing the job, or deeply offensive etc. Would it still work then. It only works if you are comfortable that whoever is in the role will do a good job and be acceptable to the British people. You can't be sure of that.

[Anchorman]

Well I don't agree with her being the established head of the CofE. I've no doubt she believed in it when she took her vows at her coronation but she may have changed her views since then, we can't tell.

Agree wholeheartedly with what Susan said.

As for the Queen being a 'bimbo', she is far from that. She was not academically well educated, not unusual for 'young ladies' of her era,but when she became queen she ensured she had some more education. No doubt she took her role very seriously.

One can argue tht her role is anachronistic but her dedication cannot be in doubt & she has leraned from mistakes. She's great as far as I'm concerned & when she passes it will be a sad day for England but we have hope in the form of the DUke of Cambridge & his children - by which time everything will have changed. No point in trying to prophesy about it,what will be will be.

Sorry, Robinson.
I Thought Elizabeth not-the-second was supposed to be monarch of the so-called united Kingdom, not just of England.
And what does William Mountbatten-Windsor have to do with anything?
Will we have a choicre whether we want him, Kate and the sprogs or not?

[ippy]

HH #34

Ah, very well said. 

Robinson #35

When anyone refers to, e.g. the Queen as Betty, that is to me an attempt to diminish that person, to imply that they are just run-of-the-mill and such views betray a certain amount of envy and jealousy, as well as a lack of self-esteem and a need to make others sound less worthy to boost it.
Well, it wasn't her fault the Queen was born into a family where circumstances meant that she became Queen. I admire her dedication, and life-long commitment and wouldnot take on such a job for a fortune.

. In physiological terms, they are flesh and blood like the rest of us, at their particular point in an unbroken evolutionary line and are, as such, equal to every other human being. They should not be worshipped, or one need not be humvble in their presence, but much respect is due for what they are as equal human beings doing the job they do.

[SusanDoris]

Ippy

Did you mean to post something?!!

[ippy]

It doesn't, Susan: the monarchy/aristocracy is offensive anachronistic nonsense that we should dispose of at the earliest opportunity.

It makes as much sense as having hereditary mathematicians.

"It makes as much sense as having hereditary mathematicians", Thomas Paine.

Susan why should I respect a hereditary Royal system that rather obviously doesn't respect the principle of fair play, equality or a level playing field; as I see this system, as it is at present, is due zero respect from any of us, therefore the use of Betty to describe one of the people involved within this system of granted, unwarranted favour, is hardly that's much out of order when compared to such a personal insult delivered to all of us by this system.

I find it difficult to understand your, what comes over as an almost enthusiastic further for this rotten royalist system that has zero to justify its existence as it is at present.

They are and will remain with all the respect they're due as Betty & Phill the Greek to me. 

ippy

[Robbie]

Sorry, Robinson.
I Thought Elizabeth not-the-second was supposed to be monarch of the so-called united Kingdom, not just of England.
And what does William Mountbatten-Windsor have to do with anything?
Will we have a choicre whether we want him, Kate and the sprogs or not?

Don't be sorry Anchorman, nothing to be sorry about. yes you are right, I should have said United Kingdom instead of England.

As to whether or not the people will have a choice in years to come about the monarchy I beieve if the vast majority of UK citizens want to abolish it, it will happen. At the moment he majority appear to be comfortable with it but things change & the mood of the people has to be taken into account.

As for the Queen changing her mind about being head of CofE, all I said was she might feel differently now to how she felt when she made her coronation vows but I don't know that for a fact. When she is gone and Charles succeeds, which will happen unless he pegs before her, he will probably change all that. He's already voiced opinions about it though not recently. Goodness knows what his heir believes on that score.It's something that seems anachronistic to me.

(Also I apologise for getting mixed up about the 'bimbo' comment, I only scanned that post and should have looked back and read it again before posting.)

I have no resentment towards the royals. All the money and privilege in the world would not convince me to swap places as I value my privacy too much. I've often felt sorry for them but my respect for the Queen grows because regardless of what befalls her she is able to summon the strength to carry on dutiful to the last.

Susan is right, it works because of the Queen. When she departs it may be a different story.

[SusanDoris]

"It makes as much sense as having hereditary mathematicians", Thomas Paine.

Susan why should I respect a hereditary Royal system that rather obviously doesn't respect the principle of fair play, equality or a level playing field; as I see this system, as it is at present, is due zero respect from any of us, therefore the use of Betty to describe one of the people involved within this system of granted, unwarranted favour, is hardly that's much out of order when compared to such a personal insult delivered to all of us by this system.

But I did not say you should respect the system, it is the people one should respect, and as far as the system is concerned, it functions well and there is no better system to replace it.

I find it difficult to understand your, what comes over as an almost enthusiastic further for this rotten royalist system that has zero to justify its existence as it is at present.

I'm a practical sort of person, a realist, and the available current alternatives are not better.

They are and will remain with all the respect they're due as Betty & Phill the Greek to me. 

ippy

Tell me, do you watch any of the news, events, parades, etc etc involving members of royalty?  I bet you do! Even if you walk off in high dudgeon after a few minutes!

[Gordon]

But I did not say you should respect the system, it is the people one should respect, and as far as the system is concerned, it functions well and there is no better system to replace it.

Don't replace it - just get rid.

[SusanDoris]

Just getting rid of a system such as royalty would leave a huge vacuum which something far worse would rush to fill.

[Anchorman]

Don't be sorry Anchorman, nothing to be sorry about. yes you are right, I should have said United Kingdom instead of England.

As to whether or not the people will have a choice in years to come about the monarchy I beieve if the vast majority of UK citizens want to abolish it, it will happen. At the moment he majority appear to be comfortable with it but things change & the mood of the people has to be taken into account.

As for the Queen changing her mind about being head of CofE, all I said was she might feel differently now to how she felt when she made her coronation vows but I don't know that for a fact. When she is gone and Charles succeeds, which will happen unless he pegs before her, he will probably change all that. He's already voiced opinions about it though not recently. Goodness knows what his heir believes on that score.It's something that seems anachronistic to me.

(Also I apologise for getting mixed up about the 'bimbo' comment, I only scanned that post and should have looked back and read it again before posting.)

I have no resentment towards the royals. All the money and privilege in the world would not convince me to swap places as I value my privacy too much. I've often felt sorry for them but my respect for the Queen grows because regardless of what befalls her she is able to summon the strength to carry on dutiful to the last.

Susan is right, it works because of the Queen. When she departs it may be a different story.

By the way, whatever she is, or claims to be, she is certainly not Elizabeth 'II' of what passes for a united Kingdom - 'cos there has never been an Elizabeth I of said kingdom.

[Gordon]

Just getting rid of a system such as royalty would leave a huge vacuum which something far worse would rush to fill.

Not if you don't try to fill the vacuum.

Seems to be that fans of the monarchy only offer an argument from tradition: that its 'nice to have and keep', and do so without considering the utter lunacy of what the institution of monarchy entails.

[ippy]

But I did not say you should respect the system, it is the people one should respect, and as far as the system is concerned, it functions well and there is no better system to replace it.I'm a practical sort of person, a realist, and the available current alternatives are not better.Tell me, do you watch any of the news, events, parades, etc etc involving members of royalty?  I bet you do! Even if you walk off in high dudgeon after a few minutes!

Tell me how anyone can avoid these people with all of their pomp if you live in England and no I don't watch anything anything that's put on for them, they don't do very much for themselves, I try to avoid anything that might put up my blood pressure.

In some ways this royalist syndrome resembles religious belief, why do otherwise intelligent people etc etc?

I would like to see something resembling fair play and adjustments made on the way that would in the end no longer be an insult to the intelligence of us all.

I don't watch soaps on T V either, I'm sure that is a component part of following the royals; another form of soap.   

The sooner they join the Foreign Office the better for all of us, in my opinion.

ippy

I have said it many times, bowing down to royalty is to me as though you've just caught a pick pocket, red handed, and you then bow down to them and back away gratefully from them while at the same time thanking them for bestowing the honour of them choosing your pocket to pick; being a royalist is that ridiculous to me.

ippy

[ippy]

And it supports inequality, the House of Lords, the established church and bishops voting. As noted earlier your position is similar to those who supported bear baiting because people enjoyed it.

Or indeed those who support homeopathy on the NHS.

Don't forget most of the bishops obtain a title on retirement and of course guess where do they end up?

ippy

[Sassy]

TYPICAL

At 96 he had worked bloody hard. Who is perfect hands up?  That would be no one then.
He had a difficult start in life with his mum being ill and being left to make his own way with the help of his uncle who
aided him.

Whatever you think... he had served this Country and the Monarch his wife all their married life.

It is life, he has done his part and is entitled to some retirement without the comments made by the ungrateful.

Personally, he won't care so why should you?

[Anchorman]

TYPICAL

At 96 he had worked bloody hard. Who is perfect hands up?  That would be no one then.
He had a difficult start in life with his mum being ill and being left to make his own way with the help of his uncle who
aided him.

Whatever you think... he had served this Country and the Monarch his wife all their married life.

It is life, he has done his part and is entitled to some retirement without the comments made by the ungrateful.

Personally, he won't care so why should you?

-
No-one disputes his sense of 'duty', Sass.
Or indeed his service to the monarchy.
The issue is the need for the monarchy he chose to serve.

I try not to fget personal, but I takr iit you realise that his mum was very poorly treated by 'the firm' during the years before and after the bling was crammed on his wife's head - not least dismissed by his uncle, 'kingmaker' Louis.
Oh, and it was Philip's daughter, Anne, who used that epithet, so feel free to use it yourself.

[Robbie]

When Philip married the Queen (who was not then Queen), the question of relevance of the monarchy didn't arise that often. As an institution, the popularity of the monarchy goes up and down. At the moment it is not too bad while the Queen lives.

Agree with Sassy that it is quite fair for theDuke of Edinburgh to retire at his age, he's done his bit.

(Prince Philip's mother was a heroic woman prepared to help others who were hiding from persecution at the expense of her own liberty.
It was the Queen who insisted she be brought to England to be safe and looked after and she stayed here for the rest of her life quite happily, well regarded by her family. It's an interesting story that we don't hear enough about.)