Queen Elizabeth has passed away.

[Terry - Somerset]

Definition of a Republic:

a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

Republics, with elected heads of state, have produced (amongst others) Trump, Berlusiconi, Mugabi, Hitler, Bolsonaro.

This excludes heads of state initially assuming power by corrupt or violent means. Those initially elected often maintain position through corrupt and violent methods.

The ability of the general public to elect honest, competent and worthy leaders is questionable, even in a "proper" democracy. The ambition of those wanting election fills campaigns with half-truths and undeliverable promises which the electorate unthinkingly embrace.

A hereditary largely ceremonial head of state which has little or no power (like ours) may have much to commend it. Similarly a democratically elected House of Lords (whose remit needs reforming) risks simply mirroring a somewhat dysfunctional House of Commons.

Be careful what you wish for!!

 

[AJB Temple]

There is definite merit in what you say Terry. History suggests Kings and Queens have abused power too. I'm not to fussed about whether we have a monarchy or not really, but I do think it should be greatly toned down and made far less ostentatious.

However you look at it, it makes no logical sense for a man or woman born from womb x to be automatically more privileged than someone from womb y. There is no great merit to the system and through pure accident of birth we could end up with some rather unintelligent people being bowed and scraped to.

In practice I suspect Charles may have had a more useful voice as PoW than he will have as monarch. He is by many reports a petulant and entitled man, but he has also expressed views on the environment, food production, farming generally and even architecture that have merit. In many ways he has led debate on some of these issues, whereas his mother was mainly known for her interest in horses and dogs, and for presiding over a protracted period when Britain has declined sharply in international power and status. She may have "ruled" for a long time, but it is difficult for me anyway to think of much that she delivered that benefited the nation or her (ridiculous word) "subjects". Perhaps that is the point - just a totemic figure representing history and past greatness.

 

[Spectric]

However you look at it, it makes no logical sense for a man or woman born from womb x to be automatically more privileged than someone from womb y.

Can you really believe that the royal line is actually unbroken, an awful lot of them were far from being angels and I bet many a dabble on the side resulted in a kid from the lower ranks.

 

[Jacob]

Definition of a Republic:

a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

Republics, with elected heads of state, have produced (amongst others) Trump, Berlusiconi, Mugabi, Hitler, Bolsonaro.

Our monarchy has produced Johnson, Truss, Thatcher, amongst many other disasters.

Be careful what you wish for!!

Exactly.
But what the monarchy does more than anything else is to establish as a part of government, perpetuate, represent, the land owning oligarchy and organised wealth, which effectively rules us and controls our lives - not to mention their history of colonialism, exploitation, slavery, the wars fought on their behalf to protect their assets, and so on.
How do you sharpen a guillotine?
PS "The divine right of kings" still with us as the divine right of landowners - with all that fancy dress, parades, rituals, as a distraction from the real issues.

 

[Marc Shaw]

Our monarchy has produced Johnson, Truss, Thatcher, amongst many other disasters.

How do you sharpen a guillotine?

With a nice rough toothy edge

 

[Spectric]

@Jacob that is a line up fit for the rogues gallery, but I still say a clown was at least funny compared to the others, Truss so worships the thatcher years and still praises the clown but unless you are a BIG earner and have money then you will be paying dearly, all her ideas benefit the higher earners like NI and corporation tax. I think we should look back and see how legitimate the monarchs land ownership really is, I think a lot was illegally seized in the past from people just because they were nolonger in favour.

 

[AJB Temple]

Can you really believe that the royal line is actually unbroken, an awful lot of them were far from being angels and I bet many a dabble on the side resulted in a kid from the lower ranks.

I never said it was unbroken. We do not need to go further back than the present king and his first wife to discover serial adultery. It is one of the reasons why it is logically difficult to accept moralistic viewpoints from leaders who are happy to set aside their own solemn vows when it suits them.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

it's stuff like this that gets me -
Immunity from Planning Law

The Duchy of Cornwall is to all practical intents and purposes immune from any planning control whatsoever. This power is relatively new, granted partly in 1990, partly in 2008, and partly in 2011.

The two main acts governing planning control are the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the Planning Act 2008. Some breaches of planning law are criminal offences, and the Acts grant powers to the planning authorities to enforce planning decisions. Unless, that is, the offender is the Duchy of Cornwall, (or Lancaster, and the Crown Lands)

• s.296A(1) of the 1990 Act prevents the Duke from ever committing a planning related offence under that Act.
• S.296A(5) makes it impossible for the Duke to ever be sued for planning reasons under the Act, or for any entry to Duchy lands to ever take place without his permission. The planning authorities are, however, permitted to ask him not to break the law.
• ss.135 and 228 of the 2008 Act apply the same principles to that Act. However, unlike the 1990 act, if the Duke breaks the law under the 2008 Act, the planning authorities are not permitted to ask him not to do so unless he agrees to let them ask him! Even if he agrees to let them ask him not to break the law, he still can break the law unless he agrees not to!.
• s.117 Localism Act 2011 allows the planning authorities to charge landowners for the costs of planning decisions. S.118 exempts the Duchy of Cornwall (and other Crown Land) from such charges.

These are entirely brand new powers conferred on the Duchy in the last few years by the current and recent governments, with no reference whatsoever to ancient rights or powers. They are not feudal remnants.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Just to demonstrate that the capacity for scandal is completely apolitical - it is mainly a function of who is in power at the time. That Labour feature little in the last 12 years is a testimony to opposition status, not the virtues of socialism.

Scandals

Worth remembering that (for many) Blair was the architect of the (probably) fraudulent weapons of mass destruction ploy, arguably leading to the death of millions in the middle east, and Brown for leading the country into financial meltdown having spent all the money.

 

[Jacob]

Just to demonstrate that the capacity for scandal is completely apolitical - it is mainly a function of who is in power at the time. That Labour feature little in the last 12 years is a testimony to opposition status, not the virtues of socialism.

It's possible to behave scandalously even when in opposition

Scandals

Worth remembering that (for many) Blair was the architect of the (probably) fraudulent weapons of mass destruction ploy, arguably leading to the death of millions in the middle east,

I agree

and Brown for leading the country into financial meltdown having spent all the money.

Not so - he is widely credited with positive action The weekend Gordon Brown saved the banks from the abyss

 

[AJB Temple]

Indeed. It is in many ways naive and ridiculous for the media and public to expect anyone to be perfect at all times. It is part of the human make up that people tell lies (it's just a matter of degree), do self serving things, favour their families and friends, have sexual affairs (and try to hide them), steal (time, stationery, paper clips and much bigger stuff - dishonesty is a matter of degree too). We have far too much prurient interest in peoples private lives, we are quick to seek and allocate blame, and we are too judgemental. But we can't help it.

A large part of our present population do not believe in the existence of god. This is logically an anti monarchistic position if royalty have some divine right to rule. Large swathes of society claim to believe in a variety of different gods depending on their personal flavour of faith. Charles has now apparently decided to be defender of faiths rather than "the" faith. This is either pragmatism, naivety or a desire to maximise his potential support base and any of these positions can be rationally argued, especially if you believe in one or more supreme beings.

One of our near neighbours has two small children of about 8 and 6. There was a debate alongside our fish pond a few days go post demise of E II. The children were discussing where the queen was now. The elder child, a girl was of the view that when people die they are just a body in a box and that there is no god or afterlife or anything else. Her brother peddled the school line that QE II had gone to heaven and was now with her husband and god. His sister said there was no proof of any of this and it is all total nonsense. The young man sought guidance from his mother who is a lawyer and tends to favour actual evidence. She adroitly avoided further debate by asking the children how deep they think the pond is.

I kept right out of it. Probably I will repent on my death bed. Seems to be a low risk strategy at that point.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Fidei Defensor. Defender of faith, not the faith. No definite article in Latin.

 

[Scarlet Lancer]

The basic lack of respect and common courtesy to be found on this thread
is very sad indeed. I would have expected more, considering this forum's
demographic.
Really very disappointing behaviour.

I fully uphold your comment. How many do not remember when the joined the armed forces, the Police force, Boy Scouts, Guides and countless others who swore their oath of allegiance to the Oueen her heirs and successors without fear or favour. The royal family are a massive part of these United Kingdom’s. They are all covered by the privy purse BUT the amount the Royal family earns for the Nation far out weighs the expenditure. These are people, Families with loved ones and feelings that we all have. Ok they live a very different life stile than most of us. Those of you who have no time for Royalty, fine you have that right in our free Nation but keep your thoughts to your private time and do not use that sort of thoughts, heckling and placards while they mourn their mother, sister, grandparents etc give sympathy. If you have to appeal to your councillor, Members of Parliament that would be the correct way to express your view.

Michael (a Royalis)

 

[redefined_cycles]

Versailles is a bigger tourist attraction and the French had the sense to get rid of their monarchy.

Maybe in the spirit of honesty and modernity Charles will end the Monarchy's exemption from the F.O.I. act? I won't be holding my breath, though.

Oh, wow... Didn't know that Phil. Thanks for sharing... Good way to keep the class system alive I guess and keep splashing our taxes on their Bentleys and Rolls.

One thing I was particularly grieved about was (HRH) the Queen helping out the chap that was accused of (I'll not add any descriptor here but you know what I mean) to buy his way out of trouble.

Very sad indeed and for those (sorry, I really can't help saying this) who go on about, well if you don't like it then go back home. I guess I'm one of them that people could potentially point that finger at. I'm of Pakistani origin. My grandad came (was invited) over in the 50s and then my dad came over when he was about 10.

My dad worked in industry all his life as did my grandad - well, my dad until his knee finally gave in and then the kids had to help support etc as he wasn't eligible for any benefits as such and the pension age kept getting pushed forward.

I've worked ever since I was about 15 or 16 and paid taxes since I was about 19. A brief stint in between when I was out of a job for maybe 8 months - enough to learn my NI off by heart. When Covid hit I shaved off my (muslim) beard as saving life as a muslim is part of what the Quran teaches us. Then to allow my beard (of 20 years) to grow back and the fact that the hospital wasn't providing air powered respirators (to work on ICU) I sold my carbon bike and bought the only respirator on the country at the time.

3M were at the time with a backlog of about a million units worldwide so couldn't fulfill demand. I therefore paid about £900 for my respirator and finally when Covid calmed down I put in a claim to try and get back my tax paid on it from my yearly expense claim (as a nurse). Conservatives got back to me (though I doubt it would have been different from Labour) saying they wouldn't be allowing any relief on the tax paid for the respirator as the NHS was/should have supplied it at the time.

The wording of the letter was slightly threatening so I just smiled and continued. Slightly sad but that's life for us folk that don't live in 'high castles'...

 

[Jacob]

Being well spoken of with respect to NI agreement. Pity Boris came along to undo the good work

 

[thetyreman]

the team who write the TV show 'the windsors' are going to be having a great time, hope it gets another series!

 

[Jonzjob]

You'll need to shift this to controversial topics before I give my opinion on the monarchy. Sorry.

Pray tell just what is controversial about this post? Unless the controvisity just rest in your mind.

I would suggest that if you don't want to upset a number of people then just go away from this thread.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Cold up there on the high ground, is it?

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I the amount the Royal family earns for the Nation far out weighs the expenditure.

That is pure speculation.

 

[redefined_cycles]

Since this thread has increasingly (which I appreciate was not intended by the original poster) become a bit of a slanging match (mainly at Phil which I find totally incorrect as there was nothing offensive in his supposedly offensive statement). I really think this clip from Novara Media probably belongs here.

Relates to the idiotic coverage by the BBC -

Once again, no offense to anyone (nor the Royals or anyone here or the lovers or the haters) and hopefully this thread will slowly become more and more civilised