NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4738740.stm


As his kingship approaches more and more influential voices are questioning his suitability for this unique role in British democracy. Until recently, the accepted view was that the Prince would modify his behaviour a bit once he became Monarch. Can we be so sure?


What do you think?

No, let's become a republic.

What does the King of England do again?

No, let's become a republic.

No. Keep the monarchy a constitutional one.

Let's just make him abdicate his rights and claim to the thrown if favour of Will.

hey. Really funny joke I heard when charles got married to Camilla. If they didn't reschedule the darby, then mix the two shows up...

"Here comes Charles Windsor riding that really fast but ugly horse, Camilla Parker-Whatever."

fuck monarchys. if he's entirely inept, maybe that'll be a good thing.

Good lord yes, the man has the temerity to express an opinion, in a stat purpotedly pervaded by free speech, and he is castigated. Whyever could this be, because he is royal and accordingly not allowed to support the natural party of his class of society for fear of weakening Labour? And who deplores him the most, the Sun.:rolleyes:

fuck monarchys. if he's entirely inept, maybe that'll be a good thing.

As long as the monarchy dosn't try to reclaim the powers ceded to the population the monarchy's a boost for our society.

They're very good for tourism, and it gives some people something to obsess about.

No, let's become a republic.

I agree, but until that happens, why should anyone be constitutionally bared from having and voicing an opinion?? The constitution infringes on his democratic rights!!

I agree, but until that happens, why should anyone be constitutionally barred from having and voicing an opinion?? The constitution infringes on his democratic rights!!

No, no, no. Becoming a republic would only deflate our tourist industry. We might as well keep them as pets. But I say we flush the runt of the litter down the toilet.

Kepp the monarchy constitutional. And get rid of 'lilibets' right to dissolve parliament.

Scrap the monarchy already!

Good lord yes, the man has the temerity to express an opinion, in a stat purpotedly pervaded by free speech, and he is castigated. Whyever could this be, because he is royal and accordingly not allowed to support the natural party of his class of society for fear of weakening Labour? And who deplores him the most, the Sun.:rolleyes:


I think it is the fact that he seeks to enter public debate on his own terms that irritates people the most, i.e. he expresses his views and then won't submit to any kind of scrutiny or discussion of these opinions.

The monarch is supposed to remain above politics and in this respect the Queen has fared well. If the head of state is supposed to 'represent' Britain then it cannot be argued that it is acceptable for such a person to routinely express political (small 'p' actually, this isn't a new labour conspiracy) opinions that could have consequences for the nation as a whole.

No, no, no. Becoming a republic would only deflate our tourist industry. We might as well keep them as pets. But I say we flush the runt of the litter down the toilet.

Kepp the monarchy constitutional. And get rid of 'lilibets' right to dissolve parliament.

I've never heard of lilibets right, but that's why the crown is stupid, besides being a bunch of tax sucking leaches the crown does have some power.. and even if those powers are extreme to the point of being unweildable they can still threaten and posture with it and that's often good enough.

Scrap the monarchy already!

Again for reasons I have stated NO! It would deflate the tourist industry, and with that little supplement gone taxes would rise inflicting a burden on the public. Just get rid of the queen's right to dissolve parliament, restrict their spending and bam. We have a tottaly effective monarchy that really no-one except fanatics give a damn about.

I've never heard of lilibets right, but that's why the crown is stupid, besides being a bunch of tax sucking leaches the crown does have some power.. and even if those powers are extreme to the point of being unweildable they can still threaten and posture with it and that's often good enough.

Lilibet is the queens nickname. It comes from when she first tried to pronounce her name. Elizabeth, Lilibet and so forth.

If we could restrict their spending and withdraw their right to dissolve parliament, and flush Charles the runt down the toilet, then we have a monarchy that is bringing in money from the tourist industry. Get rid of that and the tax burden on the people increases.

Lilibet is the queens nickname. It comes from when she first tried to pronounce her name. Elizabeth, Lilibet and so forth.



tsk... everyone knows the Queen's nickname is Brenda

I think it is the fact that he seeks to enter public debate on his own terms that irritates people the most, i.e. he expresses his views and then won't submit to any kind of scrutiny or discussion of these opinions.

The monarch is supposed to remain above politics and in this respect the Queen has fared well. If the head of state is supposed to 'represent' Britain then it cannot be argued that it is acceptable for such a person to routinely express political (small 'p' actually, this isn't a new labour conspiracy) opinions that could have consequences for the nation as a whole.

I am aware that a constitutional monarch ought to be essentialy apolitical, at least in public, however people have been aware, and if they haven't, then they ought to have been, that the royal family are inherently right wing. Were Charles to be monarch, I would contend he ought to have been compelled to be silent, however since he is but heir to the throne at present, I percieve no problem in his sentiments, nor their expression.

Moreover, I refer once more to the essence of my original post, the right wing media have utterly disregarded the issue, it is only the left (Sun, Guradian, Observer et al) that have maginified and deplored the issue, as have the Labour party.

tsk... everyone knows the Queen's nickname is Brenda

MmmHmm.

Will for king!

I am aware that a constitutional monarch ought to be essentialy apolitical, at least in public, however people have been aware, and if they haven't, then they ought to have been, that the royal family are inherently right wing. Were Charles to be monarch, I would contend he ought to have been compelled to be silent, however since he is but heir to the throne at present, I percieve no problem in his sentiments, nor their expression.

Moreover, I refer once more to the essence of my original post, the right wing media have utterly disregarded the issue, it is only the left (Sun, Guradian, Observer et al) that have maginified and deplored the issue, as have the Labour party.


But you have indicated that you believe he should behave exactly as he does now once he becomes King. Contradictory no?

And now I shall take a quick break to laugh at your considered political classification of Britains best-selling newspaper.

Erm, the Sun is the most right-wing tabloid of all. Why else do you think they back Tony Blair? Are you even aware of who owns the Sun?

But you have indicated that you believe he should behave exactly as he does now once he becomes King. Contradictory no?

And now I shall take a quick break to laugh at your considered political classification of Britains best-selling newspaper.

Erm, the Sun is the most right-wing tabloid of all. Why else do you think they back Tony Blair? Are you even aware of who owns the Sun?

I was more portraying the party affiliations of the Sun, since they have supported Labour since 1997, irrespective of the "alignment" of either the owner, who ought to shoot himself for producing such bilge, or jug ears himself.

As for Charles' conduct as monarch, personally I would love for him to continue to deplore and lambast the left, however, I am aware that it is in contravention of his constitutional vocation.

But you have indicated that you believe he should behave exactly as he does now once he becomes King. Contradictory no?

And now I shall take a quick break to laugh at your considered political classification of Britains best-selling newspaper.

Erm, the Sun is the most right-wing tabloid of all. Why else do you think they back Tony Blair? Are you even aware of who owns the Sun?

Terry Kavagnah?

They seems quite left-wing actually. I think tony Blair has no right calling Cameron flip flopping when he decideds he's going left.

The Sun is right wing?..... shit, you ol' boys don't even know.......

The Sun is right wing?..... shit, you ol' boys don't even know.......

The sun just follows whoever praises it the most. It's not who they think is better for the readers, it's who they thinks better for commercial expansion.

I was more portraying the party affiliations of the Sun, since they have supported Labour since 1997, irrespective of the "alignment" of either the owner, who ought to shoot himself for producing such bilge, or jug ears himself.

Bullshit, don't try to dig yourself out of this. The Sun would return to the Tories in a minute if Tony Blair stopped pursuing right-of-centre policies.

In fact they probably will abandon Brown if Cameron has made the Party more like a winner by the next election.

Bullshit, don't try to dig yourself out of this. The Sun would return to the Tories in a minute if Tony Blair stopped pursuing right-of-centre policies.

In fact they probably will abandon Brown if Cameron has made the Party more like a winner by the next election.

They follow the winners dosn't it seem?


And if it turned out George Galloway was going to win the next election, they'd probably say they were having a bit of harmless fun and that he's the best thing since new coke.

Terry Kavagnah?



Try Rupert Murdoch, also owner of Fox News.

Try Rupert Murdoch, also owner of Fox News.

Since I'm not an american, Fox is republican or democrat? And it's the opposite of CNN right?

Bullshit, don't try to dig yourself out of this. The Sun would return to the Tories in a minute if Tony Blair stopped pursuing right-of-centre policies.

In fact they probably will abandon Brown if Cameron has made the Party more like a winner by the next election.

Nope. The Sun is the tome of the common man, and it accordingly follows the sentiments of the "silent majority".

What does the King of England do again?
That's what I want to know.

Fox News is right wing.

The Sun is right wing, but not the most right wing paper. It only supports Tony Balir because he supports right of centre policies that Murdoch approves of.

Getting rid of the monarchy wouldnt screw tourism. People come to see the palaces and historical sites, not to see the queen herself (I guess maybe excepting those huge shows of pangentry she gets involved in). We can maintain those sites (and even the events tied into them) while pushing the royal family off to live in sheltered housing (as they have little chance of looking after themselves sensibly, and we cant just let them die on the streets. Well, at least I am not that harsh).

Then we would save millions of pounds, and not lose any tourist revenues.

Oh, and Charles is a pillock. As are his sons, so I wouldnt trust them with the throne either.

That's what I want to know.

Well unless the queens in drag then:
Spend a lot of money on frivolous things,
increase the amount of money spent in the tourist industry,
and dissolve and open parliament

Sated?

Nope. The Sun is the tome of the common man, and it accordingly follows the sentiments of the "silent majority".


'the silent majority'

i.e. not exactly left-wing, perhaps not your considered brand of respectable Tory pomp but the sort that has got your heroes elected before.

Fox News is right wing.

The Sun is right wing, but not the most right wing paper. It only supports Tony Balir because he supports right of centre policies that Murdoch approves of.

Getting rid of the monarchy wouldnt screw tourism. People come to see the palaces and historical sites, not to see the queen herself (I guess maybe excepting those huge shows of pangentry she gets involved in). We can maintain those sites (and even the events tied into them) while pushing the royal family off to live in sheltered housing (as they have little chance of looking after themselves sensibly, and we cant just let them die on the streets. Well, at least I am not that harsh).

Then we would save millions of pounds, and not lose any tourist revenues.


If we restricted them to abudget then they'd probably die out. :rolleyes: Idea...

We could put them in a rescue shelter...


And besides, the royal family helps the tourist industry with souvenirs because would you rather buy a plate with buckingham palace on, or buckingham palace and the queen? Painted that is.

Since I'm not an american, Fox is republican or democrat? And it's the opposite of CNN right?

Fox is just bat fucking crazy propigandic bullshit.

Fox is just bat fucking crazy propigandic bullshit.

And that answers my question how?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4738740.stm


As his kingship approaches more and more influential voices are questioning his suitability for this unique role in British democracy. Until recently, the accepted view was that the Prince would modify his behaviour a bit once he became Monarch. Can we be so sure?


What do you think?
Hmm. Well since every GBer to whom I've talked says that the Monarch is a purely figurehead position, I don't see why Charles would be disqualified in any way. :confused:

Hmm. Well since every GBer to whom I've talked says that the Monarch is a purely figurehead position, I don't see why Charles would be disqualified in any way. :confused:

Essentially because a "figurehead" monarch, in the British sense, is required to be apolitical or the left claims injustice.

'the silent majority'

i.e. not exactly left-wing, perhaps not your considered brand of respectable Tory pomp but the sort that has got your heroes elected before.

Depressing really, if the constituency boundaries were entirely equaly, not arranged by Blair to make the ratio of Urban to Rural constituencues 10:1, we could disregard them since rural Britain is generically and entirely Tory.

Hmm. Well since every GBer to whom I've talked says that the Monarch is a purely figurehead position, I don't see why Charles would be disqualified in any way. :confused:

because he only used Diana for heirs to the throne?

Personally charles should give up his claim and pass it on to wills, the rightful heir to the throne.

The Sun is right wing, but not the most right wing paper. It only supports Tony Balir because he supports right of centre policies that Murdoch approves of.


I agree, I feel I exaggerated when I said it was the most right-wing tabloid, possibly due to my shock at it being described as being of the left.

The Mail and the Express can fight over that particular honour.

Incidentally, I think it is the Mail's parent company that is in court opposing Charles over these diaries. That hardly supports TBC's claim that the right-wing papers are not making an issue out of these matters.

And that answers my question how?

ohkay... there right wing (at times right of the GOP) bat fucking crazy propigandic bullshit.

Ever see the "Daily Show"?... it's a satarical news show that considers Fox News to be direct competition. And Fox thinks that they are real news. There was this thing with the American Civil Libertys Union, they sued some school for mandating prayer, Fox News reports "ACLU sues school inorder to PROHIBIT prayer", then some other school ban prayer for fear of getting sued by the ACLU because of the bullshit Fox News report and Fox News reports "school ban's prayer for fear of ACLU reprisal" when infact it should say "school ban's prayer as result of Fox News fear mongering"... so on and so forth, I don't watch them all that much....

Hmm. Well since every GBer to whom I've talked says that the Monarch is a purely figurehead position, I don't see why Charles would be disqualified in any way. :confused:
And it is funny that all the statements he made about the environment about fifteen years ago are now turning up in all the major parties policies. Funny that considering the hammering the rags and ill-educated under researched plebs gave him for stating his views.

Could it be that he is a well educated, well meaning man who on occasions forgets that the public now think (because the papers tell them to) he should not have any views or opinions of his own.

Could it be that people actually believe the Royal family are a net drain on the resources of the UK and they have not actually seen the figures.

Fair enough if you have objections to an inherited figure head but are there any better alternatives? Do we want a position that can only be attained by the rich? As per the US presidency?

And remember as a subject of the UK you do not have the choice and discussion of alternatives can be seen as treason.

Cool, almost 50% of posters say monarchy should be scrapped. Now there's an option I can cheer for.

Cool, almost 50% of posters say monarchy should be scrapped. Now there's an option I can cheer for.

Can't we just take away what little powers they still have and restrict their spending? They'd either stop the monarchy or carry on.

48% of those asked said the sky should be green.
There is no choice of King, you have one and accept the one you get, or you scrap the whole idea.
Then you can go for the modern altrnatives, like Stalin, Hitler, Sadam, Musolinin, Pinochet etc

Can't we just take away what little powers they still have and restrict their spending? They'd either stop the monarchy or carry on.


We should certainly do that first. I was in two minds at whether to vote for scrapping the monarchy or for the 'mouth shut' option.

The last thing I would want is for the foundation of a republic to be rushed.

Can't we just take away what little powers they still have and restrict their spending? They'd either stop the monarchy or carry on.
Yes and the Queen could stop handing back all the money she gets from land rents etc etc, which is normally several million more than the civil list.

Did you know housing benefit fraud cost more in a month than the royal family do each year?

That legal aid costs several times as much again.

That MP's cost more in expenses than the royal family?

I think there are a few plumper targets that should be getting attention.

Yes and the Queen could stop handing back all the money she gets from land rents etc etc, which is normally several million more than the civil list.

Make it compulsory for her to give us the money? Or we could threaten the corgi's...

Yes and the Queen could stop handing back all the money she gets from land rents etc etc, which is normally several million more than the civil list.

The Crown Estates are not the property of the Queen - they are the property of the Crown, i.e. the office of the head of state.

It that particular office were abolished or replaced, the ownership of these estates would be re-assigned to the state; it would not under any realistic circumstances be turned over into the private ownership of the Windsor family.

Therefore your point is invalid.

I am aware that a constitutional monarch ought to be essentialy apolitical, at least in public, however people have been aware, and if they haven't, then they ought to have been, that the royal family are inherently right wing. Were Charles to be monarch, I would contend he ought to have been compelled to be silent, however since he is but heir to the throne at present, I percieve no problem in his sentiments, nor their expression.

Moreover, I refer once more to the essence of my original post, the right wing media have utterly disregarded the issue, it is only the left (Sun, Guradian, Observer et al) that have maginified and deplored the issue, as have the Labour party.

The monarch is supposed to remain above politics and in this respect the Queen has fared well. If the head of state is supposed to 'represent' Britain then it cannot be argued that it is acceptable for such a person to routinely express political (small 'p' actually, this isn't a new labour conspiracy) opinions that could have consequences for the nation as a whole.

Pardon me but...what a load of absolute, unadulterated, unwashed BOLLOCKS!

The Monarch ISN'T just the head of state, he or she is also the head of GOVERNMENT. It is only through the sheer incompetence of the current Monarch and her immediate predecessors that the House of Commons has gained it's damaging and ill-considered monopoly on political power, a monopoly that makes the Prime Minister a dictator in all but name.

One of the reasons the current establishment dislikes Charles is that he represents a power base they can neither control nor dismiss. Charles, I suspect, will not accept the gelded state of the monarchy, nor the gilded cage of the throne - I believe he will assert some of the powers of the Monarchy, such as refusing to sign legislation into law.

Then the fecal matter will hit the rotary air impeller. Whoever is PM will find that there is no appeal past that decision - and I am quite certain that the courts will find in the crown's favour. Because all of that power that the crown has traditionally given up was done so by unwritten agreement.

In law, what is unwritten, by and large, is non-existent.

Can't we just take away what little powers they still have and restrict their spending? They'd either stop the monarchy or carry on.

The existance of monarchy is at total odds with my principles. It isn't simply a matter of reforming an inherently flawed institution.

The Monarch ISN'T just the head of state, he or she is also the head of GOVERNMENT. It is only through the sheer incompetence of the current Monarch and her immediate predecessors that the House of Commons has gained it's damaging and ill-considered monopoly on political power, a monopoly that makes the Prime Minister a dictator in all but name.


The House of Commons, however flawed, is the presently the only legitimate, i.e. elected, democratic authority in Government. That is why it has been able to consolidate power without meaningful opposing protest. The system requires large scale reform, not winding the clock back



One of the reasons the current establishment dislikes Charles is that he represents a power base they can neither control nor dismiss. Charles, I suspect, will not accept the gelded state of the monarchy, nor the gilded cage of the throne - I believe he will assert some of the powers of the Monarchy, such as refusing to sign legislation into law.


If Charles were to behave in such a foolish way he would bring himself and the monarchy crashing down around his, erm, ears. The population would simply not accept such a situation in modern times.



Then the fecal matter will hit the rotary air impeller. Whoever is PM will find that there is no appeal past that decision - and I am quite certain that the courts will find in the crown's favour. Because all of that power that the crown has traditionally given up was done so by unwritten agreement.


This 'unwritten' agreement is entirely conditional upon the monarch knowing their place. A monarch will not rock the boat because inducing sort of change to the status quo would be likely to ultimately damage the position of the Crown, not re-empower it.

The House of Commons, however flawed, is the presently the only legitimate, i.e. elected, democratic authority in Government.

A government need be neither elected nor democratic to be legitimate. Legitimacy is provided by the belief of the people that it is right, nothing else. And I can certainly see Charles being far more acceptable to the general populace than, say, another John Major.

If Charles were to behave in such a foolish way he would bring himself and the monarchy crashing down around his, erm, ears. The population would simply not accept such a situation in modern times.

Why not? Especially if Charles went before the people and explained his reasons for doing it, e.g. curbing the power of the House of Commons? I think a lot of people could go for that, and Charles has both the on-screen presence and the gravitas to pull it off.

This 'unwritten' agreement is entirely conditional upon the monarch knowing their place. A monarch will not rock the boat because inducing sort of change to the status quo would be likely to ultimately damage the position of the Crown, not re-empower it.

Maybe. But in the long term, under the current system, the monarchy has no future at all. If Charles does nothing, then either he or his son will be the last King of England, Great Britain, Australia, Canada and the Commonwealth, a fate I do not believe he desires.

Charles won't be a bad King he will probably say and do some stupid things but he tends to keep quite and know how far he can push his luck

he is also the rightful successor to the throne so it would be wrong to deny it

Its something of a moot point anyway. The queen is in perfect health and if genetics is any indicator she will live another couple decades at least. Her mother lived to what, 103?

Its something of a moot point anyway. The queen is in perfect health and if genetics is any indicator she will live another couple decades at least. Her mother lived to what, 103?

101, but she had pretty much led a life of leisure since her early fifties; and she was never the actual Queen anyway.

The Queen, meanwhile, has fulfilled a fairly demanding role for over half a century and consequently probably won't last as long.

Charles should certainly become King, as he is the rightful heir. I do believe he should still be able to express his views as he wants as well.
I think that Charles is essentially a good man, and one who does often speak with intelligence on various matters. The work of the Prince's Trust and his other charity work is very commendable I think.
I do not see why so many are opposed to him. People often complain "what does the monarchy do anyway?", and then when someone from the royal family actually does do something, people complain again.
The notion that William should take the throne instead of Charles is absurd.
The few powers of the Monarch left should not be diminished either, as it is another of the checks we have in the UK on the power of the prime minister.

Who cares? As long as we earn millions threw tourism etc, he's hardly going to mess up. Not like he has any real power. I dont know why they should be scrapped. They earn alot more than they spend.

He's next in line... he should be king. And as the royal family has no REAL power, I don't see why it should matter what the prince (or king) thinks.
Let him ramble on about communists and the Chinese...
I don't think anyone in the world will take him overly seriously, anyway.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4738740.stm


As his kingship approaches more and more influential voices are questioning his suitability for this unique role in British democracy. Until recently, the accepted view was that the Prince would modify his behaviour a bit once he became Monarch. Can we be so sure?


What do you think?

I think the behaviour of Charles, Camilla, Diana when alive etc etc etc is generally irrelevant to the proper question - Should we have a monarch?, to which i answer no.

However, in this case, as he was blatantly overextending himself and interfering with the elected representatives of the land, his behaviour does become an issue. What gives this lunk-eared, inbred, failed middle-brow "thinker" the right to interfere with the government elected by myself and my countrymen? Nothing bar the vagina he entered the world through.

Scrap the whole mess. Now.

Who cares? As long as we earn millions threw tourism etc, he's hardly going to mess up. Not like he has any real power. I dont know why they should be scrapped. They earn alot more than they spend.

Number 1 tourist attraction in Europe?
Versailles.

We don't need the monarchy for tourism, all we need is all that wonderful quaint heritage they come packed in. We can keep the box and chuck away the rather dubious contents.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4738740.stm


As his kingship approaches more and more influential voices are questioning his suitability for this unique role in British democracy. Until recently, the accepted view was that the Prince would modify his behaviour a bit once he became Monarch. Can we be so sure?


What do you think?

Chucky the Tampon is a joke. He belongs in a Monty Python film, not on the throne. And don't even get started on that bovine skank he dumped Diana for!

William or some other royal should be given a chance to restore order. If he fails, it may be time to scrap the monarchy altogether.

A government need be neither elected nor democratic to be legitimate.


It does in a developed, civilised state in the 21st Century.



Legitimacy is provided by the belief of the people that it is right, nothing else.


And the majority of people believe nowadays that it is right that actual political power is only held by elected officials



And I can certainly see Charles being far more acceptable to the general populace than, say, another John Major.


I can't; at least not as a head of governent who wields actual political power. However weak a potential prime minister or president, the public must always be assured of the fact that the leader's tenure is a) temporary and b) in some measure influenced by themselves



Why not? Especially if Charles went before the people and explained his reasons for doing it, e.g. curbing the power of the House of Commons? I think a lot of people could go for that, and Charles has both the on-screen presence and the gravitas to pull it off.


Many people would support curbing the power of the House of Commons but I think it is a stretch to assume that most people would accept the monarch carrying out this function. A more powerful yet elected Upper House and a separated judiciary would be likely to be more popular measures. You may admire Charles, I think you will find that he lacks a similar level of support amongst the general population, even amongst those who nominally support the monarchy.



Maybe. But in the long term, under the current system, the monarchy has no future at all. If Charles does nothing, then either he or his son will be the last King of England, Great Britain, Australia, Canada and the Commonwealth, a fate I do not believe he desires.

I agree, the monarchy's days are numbered. It is the manner and timing of its exit which is still under question.

Maybe not.
I think he should be King though.
At one time he had what it took, but so many peeps put him down I think he may himself agree that he should not be.
He could do the job, doubtless and indeed well.

God save the Queen, god save the future King, god save Prince Charles

I hate the monarchy. For reasons why, watch Monty Python's "The Holy Grail"

Chucky the Tampon is a joke. He belongs in a Monty Python film, not on the throne. And don't even get started on that bovine skank he dumped Diana for!

William or some other royal should be given a chance to restore order. If he fails, it may be time to scrap the monarchy altogether.
It's called love.
I doubt you know the meaning of the word. Edward did.

God save the Queen.

I hate the monarchy. For reasons why, watch Monty Python's "The Holy Grail"
Errr? That's like saying " I hate America, for reasons why, watch Sesame Street"
Double errrr on you too....crazy crazy crazy

It's called love.
I doubt you know the meaning of the word. Edward did.

God save the Queen.

"Love" is not part of his job description. And Edward had the decency to abdicate.

The Beatles were wrong, the Stones were right. It's not "All You Need Is Love," it's "You Can't Always Get What You Want".

Since I'm not an american, Fox is republican or democrat? And it's the opposite of CNN right?

FOX represents the Neo-con wing of the Republican party. This is different from conservatism in that while American conservatives support lowering taxes and spending so that the government won't waste money, the Neo-con's support wasting money and lowering taxes so that the government will be crippled and have no power over the rich, like Murdoch.

It is not the opposite of CNN. When Ted Turner started CNN he had the hopes of starting an American news agency that was the equal of the BBC. A world-wide independent news source. Then he sold it to AOL and it became a less insane version of FOX.

FOX at the time had a revolutionary business model for a news agency. It did away with actual investigation and research, which cost a lot of money, and just started making stuff up and drawing viewers in with inflamatory rhetoric. This led to record profits, because all the expense of the news-business was eliminated. FOX is to news what porn is to hollywood. Pick the one cheap easy thing to do that people will watch, then get rid of everything else.

To compete, CNN is now trying to do the same thing while making an effort to be able to look itself in the mirror after every long day of strutting down the gutter selling itself to the corporate johns. It's in that phase of all those morality tales where the innocent farmer's daughter from the mid-west moves to hollywood hoping to make it big, then gets an offer from a photographer for some "tasteful shots." Then before she knows it she's bent over back of the couch with a beer bottle up her #$&* and developing a coke habit to cope with the shame.

FOX represents the Neo-con wing of the Republican party. This is different from conservatism in that while American conservatives support lowering taxes and spending so that the government won't waste money, the Neo-con's support wasting money and lowering taxes so that the government will be crippled and have no power over the rich, like Murdoch.

It is not the opposite of CNN. When Ted Turner started CNN he had the hopes of starting an American news agency that was the equal of the BBC. A world-wide independent news source. Then he sold it to AOL and it became a less insane version of FOX.

FOX at the time had a revolutionary business model for a news agency. It did away with actual investigation and research, which cost a lot of money, and just started making stuff up and drawing viewers in with inflamatory rhetoric. This led to record profits, because all the expense of the news-business was eliminated. FOX is to news what porn is to hollywood. Pick the one cheap easy thing to do that people will watch, then get rid of everything else.

To compete, CNN is now trying to do the same thing while making an effort to be able to look itself in the mirror after every long day of strutting down the gutter selling itself to the corporate johns. It's in that phase of all those morality tales where the innocent farmer's daughter from the mid-west moves to hollywood hoping to make it big, then gets an offer from a photographer for some "tasteful shots." Then before she knows it she's bent over back of the couch with a beer bottle up her #$&* and developing a coke habit to cope with the shame.

speaking of inflamatory rhetoric...

Depressing really, if the constituency boundaries were entirely equaly, not arranged by Blair to make the ratio of Urban to Rural constituencues 10:1, we could disregard them since rural Britain is generically and entirely Tory.

Erm... unless I am misunderstanding you, the reason there are far more urban seats than rural ones is due to population reasons. They are arranged to be roughly equal in the numbers of voters in them. They dont exactly succeed in this all the time, but if they were arranged on equal area, rather than voters the system would be worse. The cities would be under-represented compared to the country, much like it was when they first started changing the bounderies in the 19th C. The reason the that urban areas have far more seats than the country is for the simple reason that 90% of British people live in the urban areas.

Whatever you do with the monarchy, I definitely think you should replace Charles. Britain hasn't had much luck with the previous versions of King Charles.

"Love" is not part of his job description. And Edward had the decency to abdicate.

The Beatles were wrong, the Stones were right. It's not "All You Need Is Love," it's "You Can't Always Get What You Want".

It was you that originally brought up his love life was it not?

Oooh! A monachy thread!

Scrap the monachy. waste of money, waste of space.

I can't wait for a campaign like this to gain some public attention... The Daily Mail should be fun to read that day... :D

Edit: Post 250. woo.

Depressing really, if the constituency boundaries were entirely equaly, not arranged by Blair to make the ratio of Urban to Rural constituencues 10:1, we could disregard them since rural Britain is generically and entirely Tory.


I have to dispute that. I live in rural Suffolk and my constituency, Waveney has been Labour since '97

48% of those asked said the sky should be green.
There is no choice of King, you have one and accept the one you get, or you scrap the whole idea.
Then you can go for the modern altrnatives, like Stalin, , Sadam, Musolinin, Pinochet etc


It all depends on what sort of republican system you go for. For example in France the President is the head of the executive branch of government, whereas in Germany, Ireland and Israel the President is largely a ceremonial figurehead and the Prime Minister (in Germany, the Chancellor) has all the power

ohkay... there right wing (at times right of the GOP) bat ing crazy propigandic .

Ever see the "Daily Show"?... it's a satarical news show that considers Fox News to be direct competition. And Fox thinks that they are real news. There was this thing with the American Civil Libertys Union, they sued some school for mandating prayer, Fox News reports "ACLU sues school inorder to PROHIBIT prayer", then some other school ban prayer for fear of getting sued by the ACLU because of the Fox News report and Fox News reports "school ban's prayer for fear of ACLU reprisal" when infact it should say "school ban's prayer as result of Fox News fear mongering"... so on and so forth, I don't watch them all that much....


I think that the O' Reilly Report is the direct competition to the Daily Show. I sometimes watch O' Reilly just for a laugh

Fox New - Fair and Balanced???? Yeah and Dubya has the highest IQ in the world:rolleyes:

Correct me if im wrong, but the English Monarchy has almost zero actual power.

How can he be UN-qualifed to do nothing?

Erm... unless I am misunderstanding you, the reason there are far more urban seats than rural ones is due to population reasons. They are arranged to be roughly equal in the numbers of voters in them. They dont exactly succeed in this all the time, but if they were arranged on equal area, rather than voters the system would be worse. The cities would be under-represented compared to the country, much like it was when they first started changing the bounderies in the 19th C. The reason the that urban areas have far more seats than the country is for the simple reason that 90% of British people live in the urban areas.

Not really, Population wise, London should have 20 - 25% of the seats, yorkshire (Rural redominatly) should have about 10 - 15% and roughly 7% for each of the major cities Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle roughly 10% shared between Ireland and Scotland - the remainder should be semi urban and rural in England and Wales, Overseas territories and British Expatirates and would result in a 6:1 ratio rather than a 10:1 ratio. Realistically, if we get a Republic in Britain after Charlie (Will should not get the thrown yet - spoilt near illiterate twat that he is) the House of Lords should be made fully elected (with seats based on "historic" deliniations rather than population) and have jurisdiction over the whole country and the House of Commons should be made into England's Assembly and be elected through PR. The Prime Minister can be in the Lords (as was the case until the late 19th cent) and govern foreign policy, laws and the treasury and and the Assemblies can govern the application of Laws and the spending of budgets as the Scotishy Parliament does now.
As for Charlie Windsor wants to make political comments, why the hell can't he anyway? everyone else can and it seems just as discriminatory as not allowing the lower echelons have their say. Anyway, how many would argue that the Chinese occupation of Tibet is morall acceptable? or the 1970's tower blocks are an eysore? or that there is something deeply suspect about GM crops and the American domination of that industy?

Oooh! A monachy thread!

Scrap the monachy. waste of money, waste of space.

I can't wait for a campaign like this to gain some public attention... The Daily Mail should be fun to read that day... :D

Edit: Post 250. woo.

Actually that would be illegal, I think it falls under the sedition laws, the Guardian was prosicuited about four years ago for advocating a Republic and before that the last time was just before the Irish revolution that lead to the establishment of the Irish Republic. Technically, we (British citizens) all might be breaking the law as this might constitute publishing (I'd have to check into that)

Actually that would be illegal, I think it falls under the sedition laws, the Guardian was prosicuited about four years ago for advocating a Republic and before that the last time was just before the Irish revolution that lead to the establishment of the Irish Republic. Technically, we (British citizens) all might be breaking the law as this might constitute publishing (I'd have to check into that)
Except the Daily mail would be totally against it. thats what would bee funny, watching them bullshit about how its another "European" plot to take over :D

Their headline this morning? "SAVE OUR MILES!!!" Over rumours that road signs migh finally be written in kilometers... And then on page 7 they appeared to be advocating a return to pounds and ounces for weight mesurment. Damn regressionists.

the british monarchy is nothing more than a tourist attraction, the more ridiculous, pompous and anachronistic they are the better probably. most people don't actually take them seriously anyway so anything prince charlie says is not going to damage britain's standing abroad - we're the laughing stock of europe and a us lapdog anyway so it's not as if we've got a reputation to damage. ;)

i used to be well against the monarchy until i realised i was was taking it way more seriously than it deserves.

okay, just bothered to read the rest of the thread and got a few things to add.

for me to accept the monarchy all the royal estates should be managed by the ministry of tourism or whatever tourism comes under these days; the royal family should be expected to earn their own way in life and pay rent for their palaces (they all have their own business ventures and/or military salaries anyway so that shouldn't be a problem for them); they should pay taxes (i think they do now anyway); and they should have all power taken away from them.

maybe i'll concede they can be paid a minimal hourly wage for any pageantry they are expected to attend, but they should be taxed on that too obviously.

Except the Daily mail would be totally against it. thats what would bee funny, watching them bullshit about how its another "European" plot to take over :D

Their headline this morning? "SAVE OUR MILES!!!" Over rumours that road signs migh finally be written in kilometers... And then on page 7 they appeared to be advocating a return to pounds and ounces for weight mesurment. Damn regressionists.

What? Stay with a system that is a mathmatical nightmare of Kilograms and Kilometers? yeah great idea...

Screw that, the old system had more versatility, just because it required people to think, everyone seems to be against it.

Besides, it'll cost over £800 million to convert all our roads and everything to Km, so sod that. Stick with miles.

GAWD SAVE THE QUEEN (don't die until we sort this out)!

As for becoming a republic, I can imagine the main result of such an endevour would be complete and total chaos. Seriously. You try to take down the monarchy, they complain, a few regiments of soldiers join the cause...

Might as well keep them and wait for them to die of inbreeding.

This is truly a useless question; "Is Charles fit to be King." The English have not had a true Monarchy for Years. What does it mater how he acts. He will not cause an international problem, He can not cause the English Government to fall, and his antics will not cause a war. He will have little to no real power as a true King would. He will be what the English have made of their once great King, a puppet made of paper on strings that the people of England can dangle this way and that, at their win and call. So lets get back to the question at hand.....

Is Charles fit to be King? If he had to truly be a King the answer would be an absolute NO.... , but seeing that England has not had a true King or for that matter a Queen for Years with any true power the answer for their weak and pathetic Monarchy is .........YES.

What the English should do is one of these two things:

1. Set up a True Monarchy and set up a true King to that throne or,
2. Get rid of the Paper Puppet of a Manarchy that only is there so the people of England have something to show to the world of what could have been.

:headbang:

Not really, Population wise, London should have 20 - 25% of the seats, yorkshire (Rural redominatly) should have about 10 - 15% and roughly 7% for each of the major cities Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle roughly 10% shared between Ireland and Scotland - the remainder should be semi urban and rural in England and Wales, Overseas territories and British Expatirates and would result in a 6:1 ratio rather than a 10:1 ratio.


It's accepted that the current electoral system is biased towards urban voters. Each rural seat generally requires a few thousand more votes to claim than the average urban one. It doesn't necessarily follow that the system is uniformly biased against the Tories; but given that rural seats tend to be blue ones, it certainly appears that way.


Realistically, if we get a Republic in Britain after Charlie (Will should not get the thrown yet - spoilt near illiterate twat that he is) the House of Lords should be made fully elected (with seats based on "historic" deliniations rather than population) and have jurisdiction over the whole country and the House of Commons should be made into England's Assembly and be elected through PR. The Prime Minister can be in the Lords (as was the case until the late 19th cent) and govern foreign policy, laws and the treasury and and the Assemblies can govern the application of Laws and the spending of budgets as the Scotishy Parliament does now.


I think your proposal is quite sensible and the sort of lines I was thinking along. I would be far more interested in securing proper constitutional reform and getting a more democratic system than just getting rid of the monarchy for its own sake.

An upper house elected on a FPTP system, perhaps with a set number of members per county regardless of population, and a lower house elected via PR would go a long way to addressing our democratic deficit.

If the monarch has to remain for the forseeable future than the removal of all their remaining powers would be essential.



As for Charlie Windsor wants to make political comments, why the hell can't he anyway? everyone else can and it seems just as discriminatory as not allowing the lower echelons have their say. Anyway, how many would argue that the Chinese occupation of Tibet is morall acceptable? or the 1970's tower blocks are an eysore? or that there is something deeply suspect about GM crops and the American domination of that industy?


As the Prince of Wales there isn't such a problem; as the figurehead of the nation there would be a serious one. His comments would be interpreted as the voice of the nation overseas and result in embarrassment at best, damaging consequences for all Britons at worst.

I have to dispute that. I live in rural Suffolk and my constituency, Waveney has been Labour since '97

Firstly, I truly pity you, and secondly, you evidently did not watch the lction coverage. Rural and Suburban Britain is predominantly Tory, whilst poorer Urban Britain is Labour.

Lest we forget, Charlie lambasts both left and right. Ineffectually, of course, but...

Meh. I'd support the removal of the monarchy - King Charlie or nay - but I'm in no rush. There are more important things to worry about.

This is truly a useless question; "Is Charles fit to be King." The English have not had a true Monarchy for Years. What does it mater how he acts. He will not cause an international problem, He can not cause the English Government to fall, and his antics will not cause a war. He will have little to no real power as a true King would. He will be what the English have made of their once great King, a puppet made of paper on strings that the people of England can dangle this way and that, at their win and call. So lets get back to the question at hand.....

Is Charles fit to be King? If he had to truly be a King the answer would be an absolute NO.... , but seeing that England has not had a true King or for that matter a Queen for Years with any true power the answer for their weak and pathetic Monarchy is .........YES.

What the English should do is one of these two things:

1. Set up a True Monarchy and set up a true King to that throne or,
2. Get rid of the Paper Puppet of a Manarchy that only is there so the people of England have something to show to the world of what could have been.

:headbang:


Thanks for your input

What? Stay with a system that is a mathmatical nightmare of Kilograms and Kilometers? yeah great idea...

Screw that, the old system had more versatility, just because it required people to think, everyone seems to be against it.

Besides, it'll cost over £800 million to convert all our roads and everything to Km, so sod that. Stick with miles.
How is the metric system a "mathmatical nightmare"? Working in inches, eighths of inches, feet, miles, furlongs, acers, with no standard base to them. And don't even get me started on bushels... The metric system is logical. And could you explain how a system can be "versitile"?

As for the costs, scrap the trident nulcear subs, and don't replace 'em. We don't need 'em, it would set a good example to the rest of the world, and we could have increased spending year on year, inlcuding upgrading all road signs :D

Actually that would be illegal, I think it falls under the sedition laws, the Guardian was prosicuited about four years ago for advocating a Republic and before that the last time was just before the Irish revolution that lead to the establishment of the Irish Republic. Technically, we (British citizens) all might be breaking the law as this might constitute publishing (I'd have to check into that)
I thought the Grauniad attempted to force the issue but got ignored, thereby proving that advocating a republic is a-ok?

Correct me if im wrong, but the English Monarchy has almost zero actual power.

How can he be UN-qualifed to do nothing?

The Monarch still legally retains some "prerogative" powers, many of which are now exercised on their behalf by the elected government. There is nothing to stop a future monarch, were he so inclined, from challenging this 'unwritten' arrangement.

In addition, the Monarch does retain a number of powers that they may exercise personally.

These include

- the power to dissolve Parliament
- the power to appoint a Prime Minister

This is truly a useless question; "Is Charles fit to be King." The English have not had a true Monarchy for Years. What does it matter how he acts. He will not cause an international problem, He can not cause the English Government to fall, and his antics will not cause a war. He will have little to no real power as a true King would. He will be what the English have made of their once great King, a puppet made of paper on strings that the people of England can dangle this way and that, at their beck and call. So lets get back to the question at hand.....

Is Charles fit to be King? If he had to truly be a King the answer would be an absolute NO.... , but seeing that England has not had a true King or for that matter a Queen for Years with any true power the answer for their weak and pathetic Monarchy is .........YES.

What the English should do is one of these two things:

1. Set up a True Monarchy and set up a true King to that throne or,
2. Get rid of the Paper Puppet of a Manarchy that only is there so the people of England have something to show to the world of what could have been.

:headbang:

How is the metric system a "mathmatical nightmare"? Working in inches, eighths of inches, feet, miles, furlongs, acers, with no standard base to them. And don't even get me started on bushels... The metric system is logical. And could you explain how a system can be "versitile"?

As for the costs, scrap the trident nulcear subs, and don't replace 'em. We don't need 'em, it would set a good example to the rest of the world, and we could have increased spending year on year, inlcuding upgrading all road signs :D

Its only set on base 10, which means lots of messing around with bloody decimal places. With base 10, you can't have an exact third of 100.

With Lbs, Stone, the old £ (240 pence etc), you could.

Inches, feet and miles etc, really simple to work out, so much easier to divide by, and you won't have to deal with decimal places all the time.

Hence a lot simpler, without messing about.

Whats so complicated about 5280 feet in a mile? or 8 furlongs?

12 inches in a foot?

14 lbs in a stone?

Its not! Why switch to an alternative system that is less precise than the other, just because its not based around 10?

snip

:headbang:


I think double-posting is frowned upon?

Its only set on base 10, which means lots of messing around with bloody decimal places. With base 10, you can't have an exact third of 100.

With Lbs, Stone, the old £ (240 pence etc), you could.

Inches, feet and miles etc, really simple to work out, so much easier to divide by, and you won't have to deal with decimal places all the time.

Hence a lot simpler, without messing about.

Whats so complicated about 5280 feet in a mile? or 8 furlongs?

12 inches in a foot?

14 lbs in a stone?

Its not! Why switch to an alternative system that is less precise than the other, just because its not based around 10? You can't have a seventh of a foot either. You cant have a third of a stone. The problem with having random number of feet in a meter is that it makes conversions difficult. Converting thirty seven and a half miles (Choosing a random example) into feet is a hell of a lot harder than converting thirty seven and a half kilometers into meters.

And incidently, and inch is defined as 2.54CM, so the modern imperial measurments are all based of metric measures! Whereas metric is based of one meter being the length of the path travelled by light in absolute vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second. (And yes, I did just copy that last bit from another site)

You can't have a seventh of a foot either. You cant have a third of a stone. The problem with having random number of feet in a meter is that it makes conversions difficult. Converting thirty seven and a half miles (Choosing a random example) into feet is a hell of a lot harder than converting thirty seven and a half kilometers into meters.

And incidently, and inch is defined as 2.54CM, so the modern imperial measurments are all based of metric measures! Whereas metric is based of one meter being the length of the path travelled by light in absolute vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second. (And yes, I did just copy that last bit from another site)

It not a random number of feet in a metre. Its a random number of metre to a foot as that measurement existed is a set format a hell of a long time before a metre existed.

And er, inches came before cm, so how is the first bit of your second paragraph remotely relevant?

Oh and 198000 feet is 37 1/2 miles :D and yeah i did that in my head.

It not a random number of feet in a metre. Its a random number of metre to a foot as that measurement existed is a set format a hell of a long time before a metre existed.

And er, inches came before cm, so how is the first bit of your second paragraph remotely relevant?
I notice you just edited out the bit where you suggesested 12/7 = 2.

However I cant complain because youve just pointed out a typo in mine. I meant a random number of feet in a mile not a meter (And I know it's not random, but thats how it appears when you see it written down. I don't want to have to know the history behind a system to use it).

And yes. The imperial measurments have been around for longer. But for people who have to work on exact values in imperial (people who enforce the standards, so the TSI in England) use 2.54CM as an Inch. Everything that is listed or sold in imperial units is measured based of the metric system.

EDIT: And did the conversion of miles into feet take longer than the 0.1 seconds it took me to convert 37.5 KM into 37,500 meters?

This is truly a useless question; "Is Charles fit to be King." The English have not had a true Monarchy for Years. What does it matter how he acts. He will not cause an international problem, He can not cause the English Government to fall, and his antics will not cause a war. He will have little to no real power as a true King would. He will be what the English have made of their once great King, a puppet made of paper on strings that the people of England can dangle this way and that, at their beck and call. So lets get back to the question at hand.....

Is Charles fit to be King? If he had to truly be a King the answer would be an absolute NO.... , but seeing that England has not had a true King or for that matter a Queen for Years with any true power the answer for their weak and pathetic Monarchy is .........YES.

What the English should do is one of these two things:

1. Set up a True Monarchy and set up a true King to that throne or,
2. Get rid of the Paper Puppet of a Manarchy that only is there so the people of England have something to show to the world of what could have been.

:headbang:

Charles is next in line to be the king of britain not england. might seem a little quibble to you but it is somewhat annoying to have the two other countries that make up the union plus northern ireland ignored :p

I notice you just edited out the bit where you suggesested 12/7 = 2.

However I cant complain because youve just pointed out a typo in mine. I meant a random number of feet in a mile not a meter (And I know it's not random, but thats how it appears when you see it written down. I don't want to have to know the history behind a system to use it).

And yes. The imperial measurments have been around for longer. But for people who have to work on exact values in imperial (people who enforce the standards, so the TSI in England) use 2.54CM as an Inch. Everything that is listed or sold in imperial units is measured based of the metric system.

EDIT: And did the conversion of miles into feet take longer than the 0.1 seconds it took me to convert 37.5 KM into 37,500 meters?


Took me a few seconds sure, but I would rather have it like that. Just because a metre is based on the length of the path travelled by light in absolute vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second, means nothing (who the f**k chose that length of time anyways?). You don't need to know the history of feet and inches to use them. They are simply measurements of distance.

Quite frankly, I've been using inches & feet, lbs and oz. since school, and i'll use them in conjunction with km, kg and all the rest. I prefer that system, it works. Hell, even the old 240 pence in the pound was ok by me, that was nice and simple.

Everything bought and sold now is based on metric measurements applied onto the old imperial ones. A pint is 568.261485 ml, but its always a pint to me. Just because they fudged out the decimal points makes no difference, they are still the same measurements now as they were 40 years ago.

EDIT: In essence it comes down to my personal preference to the other. I use both, and can see the reasons for it use (mainly cause school kids grasp it quicker), yet I would like a combination of the two used. I was probably a little strong earlier claiming a mathmatical nightmare, but still, it has its advantages and it works never the less.

I thought the Grauniad attempted to force the issue but got ignored, thereby proving that advocating a republic is a-ok?

Actually, I think you are right....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4738740.stm


As his kingship approaches more and more influential voices are questioning his suitability for this unique role in British democracy. Until recently, the accepted view was that the Prince would modify his behaviour a bit once he became Monarch. Can we be so sure?


What do you think?
I think you're posing the wrong question!
Just take a look at how long Queen Mom did fine - and then ask yourself when William will be called to the throne.

I honestly don't believe that Charles will ever become king... if the Royal females are anything to go by, his mother will outlive him by decades!

Actually, I think you are right....
I'm like a broken clock - I'm correct about twice a day.

Firstly, I truly pity you, and secondly, you evidently did not watch the lction coverage. Rural and Suburban Britain is predominantly Tory, whilst poorer Urban Britain is Labour.

I did watch the election coverage and while I agree that rural Britain is largely Tory I just wanted to make the point that not all of it is.

As it happens, during the Civil War, the town where I work, was one of the few places in the whole of East Anglia that declared for the King. As such, Cromwell when he was still a mere colonel brought some roundhead cavalry o to the town and arrested several leading citizens including an ancestor of mine

Is Charles fit to be King?
If he can show proof that God wills it, yes.

Charles is next in line to be the king of britain not england. might seem a little quibble to you but it is somewhat annoying to have the two other countries that make up the union plus northern ireland ignored :p

Scotland and Wales are far more republican minded than England anyway.

It might be fun if the SNP (Scottish Nationalist Party) become the governing party in the Scottish parliament and hold a referendum on independence. I would imagine if they won that referendum the next step would be a vote on independence.

Mind you if an independent Scotland did want to become a monarchy would they ask descendents of the Jacobites to become King. The current Jacobite "claimant" is the Duke of Bavaria (although the family has ignored the claim since the mid-19 century

The Monarch still legally retains some "prerogative" powers, many of which are now exercised on their behalf by the elected government. There is nothing to stop a future monarch, were he so inclined, from challenging this 'unwritten' arrangement.

In addition, the Monarch does retain a number of powers that they may exercise personally.

These include

- the power to dissolve Parliament
- the power to appoint a Prime Minister

Okay, I knew the Monarchy has abilty, but isnt this the kind of thing that no ruler will ever do?
Surely, if Elizabeth did this, for any reason, she'd be in some hot water.
If so, then they would seem somewhat meaningless.

Isnt that how Cromwell took over?

At any rate, it seems since the throne is mostly an honorary thing, or a figurehead, then all Charles has to do is look pretty, and not embarrass hiself too much.
Its not like he has to be a good leader, or a skilled politician, thats the job of the Prime Minister, it would appear.

It seems to me the skill requirements arent all that demanding.

Isnt that how Cromwell took over?



Cromwell was actually offered the crown but turned it down

Cromwell was actually offered the crown but turned it down


My english history is poor, but I want to say Phillip II (maybe) dissolved Parliament, and Cromwell had him arrested, and executed, and assumed power.

I do seem to recall the guy banned Christmas.

I do seem to recall the guy banned Christmas.

Poor old England, always winter but never Christmas :(

My english history is poor, but I want to say Phillip II (maybe) dissolved Parliament, and Cromwell had him arrested, and executed, and assumed power.

I do seem to recall the guy banned Christmas.
Charles II. We've never had a King Phillip.

My english history is poor, but I want to say Phillip II (maybe) dissolved Parliament, and Cromwell had him arrested, and executed, and assumed power.

I do seem to recall the guy banned Christmas.

As another poster said it was Charles I (not Charles II)

And there was a minor war in there too before the execution ;)

Charles II. We've never had a King Phillip.

Arf! I think you probably mean Charles I ;)

Arf! I think you probably mean Charles I ;)
Oh, the shame! And to think that I was once a history student...

On that, I'd like to say every odd-numbered King Charles so far has had their head chopped off after being deposed. I wonder...

He should get a real job. His opinions are his opinions, and he's entitled to them. Why he should be entitled to inherit a Kingdom (however limited the actual power may be) is beyond me. Why anybody should be born into such a position is beyond me. It has no place in a modern society.

The Uk has a lot more to offer tourists than the Monarchy. People would do well to stop obsessing about them, their clothes and their pallid palace intrigues and start worrying about other things.

On that, I'd like to say every odd-numbered King Charles so far has had their head chopped off after being deposed. I wonder...

I'm not sure one is a statistically significant sample :D

Isn't Charlie planning on not being a King Charles precisely due to the unfortunate associations with decapitation? Hasn't it got equally stong associations with the popular restoration of the Monarchy?

Ah well, decapitation it is then...

I'm not sure one is a statistically significant sample :D
Its big enough for me to want to turn it into two :)
Isn't Charlie planning on not being a King Charles precisely due to the unfortunate associations with decapitation? Hasn't it got equally stong associations with the popular restoration of the Monarchy?

Ah well, decapitation it is then...
Whatever he calls himself, to me he'll always be an odd-numbered Charles...

Whatever he calls himself, to me he'll always be an odd-numbered Charles...

Oh well, you can't stop the onward march of history.

*passes Eritrita axe and balaclava*

Oh well, you can't stop the onward march of history.

*passes Eritrita axe and balaclava*
Exactly; history is an undeniable force which rolls over and ignores personal desires. Of course, the fact that I desire this part of history...

Okay, I knew the Monarchy has abilty, but isnt this the kind of thing that no ruler will ever do?
Surely, if Elizabeth did this, for any reason, she'd be in some hot water.
If so, then they would seem somewhat meaningless.

Isnt that how Cromwell took over?

At any rate, it seems since the throne is mostly an honorary thing, or a figurehead, then all Charles has to do is look pretty, and not embarrass hiself too much.
Its not like he has to be a good leader, or a skilled politician, thats the job of the Prime Minister, it would appear.

It seems to me the skill requirements arent all that demanding.

The Queen has dissolved parliament many times and appointed every Prime Minister since her coronation. However, convention means that she chooses the party leder with the largest number of seats in the Commons to form the government, although theoretically she could choose anyone.

If Labour and the Tories tie at the next election, she might actually get to decide which party forms the government. Let's hope she remembers which party was founded to protect the rights of royalty ;)

He will make a great King and is a great ambassador to our country, who has done much work promoting our country and enhancing our relationship with other countries, especially due to his in depth knowledge of the Muslim faith, he will be come as Protector of Faiths.

He will make a great King and is a great ambassador to our country, who has done much work promoting our country and enhancing our relationship with other countries, especially due to his in depth knowledge of the Muslim faith, he will be come as Protector of Faiths.
He has extreme views, a lack of social graces, and is a fool. Yes, that means he is the perfect ambassador for GB, I guess. But I'd rather he weren't our ruler.

He has extreme views, a lack of social graces, and is a fool. Yes, that means he is the perfect ambassador for GB, I guess. But I'd rather he weren't our ruler.

Which of his views would you describe as extreme?

The only qualification for royalty is birth.

It isnt a open position and it isnt a meritocracy.

Which of his views would you describe as extreme?
1) His view on his own superiority
2) His view on his own ability to be right about everything (lecturing the BMA about how to cure people....)
And so on, but those are the really depressing ones.

What does the King of England do again?

He wears a big crown. While I dont believe there should be a monarchy at all, it seems unfair to say charles cant be king just because some people dislike him.

He wears a big crown. While I dont believe there should be a monarchy at all, it seems unfair to say charles cant be king just because some people dislike him.
He wears a big crown and does a lot of pointless ceremonial stuff.... can't forget the pointless ceremony...

I'm not sure one is a statistically significant sample :D

Isn't Charlie planning on not being a King Charles precisely due to the unfortunate associations with decapitation? Hasn't it got equally stong associations with the popular restoration of the Monarchy?

Ah well, decapitation it is then...

He can chose any of his four first/middle names as his regnal name. So he will be King Charles, King Philip, King Arthur (heh), or King George (most likely).

He can chose any of his four first/middle names as his regnal name. So he will be King Charles, King Philip, King Arthur (heh), or King George (most likely).
King George the which, though? I forget...

On that, I'd like to say every odd-numbered King Charles so far has had their head chopped off after being deposed. I wonder...

Actually, BOTH Charles' were deposed. Just the second one got out of England fast enough...

Actually, BOTH Charles' were deposed. Just the second one got out of England fast enough...
And wasn't monarch at the time, therefore my statement still stands; he was Prince, not King, Charles.

King George the which, though? I forget...

Next in line would be King George VII.

Of course, thats assuming he outlives his mother... Otherwise he never has to chose a regnal name.