Jump to content

The Royal Family


BlufPurdi
 Share

Should we abolish the Monarchy?  

471 members have voted

  1. 1. Should we abolish the Monarchy?

    • Yes
      70
    • No
      50


Recommended Posts

In fairness, thank christ Charles doesn't / won't have any executive power- he's just as fucking mad as GWB in his own way.

 

For what it's worth, I think the republican model rejected in Australia in the late nineties was fantastic. A president elected by a two thirds majority of parliament with similar powers / responsibilities to our current Governer-General (i.e. very few). Very different to the American model.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In fairness, thank christ Charles doesn't / won't have any executive power- he's just as f***ing mad as GWB in his own way.

 

For what it's worth, I think the republican model rejected in Australia in the late nineties was fantastic. A president elected by a two thirds majority of parliament with similar powers / responsibilities to our current Governer-General (i.e. very few). Very different to the American model.

 

Hes nowhere near as mad and he has no power.  He may have a slight power by leaning on people but he aint got the ability to start invading countries...besides if Charles did try and pull a fast one we could cut his head of like his name sake.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hes waited far to long, the Queen is on the thrown until she dies.  Then Charles until he dies unless he refuses it but I really cant see him doing it.  He is desperate to get his mother f***ing hands on that thrown.  :lol:

 

 

 

He shouldn't have throne it away then.

 

:iamatwat:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Watch this programme if you get the chance.

 

Andrew Marr shows you what the Queen really does, i think it's a fantastic watch :thup:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01bzw4b

 

Can you summarise?  Because I'd rather not watch (another) BBC Royal-fuckfest, danke.

 

Because i can't be fucked i'm going to post a right wing paper's review instead.

 

Before we get swamped by the Jubilee celebrations themselves - be they the planned pop concert that it is hard to believe Her Majesty herself will enjoy, or the dazzling flotilla guaranteed to hold up traffic on the Thames for days on end - the BBC has made its own flagship tribute to Elizabeth II in the sixtieth year of her reign. The Diamond Queen premiered tonight on BBC One, the first episode of a three-part series presented by the enormous-eared, ever-effusive Andrew Marr, devoted to our monarch.

This first programme gave us a potted history of the Windsors in the early years of the 20th century – the wisely modernising George V, the foolishly love-struck Edward VIII – before reaching the childhood of Her Majesty. Endearing archive footage showed us the pretty, smiling girl in her tight-knit family before the seriousness of her duty to the state demanded she sacrifice some of that gaiety.

Prime ministers past and present – Tony Blair, John Major, David Cameron – then crowded in to tell of the delight they had all taken in their weekly audiences with the Queen during her rule. Cameron said that in their little talks he had felt he could reveal his “deepest worries and deepest thinking about the issues”. There was also some amusing footage of Her Majesty looking deeply embarrassed as she had to hold hands with Blair as the crowd sang Auld Lang Syne at the opening of the Millennium Dome.

Then, after a breathless 40 minutes or so, we had already reached the present day, and could relax a little as Marr followed the Queen round a trip to the UAE, and encounters with the Director of the British Museum, Neil MacGregor, and Sir Norman Foster, both of whom spoke eloquently about Her Majesty’s ambassadorial skills.

You couldn’t fault the calibre of the talking heads who contributed. The Duke of Cambridge, the Duke of York, the Princess Royal, all offered their thoughts. The only glaring absence was the Prince of Wales, but perhaps he’ll appear in part two.

 

None, however, gave us any revelatory tales of their near and dear relative, but the reverence in which she was held by each was moving. It was left to Marr to come up with the programme’s most verbose and elaborate descriptions of the Queen and what she represents. Some worked: “she is our most familiar enigma” was a good one, and it appropriately came coupled with the injunction that we “must never take her for granted”. Some were less successful: “she is our slightly mysterious department of friendliness” is unlikely to be inscribed in the annals of royal history.

And it was left to the Queen herself to demonstrate, better than anyone, why she remains as much of an inspiration in 2012 as she was in her youth. The moment came when we heard these words, from her speech given in South Africa when she was a mere 21: “I declare, before you all, that my whole life, whether long or short, shall be devoted to your service.”

None could deny she has remained true to this determination ever since

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it almost a foregone conclusion that Charles will abdicate to Willy boy when the old lady kicks the bucket?

 

nyah.

 

He'll be King imo.

 

Of course he will.  Age doesn't come into it as it's a job to the death anyway.

 

I don't think it's even possible tbf.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it almost a foregone conclusion that Charles will abdicate to Willy boy when the old lady kicks the bucket?

 

nyah.

 

He'll be King imo.

 

Of course he will.  Age doesn't come into it as it's a job to the death anyway.

 

I don't think it's even possible tbf.

 

To abdicate?  You could be right, sure it's only in remarkable circumstances.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it almost a foregone conclusion that Charles will abdicate to Willy boy when the old lady kicks the bucket?

 

nyah.

 

He'll be King imo.

 

Of course he will.  Age doesn't come into it as it's a job to the death anyway.

 

I don't think it's even possible tbf.

 

To abdicate?  You could be right, sure it's only in remarkable circumstances.

 

Because the title to the Crown depends upon statute, particularly the Act of Settlement 1701, a Royal Abdication can only be effected by an Act of Parliament; under the terms of the Statute of Westminster 1931, such an act must be passed by the parliament of all sixteen Commonwealth realms. [/wikipedia]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it almost a foregone conclusion that Charles will abdicate to Willy boy when the old lady kicks the bucket?

 

nyah.

 

He'll be King imo.

 

Of course he will.  Age doesn't come into it as it's a job to the death anyway.

 

I don't think it's even possible tbf.

 

To abdicate?  You could be right, sure it's only in remarkable circumstances.

 

Nah, he definitely can a la Edward and Mrs Simpson.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...