The republicanism thread.

exiledinboro said:
That’s because we don’t have all the runners up forming the government

Neither will change anytime soon so we might as well deal with what we have rather than disagree on things that won’t change
Click to expand...

So just lie back and dream of England. Yesterday wasn’t only a funeral you know, for some it’s all about politics.
The powerful are the biggest cynics of all, the politicians will use it for all the advantages they can gain from it.
 
And sometimes you need to read what's not there.

Few people had a bad word to say about the Queen.... aside from a massive error of judgement over Lady Di the vast majority of people that dealt with her or met her had nothing but genuine words of warmth to say about her.

Counter that with Cherlie boy. Few people say good things about him and tend to say nothing, speaks for itself.
That snarling episode when he had a go at one of his servants (right word) for not moving the pen sums it up for me.
 
zzzzz said:
Few people had a bad word to say about the Queen.... aside from a massive error of judgement over Lady Di the vast majority of people that dealt with her or met her had nothing but genuine words of warmth to say about her.
Click to expand...
to be fair though, most people of a republican bent were vetted out of meeting her. I'm sure she had her positives as a person, but this anointing her as some kind of perfect person who never made a mistake and never interfered with politics isn't reality, just some saccharin sweet coated version of it. At least the Diana thing, regardless how distasteful her behaviour was, showed that she isn't a robot, and therefore will not have been an isolated event. It also showed that her family and protecting it, was the most important thing to her. Diana wasn't the cheat, the queen knew that, but the queen chose to vilify Diana not Charles and publicly so. People were very angry at the time, and it's been removed from history in the last 10 days of coverage.

zzzzz said:
Counter that with Cherlie boy. Few people say good things about him and tend to say nothing, speaks for itself.
That snarling episode when he had a go at one of his servants (right word) for not moving the pen sums it up for me.
Click to expand...
Yup, that was deeply unpleasent behaviour, mollycoddled life, I'm sure the queen will have had some of that but at least seemed a little less irritated by 'servants'
 
BoroMart said:
to be fair though, most people of a republican bent were vetted out of meeting her. I'm sure she had her positives as a person, but this anointing her as some kind of perfect person who never made a mistake and never interfered with politics isn't reality, just some saccharin sweet coated version of it. At least the Diana thing, regardless how distasteful her behaviour was, showed that she isn't a robot, and therefore will not have been an isolated event. It also showed that her family and protecting it, was the most important thing to her. Diana wasn't the cheat, the queen knew that, but the queen chose to vilify Diana not Charles and publicly so. People were very angry at the time, and it's been removed from history in the last 10 days of coverage.


Yup, that was deeply unpleasent behaviour, mollycoddled life, I'm sure the queen will have had some of that but at least seemed a little less irritated by 'servants'
Click to expand...
when did she Vilify Diana? are you confusing the Queen for the Press?
 
zzzzz said:
Sad to see that in a coffin party of 10 soldiers they were all white.
Click to expand...
No women either, but I think all those 10 come from the grenadier guards, and I don't think there would be many (if any) women in that unit, and even less who could meet the height requirement for that duty. Not sure what the ethnic makeup of the grenadier guards is, but the general forces is about 90% white.
 
Andy_W said:
I'd be up for slimming down the Royal Family, and modernising it. As soon as the line of accession changes down a level, then some of the upper levels should vanish. We shouldn't be seeing anything of the rest, at any time, and they shouldn't be there for public events. So for me, it should just now be Charles, Camilla, William, Catherine and their nippers. No need for Edward, Andrew, Anne or any of their descendants to be anywhere near the place, and Harry's largely took that decision on himself, so fair play to him.
Of course, though, they are family, so things like yesterday should be shorter for the public, and give the family more time to do their own thing, out of the public eye. If my grandma died (or great grandma) and I had to go through that all day, before the private part I'd have hated it.

They should have no say in-laws (not that they do much nowadays), and elected MP's/ PM's etc shouldn't have to go to the royal family for box-ticking approval.

I'm not against them living in big houses and having wealth or denying our history (the good bits or bad bits), but their day-to-day living should be provided for by pre-existing legal wealth, the tourism it brings, not the taxpayer, and they should have to pay the same taxes as anyone else, they should end up with less and less over time.

I expect that tourism will drop (after a short boost), as the monarch won't have been there anywhere near as long to build up that constant/ always been there feel, and with that dropping so will support for the monarchy I think. You can see it already, people were all for the queen, without question, but not for Charles, it doesn't make any sense for royalists to think this way (but some do), but makes sense for those who don't care that much, or those outside the UK.

I'd possibly disband the commonwealth, I don't really see the need for it.

I don't think those in line to the throne should be kept out of doing normal "work", they need to see what it's like for the public, otherwise, it's completely unreliable. Doing visits doesn't tick this box, as wherever they go the whole place changes in preparation, all they see is a false version of reality.

We could probably do with putting an age cap on who is king/ queen too, they get looked after so well that they largely live long beyond the average person, and thus become a bit outdated. I'd rather have someone who had spent the majority of their life in more modern times, might make them a little more relatable to younger people.
Click to expand...
hasn't the slimming down already begun?

Their daily living (for public work) is covered by the Sovereign Grant - which is in exchange for the income and taxes earned by assets handed to the government. I think it's almost neutral in terms of revenue and spending. Though they do have tax benefits that they can use.

Not every Royal gets a sovereign grant, only those on active duty and with a relevant title. In exchange they promote tourism, charities and UK business.
 
Andy_W said:
No women either, but I think all those 10 come from the grenadier guards, and I don't think there would be many (if any) women in that unit, and even less who could meet the height requirement for that duty. Not sure what the ethnic makeup of the grenadier guards is, but the general forces is about 90% white.
Click to expand...
I'm not suggesting it was intentional (who knows?) or non-representative of that particular regiment.... just that it was obvious and insenistive.
 
Mr Maz said:
when did she Vilify Diana? are you confusing the Queen for the Press?
Click to expand...
it's public record that she refused to make any statement, that Tony Blair had to repeatedly tell her that she would have to make a statement despite not wanting to. Yes the press hated her, but so did the queen.
 
Mr Maz said:
hasn't the slimming down already begun?

Their daily living (for public work) is covered by the Sovereign Grant - which is in exchange for the income and taxes earned by assets handed to the government. I think it's almost neutral in terms of revenue and spending. Though they do have tax benefits that they can use.

Not every Royal gets a sovereign grant, only those on active duty and with a relevant title. In exchange they promote tourism, charities and UK business.
Click to expand...
Probably has, I don't know the detail on it, but if it's happened then it needs to continue for me.

I don't see why they're their assets to sell mind, it's like me selling the council's assets to pay my council tax.

They shouldn't be outside the scope of income tax, corporation tax, inheritance tax, or other taxes though. Like I say, I don't mind them having it, but it should be getting less and less.
 
Mr Maz said:
hasn't the slimming down already begun?

Their daily living (for public work) is covered by the Sovereign Grant - which is in exchange for the income and taxes earned by assets handed to the government. I think it's almost neutral in terms of revenue and spending. Though they do have tax benefits that they can use.

Not every Royal gets a sovereign grant, only those on active duty and with a relevant title. In exchange they promote tourism, charities and UK business.
Click to expand...
Hand back what you've stolen off the country for centuries thats the slimming down we need.
 
Glover_elbow said:
Hand back what you've stolen off the country for centuries thats the slimming down we need.
Click to expand...
The Right of Conquest should be repealed, people can only own land that they have proven they purchased in the land registry, otherwise it goes back to the state. Land is a limited resource, and is hoarded by a small number of families to obtain income, thing is these families did nothing to earn this other than swear fealty to a monarch, that monarch took it by conquest.
 
BoroMart said:
do you know what guarentees that nothing will change? Not talking about the things you want to change
Click to expand...
Nobody should mute a debate about the monarchy I agree. Given the anount of people though against the idea of a republic I dont think I want to waste too much of my time debating something that wont occur in our lifetime.

Maybe things will change in my grandchildren's adulthood.
 
zzzzz said:
I'm not suggesting it was intentional (who knows?) or non-representative of that particular regiment.... just that it was obvious and insenistive.
Click to expand...
I doubt it was intentional (not the picking of them, who were also probably volunteering), the forces are generally quite good at showing diversity where they can, often above what the percentages of the makeup are, to make a point as it helps with recruitment. It's the same with women, where they can pick one to represent, they often will.

From my experience in the forces, nearly all the elite and special forces were white, other than the Gurkha's but they were tiny, but they would largely be too small for Grandiers/ Queens guard. That was a while ago now mind, and not saying that's representative then, or now.
 
BoroMart said:
it's public record that she refused to make any statement, that Tony Blair had to repeatedly tell her that she would have to make a statement despite not wanting to. Yes the press hated her, but so did the queen.
Click to expand...
so she didn't vilify her, she said nothing in public.
 
zzzzz said:
And sometimes you need to read what's not there.

Few people had a bad word to say about the Queen.... aside from a massive error of judgement over Lady Di the vast majority of people that dealt with her or met her had nothing but genuine words of warmth to say about her.

Counter that with Cherlie boy. Few people say good things about him and tend to say nothing, speaks for itself.
That snarling episode when he had a go at one of his servants (right word) for not moving the pen sums it up for me.
Click to expand...
That’s my point exactly

It’s two different debates

Btw I’ve thought about this number 1.036 laws she 'vetted'

Even if they were true that’s over 1,000 opinions in what 70 years of reign

So that’s 365 x 70 = 1,036

I’ll take that to be honest.

Btw we still have no idea what any of her opinions on these things were either.
 
Last edited:
Andy_W said:
I doubt it was intentional (not the picking of them, who were also probably volunteering), the forces are generally quite good at showing diversity where they can, often above what the percentages of the makeup are, to make a point as it helps with recruitment. It's the same with women, where they can pick one to represent, they often will.

From my experience in the forces, nearly all the elite and special forces were white, other than the Gurkha's but they were tiny, but they would largely be too small for Grandiers/ Queens guard. That was a while ago now mind, and not saying that's representative then, or now.
Click to expand...
They were hand picked on height and experience apparently
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top