King Charles III

Muttley said:
We saw when Johnson lied to the Queen that the monarch has no constitutional function. So what is the point? The existence of the institution of the monarchy justifies the inheritance of privilege that means that a very few people maintain wealth and power within limited circles.

It's part of the problem that means that 98% or more of the population can never rise to be Prime Minister, a High Court Judge, etc. regardless of how good they might be at those roles. We get blithering incompetents like Truss, narcissistic fools like Johnson or the hapless Cameron running the place is it any wonder we're in this mess.

Still good old King Chuck, Peggy-Wills, Simple Harry and the gang eh?
Click to expand...
Really? Look at John Major for example.
 
The Royal Family is the pinnacle of privilege in the UK.
It sets a tone for wealth being kept for the few.
Many follow - Lords, Barons, Billionaires etc
That's why it is feted
Nice eh?

Whilst it is in place we have no chance of wealth distribution in this country and fairness associated with it.

Get rid of the lying, greedy, hypocritical, racist pack of twaaats

And, you don't have to replace it with anything - just do without it.
 
Muttley said:
We saw when Johnson lied to the Queen that the monarch has no constitutional function. So what is the point? The existence of the institution of the monarchy justifies the inheritance of privilege that means that a very few people maintain wealth and power within limited circles.

It's part of the problem that means that 98% or more of the population can never rise to be Prime Minister, a High Court Judge, etc. regardless of how good they might be at those roles. We get blithering incompetents like Truss, narcissistic fools like Johnson or the hapless Cameron running the place is it any wonder we're in this mess.

Still good old King Chuck, Peggy-Wills, Simple Harry and the gang eh?
Click to expand...
I would have thought that Truss is precisely the opposite, an exemplar that anyone can be PM if they play the game. She had neither the advantages of competence nor (on a more serious note) the advantages of a bought and paid for education, and still she got to b-r up the country just as solidly as the two Etonian buffoons you cite that went before her.
 
atypical_boro said:
It’s about changing the mentality and culture of the country though isn’t it? I mean, maybe it wouldn’t, but maybe it would. Given the choice, I’d like to give it a go. I can’t imagine it working out any worse than Brexit has, as far as daft experiments go.
Click to expand...
culture flows downwards not up. That is a universal truth.

By establishing an establishment built on unearned privilege we propagate a culture of elitism and harms the idea of meritocracy and egalitarianism.

Some key points:
- having a royal family has proven itself not to stop a rogue government behaving outside the boundaries of decency, established agreed protocols and within the boundaries of what the public voted for. If you wanted that you probably should have voted to stay in the EU where the give and pull of a separate political system was able to create the necessary tensions to keep our government from such wild policies and anti-scoail (in a international relationship) sense.

- On its own removing that figure head of a royal family will not create a utopian society. But I don't think any republican believes it would. Cutting out cancerous cells doesn't make you a prime athlete figure, but it makes life a bit less troublesome.

- Republicanism is not 'marxism' just as supporting a fairer society is not marxism. Marx wasn't the devil and some of his words, when framed correctly are prophetic. I don't know any republicans looking to create a communist society to replace it....in fact I don't personally know anyone that wants a communist society.

- Royals just like other members of society are prone to the odd 'wrong un', problem is we are stuck that character for their long miserable life. On top of that due to the nature of being a royal, it must be pretty difficult to not be a pretty insipid and dangerous individual. Coveted for life, told how great they are, never needing to really work for anything, what a miserable existence, that can only untold psychological trauma. Flip side is, once you are born into it, there really is no escape, as the H&M situation shows. He tried getting out of public life, the press still hounded them, so he tried to put his own words out their, and the press continued to hound at the behest of the royal family.

Bin it all, remove the laws that bestow ownership by conquest. If you haven't got deeds that showed you purchased land and property, then return it to the state. There it can be used as public space, or sold under public consultation to generate revenue for the exchequer. If assets are 'in trust' then they are not personal possessions and should also be returned to the state.

Will it solve all problems, no. Will it have risks, of course change is risk. Will it remove a problem opening up opportunity for a better Britain, absolutely. There are far more things to be proud of as part of British culture than bloody lazy toffs with a gold hat. We're a nation of artists, and architects, and inventors, and scientists, they're the people we should be proud of and rallying around, not those royal wasters, grifters and thieves.
 
Last edited:
speckyget said:
The rotten pyramid of unearned privilege, arrogance and snobbery that governs us and infects every walk of life is given legitimacy by our class system. The monarchy is at the apex of that pyramid.
Click to expand...
They’re actually a bit lower down the pyramid than that , but you’re absolutely correct on everything else
 
Don’t forget this beauty
Charlie boy benefitting (all within ancient feudal law so ‘normal)

From the proceeds of those who die without a will and whose relatives can’t be found.
He’s had £60m

www.theguardian.com

Time to get rid of a British feudal system that allows royals to rob the dead | Letters

Letters: Readers react to a Guardian investigation into bona vacantia, whereby the duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall can collect the estates of the deceased in certain circumstances
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
Last edited:
I've always found the assumption that if we abolished the monarchy from the equation that we'd be left with a presidency rather bizarre. There is little stopping us keeping the existing parliamentary system but removing the monarchy from the equation.

Yes, they theoretically could intervene (and arguably should have in recent years) but it's a near impossibility these days. Also works both ways, what would happen if a King/Queen decided to use their powers for ill, who do they answer to?

Think I've just convinced myself I'm in favour of an elected monarchy :ROFLMAO:
 
On a slightly different tangent, King Charles wore a Greece tie to the COP28 meeting today. I'd imagine this photo was pretty awkward for Sunak, the slimy little sh*tbag.

1-5-1168x600.jpg
 
WeeGord said:
On a slightly different tangent, King Charles wore a Greece tie to the COP28 meeting today. I'd imagine this photo was pretty awkward for Sunak, the slimy little sh*tbag.

View attachment 68076
Click to expand...

I'd like to think you are right fella
They are both as bad as each other
My caption would be Sunak saying

'Can you help me become a popular filthy rich, bigoted hypocrite like you'?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top