Queen Elizabeth

atypical_boro said:
Surely nobody can truly believe that the monarch, who meets with the Prime Minister once a week without any minutes, has zero influence over the government?
Click to expand...

She’s not really there for that reason. The monarch is just the ‘political coat hanger’
All the shoite that’s dished out…she’s signs out. It’s all done in her name. Remove that system then everything must change.
Read about the Danish constitutional system. Similar set up, but very different application.
 
I was listening to the radio yesterday, and the presenter said that it had rocked the ration and shook it to its core, and it had been an extremely difficult year for the country without her. Why do people come out with such sh*t? Having said that my dads partner still has Queen flags in her garden, but she is a bit of a nut job.
 
Frankie Lee said:
I was listening to the radio yesterday, and the presenter said that it had rocked the ration and shook it to its core, and it had been an extremely difficult year for the country without her. Why do people come out with such sh*t? Having said that my dads partner still has Queen flags in her garden, but she is a bit of a nut job.
Click to expand...
Terrifying thing is they probably believed it as well. It’s genuinely staggering how brainwashed some people actually
 
GibbosEmpire said:
No you said it’s not related to the Queens death, and it kind of is.
Click to expand...
My original comment was that people said that things would never be the same again after her death but I hadn’t noticed any significant changes as a result.

You said things had got worse but my point was that I don’t think that is a direct result of her death. I don’t think Charles being King has impacted that, he won’t be doing anything different than what the Queen was doing.

It’s status quo as far as I can see.
 
Last edited:
Frankie Lee said:
I was listening to the radio yesterday, and the presenter said that it had rocked the ration and shook it to its core, and it had been an extremely difficult year for the country without her. Why do people come out with such sh*t? Having said that my dads partner still has Queen flags in her garden, but she is a bit of a nut job.
Click to expand...
"Queen" or "the Queen"? 😉

Can't beat a bit of Freddie Mercury 👍
 
I would far sooner have a head of state who was born into it knowing their destiny and having all the time and training to undesrstand the role with the power to abdicate if necessary than a likely person born into wealth with a craving for power and a desire to hoodwink people in order to achieve their desired goal as President. President Johnson, President Cameron, President Thatcher, President Sunak, I’d think many would baulk at President Blair or President Starmer on here too.

Unlike Atypical, I do believe the King has little power, his role is largely ceremonial, powers are rarely exercised going a long way back in time proves that. The Monarch just accepts the elected government advice, it is arguably expensive granted, but respected by the majority still I feel. A republic could be very costly too, power is wealth, to think goalposts would not be moved would be naive. Republics can easily go bad there are plenty of dreadful ones, including ‘the land of the free’, Russia, Venezuela, China, the power on a President can be largely unchecked and could be equally damaging, look at Trump. They can change constitutions once in power, see Putin, Xi et al. Less chance of a wrong un as king than there is as President imho. (Awaits robust comments bordering on the edge of reasonableness). I shan’t be commenting further on the matter.
 
Ultimately, the effectiveness of a political system depends on how it is implemented, the specific laws and institutions in place, and the values and expectations of the society it serves. Some countries have successful monarchies, while others thrive under presidential systems. Some nations have combined elements of both monarchy and democracy. The choice of the best system is subjective and depends on the unique circumstances and preferences of a given society.
 
How does an entire family who sit at the head of the table, still in 2023 go unregulated, unelected and practically have zero consequence for anything they do and still have influence on the political spectrum today?
 
All those in the “they are only just “ camp

You try removing them to see how” only just” they really are.
 
coluka said:
I would far sooner have a head of state who was born into it knowing their destiny and having all the time and training to undesrstand the role with the power to abdicate if necessary than a likely person born into wealth with a craving for power and a desire to hoodwink people in order to achieve their desired goal as President. President Johnson, President Cameron, President Thatcher, President Sunak, I’d think many would baulk at President Blair or President Starmer on here too.

Unlike Atypical, I do believe the King has little power, his role is largely ceremonial, powers are rarely exercised going a long way back in time proves that. The Monarch just accepts the elected government advice, it is arguably expensive granted, but respected by the majority still I feel. A republic could be very costly too, power is wealth, to think goalposts would not be moved would be naive. Republics can easily go bad there are plenty of dreadful ones, including ‘the land of the free’, Russia, Venezuela, China, the power on a President can be largely unchecked and could be equally damaging, look at Trump. They can change constitutions once in power, see Putin, Xi et al. Less chance of a wrong un as king than there is as President imho. (Awaits robust comments bordering on the edge of reasonableness). I shan’t be commenting further on the matter.
Click to expand...
I would rather have a bit of instability now and again than unelected birth right people in charge of the country and our armed forces.

We are hardly ripping it up as a nation are we?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top