Queen at Royal Ascot Races

[janie48 98]

Yes & the Sun is the best selling paper in the UK which proves how thick most people are.

 

Most monarchists base their view of royalty on the reign of the Queen. Whilst I detest the institution on principle it has to be said that the woman has played the hand of cards dealt her brilliantly.

She doesn't give anything away as to her views which is exactly as it's supposed to be. The deal is that the monarch remains detached from politics & as a result alienates no one.

 

Now, look at what's coming up the path behind her. Charles has already got himself into bother by commenting on matters which are none of his concern. He has also personally interfered in proposed planning applications because he didn't consider them to be to his personal taste.

 

Once he gets the throne there will be no stopping the man. He has a vastly over rated opinion of his own abilities & will undoubtedly annoy people on a regular basis. Should he make the mistake of trying to give the Mrs the title of Queen he will even upset many royalists.

 

As for William, lets see how popular he remains when he gets himself the inevitable mistress, if he hasn't got one already. His dad had one at an even earlier stage in his marriage, honeymoon wasn't it?

You exaggerate. We could do a lot worse then Charles. The worse case scenario would be an ambitious power seeking arrogant jumped up nothing in the role of President, failing miserably to perform what are known as the "Queens "Royal duties" to the same excellent high standards.

 

William would never weaken the strength of the monarchy.

[cuttsie 1,091]

Seriously? You really think that other countries are queuing up to take on board an anachronistic, archaic, expensive & divisive institution that has no place in modern society?

 

Within ten years or so Australia will be a Republic & Canada will not be long after.

 

The idea that a person can, by the simple act of being born, hold a position of influence in a country is simply pathetic, & frankly embarrassing in this day & age.

It makes this country look Ruritanian & is a major part of the reason that we are still a class ridden society, which is damaging to the countries future.

 

Meritocracy's not Aristocracy's are the way a country prospers.[/QUOTE]

The Duke of Westminster worth 7.7 billion simply by being born. Immoral and wrong in a Country that now has food banks handing out to the poor.

 

How many aristocrats these days have any money? Death duties have all but decimated any wealth and property they had. Your true wealthy people these days are entrepreneurs and people in careers requiring very high, specialized skills.

 

Rants about rich aristocrats are nothing more than flogging a dead horse

 

Besides that there's always been a prevalent attitude in England that money and the making of it is some kind of cardinal sin and success of any kind regarded with suspicion and envy.

[natjack 10]

You exaggerate. We could do a lot worse then Charles. The worse case scenario would be an ambitious power seeking arrogant jumped up nothing in the role of President, failing miserably to perform what are known as the "Queens "Royal duties" to the same excellent high standards.

William would never weaken the strength of the monarchy.

I'm too much in awe at mjw47's reference for himself for the post of monarch/president - a job he could do "standing on his head", citing his experience of regional sales managing and giving presentations to up to 250 people, to even be able to type a rebuttal to it. :hihi::hihi:

[rosemary19 10]

I'm too much in awe at mjw47's reference for himself for the post of monarch/president - a job he could do "standing on his head", citing his experience of regional sales managing and giving presentations to up to 250 people, to even be able to type a rebuttal to it. :hihi::hihi:

Delusions of grandeur.

[mjw47 10]

The Queen has a personal fortune of £320 million which isn't chicken feed. She used to be worth over £5 Billion but this has been 're-valued' as she is now considered to only be the 'custodian' of things like the Royal Collection which she looks after 'on behalf of the Nation'.

That means you & I presumably? So what do you reckon our chances would be if we rolled up & asked to have a look at some of the stuff & maybe borrow the odd item for our next candle lit supper?

 

If I was a cynic I would think this was some kind of tax fiddle.

 

As to getting an incompetent President in charge, well so what? The difference is, he or she will eventually end their term, or if something is very wrong, they can be removed. Get one dodgy Sovereign & you're stuck with them for life no matter how ridiculous they are making the country look & no matter what damage is being done.

 

I pointed out in a previous thread that until William was born Andrew was two heart beats from the throne. Royalists chose to ignore that fact & bury their heads in the sand about the fact that a similar situation will no doubt arise in the future.

 

That's the problem with hereditary privilege, you get what you get, no matter how stupid or venal or corrupt they may be.

In this day of 24 hour press coverage, international webb sites & virtually everyone walking about with a camera phone in their pocket it is a system designed to come to an ignominious end.

 

---------- Post added 23-06-2013 at 22:01 ----------

 

I'm too much in awe at mjw47's reference for himself for the post of monarch/president - a job he could do "standing on his head", citing his experience of regional sales managing and giving presentations to up to 250 people, to even be able to type a rebuttal to it. :hihi::hihi:

 

natjack. You conveniently left out the part where I stated that 'literally thousands of people could do the 'job' 'didn't you?

If you honestly believe that what Royalty do is a difficult job then I can only assume that you haven't managed to do a reasonable days work in your life.

 

Just because you apparently fall to pieces when faced with having to meet & talk to a few people it doesn't mean that everyone doe's.

 

Still, I suppose if the highlight of your life is waiting for another Royal occasion to come around so you can get all excited at the pageant then I presume you get worked up rather easily.

 

Any chance you might actually tell us why you believe that a Monarchy is better than a Republic as a method of running a country, or is it just the horses, bands & colourfull uniforms you like?

[natjack 10]

---------- Post added 23-06-2013 at 22:01 ----------[/color]natjack. You conveniently left out the part where I stated that 'literally thousands of people could do the 'job' 'didn't you?

If you honestly believe that what Royalty do is a difficult job then I can only assume that you haven't managed to do a reasonable days work in your life.

 

Just because you apparently fall to pieces when faced with having to meet & talk to a few people it doesn't mean that everyone does.

 

Still, I suppose if the highlight of your life is waiting for another Royal occasion to come around so you can get all excited at the pageant then I presume you get worked up rather easily.

 

Any chance you might actually tell us why you believe that a Monarchy is better than a Republic as a method of running a country, or is it just the horses, bands & colourful uniforms you like?

yeah right, mate, whatever. You're hilarious. I'm still :hihi::hihi:

[mjw47 10]

yeah right, mate, whatever. You're hilarious. I'm still :hihi::hihi:

 

So, totally incapable of answering the question then? As I thought, thick as a plank. It's a condition shared by most people who defend Royalty. In this day & age there is no possible reason to retain a completely anachronistic system so Monarchists are left defending the indefensible, something that only a fool would even attempt to do.

 

What was your reason again? Oh yes, you like the excitement of the ceremonies. Perfectly good reason to continue with a flawed undemocratic load of nonsense.

 

Give me a reasoned argument for the retention of a Royal Family. If you cannot, & come back with another childish comment accompanied by your favourite smilies then we will have to conclude that you lack the capability of constructing any kind of intelligent defence of your views.

[Chris_Sleeps 10]

At least we can rely on the monarchy to have been brought up to their position, and know how to behave as fitting their position.

That is patently false, and a swift point to Edward VIII brings it down. A man born to a job, and absolutely ill suited to the task - through political and marital choices.

 

The argument that a monarch is a protection against politics is silly, because without politics we'd have a political monarch, and with a Royal constitution we still have politicians. We have the very thing you are arguing against - self-serving politicians.

 

Also, the weakness of democracy is not a defense of monarchy. It's like arguing apples are good because bananas are bad. We're all well aware of the problems of politicians, but I'd rather a man have power from the ballot than from the chance of popping out of the Royal womb.

Last years poll showed a favourable majority want the monarchy to remain.

A vote - in defense of not voting.

 

-----

The monarch is not self-selecting, it's a mere accident of birth.

What a great method of picking Heads of state.

 

We don't apply it to bus drivers - no man ever got given the keys to a bus because his Dad was also a bus driver - but apparently it's a fine means of picking who should pilot the ship of state.

 

I will never in my life understand Royalism. I really won't. It is the most anachronistic set of thought outside religion. I find it madness beyond words.

[Alien52 10]

You exaggerate. We could do a lot worse then Charles. The worse case scenario would be an ambitious power seeking arrogant jumped up nothing in the role of President, failing miserably to perform what are known as the "Queens "Royal duties" to the same excellent high standards.

 

William would never weaken the strength of the monarchy.

 

He believes that homeopathy works !!

Need I say more ?

 

I totally agree with C Sleeps on this one when he says

"I will never in my life understand Royalism. I really won't. It is the most anachronistic set of thought outside religion. I find it madness beyond words."

[janie48 98]

 

I totally agree with C Sleeps on this one when he says

"I will never in my life understand Royalism. I really won't. It is the most anachronistic set of thought outside religion. I find it madness beyond words."

I'm sorry to hear that, but I'll try not to hold it against you.

[mjw47 10]

Chris Sleeps. Agree with every word of that post. I have yet to meet a Royalist that can provide a logical argument for retaining the Monarchy other than some variation of 'Well that's what we've always had', & 'Doesn't it look wonderful when they parade up the Mall'.

[Rayo 10]

One good reason for keeping the Royal Family is that the majority of the public want them, worts and all. Another good reason is that tens of thousands are in-directly dependant on them for employment.