Royalty the queen and her family.

If we want to keep the RF as entertainment then I have no issue with that. If people want to see them riding in carriages and waving then crack on.

But that doesn't give us any right to comment on their personal lives and it doesn't mean that we should allow them any say in the government of the country.

It's our history if palaces and castles were opened as in a republic all year round these places would bring massive tourism a world class museum our heritage, wouldn't that be something anyone could be proud of?

Did you know there are many works of art hidden people can't get to see in the palace?

We can still do pomp and ceremony with our democratically elected Head of State

Then we would be a forward looking properly democratic country

You see the public have been conditioned by press and media that monarchy is the best you can have it's not

Monarchy is corrupt, secretive exempting themselves from FOI laws and are above the law.

Yes we could have a president, thinking of our PM’s in recent years could anyone of them do pomp and ceremony

Did you know that some works of art can deteriorate if not kept in certain conditions?

Can you expand on the corrupt comment please ?

Bridgeit

Did you know that some works of art can deteriorate if not kept in certain conditions?

Is one of those conditions not being looked at by peasants?

Do you know any peasants ?is that how you choose to describe yourself & others?

It was a joke Bridgeit

I don’t mind being a peasant. I know my place as a subject

?Reminds me of the old Morecambe Wise sketch, I cant remember it all, it was along the lines of -
I look up to him , he looks down on me , but he looks up to him & he looks down on the next one .... something like that .

Alegrias Serious question, and you've already answered it elsewhere I apologise - but in what ways do you believe that the Queen/RF still have significant political influence?

To the best of my knowledge her Maj has always maintained political neutrality (as much as any person can I'm sure) and though she does retain rights of veto and appointment she doesn't exercise them. ie the right to veto certain laws, not exercised since Queen Anne in 1708 I think.

I'd be more worried about Charles when it comes to political meddling should he 'ascend'.

I do see your point about comment of their private lives and I can see that it irks you that people imagine knowledge they can't realistically have. But I tend to see it in terms of the mental equivalent of Hello magazine - for some it's an imagined insight into the lives of people and they derive a great deal of entertainment and comfort from it. Consequently I tend to be fairly gentle in challenging it. These things mean a lot to people and the group here are not much of a threat to the likes of M&H, are they?

Alegrias I am missing an 'if'.

Here you are NellG

Royals vetted more than 1,000 laws via Queen’s consent. And a transparency law in 70s to hide her wealth.

Uncovered by The Guardian from archives, A scoop

amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent?__twitter_impression=true

NellG my objection to having a monarchy is less about how much political influence they have, more about the fact that as a modern 21st century nation we should not allow inherited privilege to have any place in the governance of our country, whether that is exerting influence or playing a role in how our establishment works.

Having a person at the "top of the tree" who has inherited that position, reinforces the idea that we are a country where who you are, and who your parents are, is much more important than whether you have any talents at all. Subconsciously we all grew up knowing that there was always someone around who needed to be considered our better.

For me the only way forward is a HoS that could be any one of us. Someone who could represent the people of the country today, instead of being someone whose ancestors were good at fighting battles.

I also don't think its very healthy for a modern democracy to idolise any group of people and not allow any criticism of them, real or imagined. I see it as bread and circuses.

It doesn't bother me personally how much they cost, or how many houses they have, or any of that. We'll always have rich people.

The RF doesn't have any say in the government of of our country Alegrias. Surely you've heard of the Black Rod ceremony at the State Opening of Parliament when MP's are called to hear the Queen's speech?

The carrier of the Black Rod, the Monarch's representative, has the door slammed in his face and then needs to bang on the door with the rod to gain entry. This symbolises the Common's independence from the Monarchy.

Governance. Governance. Different word, different meaning.

But thanks for the history lesson.

Governance: the way that organizations or countries are managed at the highest level, and the systems for doing this.

Alegrias Thanks for answering, much appreciated. But my question was specifically in response to your assertion that we shouldn't let them have any say in the government of the country. I am genuinely curious that I might have missed some way in which they have more influence than I believed.

I was pretty clear about your general ideology - I may be a sarky old bat sometimes but I do pay attention when people take the trouble to explain and I can respect your opinion, even if I don't always agree with it.

Sorry to pull you up Alegrias but in Smiles and my defence you did use the word government,

"But that doesn't give us any right to comment on their personal lives and it doesn't mean that we should allow them any say in the government of the country"

But you didn't say Governance Alegrias.

Your post @ 11.45 "....it doesn't mean that we should allow them any say in the government of the country".

It was a typo, and I apologise for giving the wrong impression. The word I wanted to use - and used in my post at 14:43 - was governance.

I don't think people should have a say in how the country is run, just because of their ancestors, that's my meaning.

( kicks herself under the table for typing too fast and not proofreading )

That said, if you've been told you're the most important person in the country for several decades, and you have a hotline to the PM, then it must be quite difficult not to try to nudge things in the direction you would like.

But the Queen doesn't have a say in the governance of the country. History showed that in the formative years of her reign, Queen Victoria got herself into hot water by trying to dictate to her government.

One example for our present monarch is not wanting a state funeral for Diana which in many ways it was. That was due to her being 'nudged' in that direction by the PM Tony Blair.

Not so much a personal say Smileless2021, more the fact of representing inherited privilege in the operation of the country. I'm not explaining myself well at all today, sorry .

For me, its not about whether the monarch makes any decisions about what is going on, but more that there is always a deference to the person of the monarch. So notionally, the final say in anything is always with the monarch, even though by tradition, that has now become functionally obsolete. That set up reinforces the impression that there is always somebody in the hierarchy who is superior to us, who needs to be given deference, not because of their talent or aptitude, but because of an accident of birth.

Alegrias1

It was a typo, and I apologise for giving the wrong impression. The word I wanted to use - and used in my post at 14:43 - was governance.

I don't think people should have a say in how the country is run, just because of their ancestors, that's my meaning.

( kicks herself under the table for typing too fast and not proofreading )

That said, if you've been told you're the most important person in the country for several decades, and you have a hotline to the PM, then it must be quite difficult not to try to nudge things in the direction you would like.

Ooooh, Alegrias you wouldn't be teetering on the edge of the rabbit hole of imagining what people do/think/say would you?

On a serious note though, the one thing we've not brought into this debate (and I will probably regret doing so) is the fact that she is also the head of the church, and was anointed by God ( or his representative in the guise of an archbishop) as the most important person in the country. As I understand it she is devout - I am not and have few good opinions on religion etc, but... the fact is that being the monarch is her God given right - does that aid or detract from the debate? Based on the fact that it is her, the church's and the states position?

Ooooh, Alegrias you wouldn't be teetering on the edge of the rabbit hole of imagining what people do/think/say would you? ???

Like Tony Blair and Alistair Campbell, I don't do God ?

Be interesting to hear what others say, though.

Sorry, I don't understand. It doesn't make any sense to say "So notionally the final say in anything is always with the monarch" as by it's definition when something is notionally, it is a notion; mental or imaginary. Speculative or theoretical.

The government can be advised by the Queen but the ultimate power to make all and any decisions rests with the government. She gives Royal Assent by which she formerly approves legislature however, even that is procedural and has never been refused.

It may well be that there's "the impression that there is always somebody in the hierarchy who is superior to us, who needs to be given deference, not because of their talent or aptitude, but because of an accident of birth", but any 'impression' that this is the case when it comes to our Monarch and our government is false.