Royalty the queen and her family.

Alegrias1

I don't care how much the RF costs us. I don't care how much a democratically elected HoS would cost us. A democratically elected HoS would be representative of the public and wouldn't be in a job for life.

We wouldn't expect a democratically elected HoS to stay in post until they were 94 years old. We wouldn't expect them to expect so much deference that their in-laws flee the country to escape them. We wouldn't expect to support their extended family and to turn up and wave flags when the democratically elected HoS's fourth child's wife comes along to say hello.

And as I always say when someone comes up with the "Oh but we might get Blair!" defence. Yes, we might, if we vote for him. That's the point. Or we might get David Attenborough (although he's 94 so probably wouldn't stand now ). We might get Sarah Gilbert. We might get JVT. Just imagine.

Great post! We also wouldn't get family with paedophile connections hiding themselves away on a property in the countryside.
The sleaziness surrounding someone who was travelling the world promoting this country is absolutely indefensible.

We wouldn't expect them to expect so much deference that their in-laws flee the country to escape them.

You must have been reading the newspapers - don't believe anything written in them Alegrias!
Honestly, half if it is made up.
The very newspapers which those in-laws blame for them fleeing the country and a part of the media which they now seek avidly.
They cannot seem to see the irony.

Sad to see so much misinformation and bad feelings.?

It's not a poor show. Andrews connections enabled him to involve himself with Epstein etc. Those same connections are enabling him to avoid speaking to the authorities. It is perfectly possible to arrange a presidency or whatever system is deemed appropriate, with safeguards to remove people where necessary. A president would also remove the weird belief that some people are somehow better due to an accident of birth.

Do any one of you think that an elected H of S would be, without any question, be as pure as the driven snow? Dear me, how naive. Of course an elected H of S may hopefully be completely well meaning in their motives, may well be a clean living person, without any skeletons in the cupboard. That’s what we deserve, but won’t necessarily get. Take your blinkers off and have a look around the world. It’s said that power corrupts, and how many times do we read of those in important positions (in all walks of life) using their power to abuse, to fiddle their expenses, and worse. There is not one reason to assume that an elected President would never use their power to abuse others or their position. And they would not be instantly demoted. The wheels of state run exceedingly slowly.
And nepotism runs well high in places, so an accident of birth would most certainly support people ‘getting on’ just as it does now.

Incidentally Putin was elected and so was Trump

We could get a Bill Clinton! The epitome of high morals and decency - no sleaze there ??

Chirac, Sarkozy ?

How comical to be called naïve by someone who thinks the best qualification for being HoS is that your ancestor was Robert the Bruce's butler.

Maybe an elected HoS would use their power in a way that we didn't approve of. If its criminal, out they go. If its not but we still don't like it - vote them out of office. That's how democracy works.

I believe the last king of Thailand was very well respected. The latest one, not so much. For every "bad" president, I'll find you some "bad" monarchs.

And seeing as we're listing Presidents: Mandela? McAleese? Roosevelt?

Doesn't matter where you live, if it is a republic or has a monarchy there will always be one person that is seen as richer than anyone, has more possessions than anyone etc
If you are not happy with things as they are, maybe you just need to move to somewhere on your own , then you can be your own monarch!

Do you think we're jealous of wealth jaylucy? Do you think that's why we want a republic?

I'll just ignore the "if you're not happy you know what to do" bit.

How comical to be called naive by someone who thinks the best qualification for being HoS is is that your ancestor was Robert the Bruce’s butler.

I used the word naive.
Are you referring to me? If you are, you’re not only incorrect as I have never written anything in a post about Robert the Bruce, but you’re also b.......y rude and you need to apologise.
If you’re not referring to me, I apologise in advance.

Yes, you maddyone. You said that people who think that elected Heads of State are pure as the driven snow are naïve. Told us to take our blinkers off. Nearly a personal attack, but not quite.

I know you didn't mention Robert the Bruce, but the present Queen is only in her position because of her Stuart ancestry. The reason the Stuarts came to power was because they were prominent in the household of Robert the Bruce. Stewards, in fact. No other reason, its purely hereditary.

No apologies. Report the post if you don't like it.

Alegrias
I’ve noticed before, and I’ll say outright, you’re extremely opinionated and rude. Report the post if you don’t like it.
What I said was not a personal attack as I mentioned no one by name at that point. But I will say, that although you lied about what a I said, if the cap fits, wear it!

I won’t ask for the post to be removed, I’ll leave it to stand so others can see what people have to be subjected to by some posters.

It does strike me that what I said has made some posters just a little bit riled.

Yep, I'm very forthright maddyone. I don't think I'm quite the most forthright on here though.

And if you think I lied about what you said, then I respectfully suggest that you read the last few posts again.

Glad you've decided to not report the post, so that others can read it. Although probably everybody else except you and me has given up and gone to get their lunch....

maddyone

I won’t ask for the post to be removed, I’ll leave it to stand so others can see what people have to be subjected to by some posters.

To be absolutely fair that works both ways. I honestly think this is all down to way too many threads on the same topic. People have run out of things to say and are getting narky.

Sorry but that is how I see it.

I’m ok with forthright but some of the most “forthright” posters get rather prickly when someone is forthright in return!

Is PA hiding away? If he is, he's not doing a very good job is he if it's known he's hiding away in the countryside?

I see a lot of posts that appear to be suggesting that the only reasons PA has not so far been pursued by the American authorities is because he's being 'protected' by virtue of being the Queen's son; ridiculous.

If there's a case for him to answer then the case should be bought against him. Surely no one really believes that the Queen has either the power or the desire to protect PA from charges of being a paedophile?

If I'm wrong than can someone provide proof that can be substantiated, that it's PA's royal connection enabling him to evade justice?

Sir John Dalberg-Acton is best remembered for putting in a letter to an Anglican Bishop, in the mid 1800's that "power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

It would appear in the case of M that even perceived power can have damaging consequences.

PA hasn't been seen at any event since his disastrous interview. He isn't even on his daughter's official wedding photographs. www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a34643050/prince-andrew-status-royal-outcast-interview-anniversary/
He is still wanted for questioning by the FBI.

trisher that sounds as if there is some kind of outstanding warrant. The FBI can and do come here to question people. After 911 two colleagues of mine were tracked down and questioned as their names were connected to the event. Both were interviewed in the UK. They could have refused but didn't.

My view is that Andrew should cooperate with them and volunteer to be interviewed, but as he's such a monumental pillock I'd guess he's been advised to stick with 'no comment'. If the FBI had criminal charges to bring, they could and would. I don't believe the wider RF can be protected from the law in that way. A long time ago I know but I think EV11 was cited in a nasty divorce case and had to appear in court. QV was horrified but couldn't prevent it. Someone may have information to say differently though, in which case I'm happy to stand corrected.

as he's such a monumental pillock

Anne has a police record

Wasn’t Anne fined for her dog biting someone some years ago? I think only the Queen has Crown immunity, but I think there’s some archaic law that states that none of the family can be arrested whilst in the presence of the Queen.

Yes I think you're right Greeneyedgirl so it stands to reason that if the Queen's daughter can be fined for that, if there's sufficient evidence against PA, being the Queen's son isn't going to afford him any protection.