On borrowed time - the royals

jacqrose

Elegran it has recently been reported that the queen and PC used their position to get legislation changed to favour them financially, so maybe that’s why she reads it all. And by the way, the queen and the rest of them are always on holiday, that is the very fortunate life they lead.

That's true jacqrose the queen had a say in over 1000 laws including thoses that affect her private interests.

Who reported it and where ?

Elegran it has recently been reported that the queen and PC used their position to get legislation changed to favour them financially, so maybe that’s why she reads it all. And by the way, the queen and the rest of them are always on holiday, that is the very fortunate life they lead.

Jacqrose You say "Signing acts of parliament is surely just a ceremonial duty." It is whatever the signer makes of it. The Queen receives red boxes daily full of accounts of what has gone on in Parliament that day and background reports on the legislation that has been discussed. She reads everything, even when she is on holiday, and discusses it all in her weekly meetings with her Prime Minister (14 prime ministers during her 67-year reign). She has been doing this since 1952 and knows more than any of them.

In effect, she signs what Parliament has debated and voted for. Although "she remains constitutionally empowered to exercise the royal prerogative against the advice of the prime minister or the cabinet, in practice she would only do so in emergencies or where existing precedent does not adequately apply to the circumstances in question." Wikipedia

Grandma70s

Grany

Grandma70s not bitterness just pointing out to royalists that maybe the RF are not as good or a proper functioning as its meant to be Head of State that people are led to believe in the fawning royal press coverage. We could get a lot better for less.

And we would have a properly written constitution that people can read about what our country stands for.

Much of it comes across to me as bitter because of the way it’s expressed. There seems to be resentment there which is not the same as simply preferring a different system

I should add that I am not a crusading royalist, I’m just not against them. I don’t mind them being there.

There’s no “fawning royal press coverage” in any paper I’m likely to read.

Well you could feel there there's unfairness and corruption that's not dealt with.

Charles has been creaming off the people who live on the Duchy true.

Plus Charles pays no corporation tax or capital gains tax on the duchies billion pound business conglomerate despite ministers saying he should, which gives him an unfair advantage, duchy is private or public depends what suits the RF any one time. You could say these issues needs addressing

Elegant: I’d be more than happy to have the conversation before the queen dies but unfortunately the media would never allow it. Signing acts of parliament is surely just a ceremonial duty. Polls often show it is only the older generation that has respect or interest in the RF so it would be most unlikely there would be a civil war. As for PC and his severance pay, he has been creaming it off the people who live on the Duchy estates for years. I think he’d manage just fine. People who are so pro the monarchy don’t realise that they are keeping these people trapped in an unhappy life of “duty” that given the choice they would never choose for themselves. Look what happens when they say they are leaving!

Grany

Grandma70s not bitterness just pointing out to royalists that maybe the RF are not as good or a proper functioning as its meant to be Head of State that people are led to believe in the fawning royal press coverage. We could get a lot better for less.

And we would have a properly written constitution that people can read about what our country stands for.

Much of it comes across to me as bitter because of the way it’s expressed. There seems to be resentment there which is not the same as simply preferring a different system

I should add that I am not a crusading royalist, I’m just not against them. I don’t mind them being there.

There’s no “fawning royal press coverage” in any paper I’m likely to read.

Oldwoman70 Wise man, that Douglas Adams.

The view on the RF on Mumsnet, depending which thread you look at, seems to be about 50/50. It could be full of secret GN lurkers, because some of the pro/con comments look very similar.

Alexa

PS it is of course, not only the monarchy that needs changing. It is also the entire class system with its oligarchs and to a lesser extent landed aristocrats all of whom exert too much power over the rest of us especially poorer people.

Before the monarchy is changed it is more important to change the laws on who owns most of the land mass of Britain.

What exactly is the power that these rich folks and landed aristocracy have over poor people?

Whenever the question of electing a President comes up I think of the Douglas Adams quote "anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job"

Alexa

PS it is of course, not only the monarchy that needs changing. It is also the entire class system with its oligarchs and to a lesser extent landed aristocrats all of whom exert too much power over the rest of us especially poorer people.

Before the monarchy is changed it is more important to change the laws on who owns most of the land mass of Britain.

I agree Alexa

Agree totally Parsley. The view of the RF on Mumsnet is VERY different to the view on here.

Will those who hold the Queen in high regard simply switch allegiance to King Charles to uphold the support for a Monarchy? The Queen has been above reproach but Charles brings quite a back story to the roll. My view is that reverence for the RF will naturally diminish as we old retainers peter out.

PS it is of course, not only the monarchy that needs changing. It is also the entire class system with its oligarchs and to a lesser extent landed aristocrats all of whom exert too much power over the rest of us especially poorer people.

Before the monarchy is changed it is more important to change the laws on who owns most of the land mass of Britain.

Thank you Lucca.

‘Ah what about Diana’ ?

I have been enchanted by the myth of the British Royal Family, and am sorry to have to be reasonable. I only wish there was a way to retain the ceremonials with gorgeous horses and carriages, and also the fascinating personalities, while depriving the monarchy of its undue powers.

Like any other country where power shifts, the person at the helm when it changes just steps down. Charles has his own home. He'd just go back there. He'd go from being an exceptionally wealthy public man to an exceptionally wealthy private man.

Elegran

After the Queen dies it would be too late to have that conversation (and it should be a conversation , undertaken by all parties with the emphasis on the best way forward for the whole country, not as an exercise in throwing aristocrats to the guillotine)

Suppose the "conversation" decided, after Charles had succeeded to the throne and perhaps been crowned King, that what was preferred was a Republic? Would he just get sacked, with no severance pay and no reference? That would be most unfair, whatever your monarchy/republic views.

Also, you would be faced with a vacuum - no head of state at all and no-one authorised to sign Acts of Parliament. There must be continuity and a peaceful transition, no chaos and potential Civil War, as in the US between presidents.

I don't think anyone is suggesting a revolution and aristos' heads on stakes Elegran .

But somebody will be monarch when we have this conversation, we can't avoid having it just because we've got somebody in post.

And I'm guessing you're being flippant about the severance pay and references? I'm guessing Charles Windsor esq. wouldn't be too hard up in his old age.

I Totally agree with everything you say nanna8
It’s about time we got rid of the over privileged monarchy and all their hangers on, look what this country could do with all the priceless works of art and Jewell’s we supposedly own
Wouldn’t the money be better spent on the country and not in vaults

Grandma70s

Bowing I understand, but what exactly is scraping?

I always find the anti-royal threads rather mean-spirited and sad. There often seems to be an unreasonable, and to me inexplicable, degree of bitterness in them.

How is it bitter to have an opinion about the system of monarchy in our country? It is no different to holding a political opinion.

Wait for the “ah but what about Diana?”..........

Anniebach

Who is Charles mistress ?

She is now his wife. I have no respect whatsoever for anyone who behaves as she (and he) did.

After the Queen dies it would be too late to have that conversation (and it should be a conversation , undertaken by all parties with the emphasis on the best way forward for the whole country, not as an exercise in throwing aristocrats to the guillotine)

Suppose the "conversation" decided, after Charles had succeeded to the throne and perhaps been crowned King, that what was preferred was a Republic? Would he just get sacked, with no severance pay and no reference? That would be most unfair, whatever your monarchy/republic views.

Also, you would be faced with a vacuum - no head of state at all and no-one authorised to sign Acts of Parliament. There must be continuity and a peaceful transition, no chaos and potential Civil War, as in the US between presidents.

Grany

Here you can read see about the Royals and secrecy NellG And by the way I didn't accuse you of being a sun reader It was a statement about the way people in general pick up news about RF m.youtube.com/watch?v=pSQyDNN4BYg&t=162s

Grany I think assuming that everyone is being duped by what paper they read is just a weak argument, doesn't matter which paper. It's a logical fallacy that weakens the argument. I understand the call for a republic, I just don't agree with it - not because I'm a raving royalists , sitting here with my stuffed corgi and clutching my souvenir royal wedding tea towel, but because I've done my homework over a lifetime, considered the arguments both ways and see no gain. Unelected or not, better the devil you know, and in a world where true democracy cannot exist it's the safer option IMO. But I am always happy to receive new information and revise my view, it just has to be good information from a reliable source as well as being radically convincing.

PS, you can call me what you like, I don't mind, but don't let it weaken the argument