On borrowed time - the royals

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.

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

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.

Oldwoman70 Wise man, that Douglas Adams.

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.

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!

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

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

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.

Who reported it and where ?

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.

Will you name ten Grany ? from a reliable source not a republican site

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.

No they aren't, and no they didn't. It's her job to read it.

writeroyalty.com/2019-by-the-numbers-royal-work-round-up-part-1/

Here you are Annie More than 1,000 laws have been vetted by the Queen or Prince Charles through a secretive procedure before they were approved by the UK’s elected members of parliament, the Guardian has established.

The huge number of laws subject to royal vetting cover matters ranging from justice, social security, pensions, race relations and food policy through to obscure rules on car parking charges and hovercraft.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent

The royal family do not work hard they hardly work at all.

Thank you Grany what did they gain by vetting the fire law ?

Grany Oh of course they don't - that link I posted is fake...they pretty much just lounge around wearing togas, lying on velvet draped day beds and having grapes peeled for them by their minions. Occasionally they have the odd peasant whipped, just for entertainment...

Pretty much Nell except that a toga just wouldn’t cut it. It has to be jewel encrusted and substitute the peeled grapes for having your prepared toothbrush handed to you. People don’t like change but sometimes change is long overdue. I’m guessing nothing will change, though,because there is a hell of a lot of vested interest and the vested interest has a lot of dosh.

“ She has been doing this since 1952 and knows more than any of them.” ?? About what? Everything ?

nanna8 In all honesty I don't care too much either way. If they go I shan't lose sleep - though I'd like to see the Queen have a last few decent years tbh. If they stay I wont be too worried - unless the younger ones carry on playing it like it's reality TV, in which case they'll undo it for themselves. People's opinions on it are interesting, and I do try and stick up for fairness and fact where possible, but other than that these threads are greatly entertaining.

This thread keeps mentioning the royals and work in the same sentence. Royal engagements are not work as most people know it. Being driven to an event, staying an hour or two and then being driven back to their residence where someone will cook for them is a million miles from most people’s experience. NellG this could be a good starting point for people who are looking for facts.

jacqrose Most people think they know it - they imagine that it's an easy life because they see big houses and money and assume it makes life a doddle. It may well be easy materially, but I can't imagine a worse life personally and to me it would be the hardest work ever and I've had some doozy jobs! You're right, their lives are a million miles from most people's experience but I'd argue if it were flipped 'we' would fold first. And that's the thing - most of what we think we know isn't fact, it's speculation, conjecture, imagination, envy, dislike and fabrication. Consequently none of us are in greater possession of facts than another regarding how they really live and what they do that constitutes work. We just imagine it differently.

As it's such an easy, glamorous life, how come Megs and Harry couldn't hack it? Especially as Megs is so concerned about Archie having his birthright title of 'Prince' someday.

Yes I'd love not having to do housework, but having to do the 'visits' and such like, while living in a goldfish bowl......nah, you can keep it.

Of course we'd all want President Blair or President Cameron in the place of the queen wouldn't we.

Anyone want President Johnson?

Long live the King!

As a Canadian, I think getting rid of the monarchy might spell disaster for all those countries that are attached to Britain based on the colonial history.

Some questions that come to my mind are:
1) Will the end of the monarchy mean the end of Britian's hegemonic power.
2) What relationship does Britain want to have with the world once it no longer has the monarchy.
3) Will Canada get rid of its Governor General and anything else that we have because of our ties to Britain.