Royal Thread the Second- Tiaras Optional! ?

Ellianne, you could always subscribe to my Queen Charlotte theory!

(I don’t think anything horrid will happen to George btw, before anyone gets busy with the report button)

I think that Charlotte’s ‘Middleton Woman Genes’ plus those of the Queen plus Diana’s will prove a heady and dynamic mixture; and that she will have massive appeal to the public.
Whereas George may prove to be a bit meh
I just think that Charlotte will be a huge star

Mollygo

Is it time to send a message to GN HQ with a word of praise for one of these posts.

Ah Molly how kind. Thank you

FannyCornforth

Alegrias1

Don't get me started on whether we, unlike any other modern democracy, should be incapable of choosing our own "Head of State" and can't really be trusted with making decisions at a ballot box.

Benevolent despotism, that's what we should have (sarcasm!)

But how can you reconcile that with Brexit, and the current Government?
And whenever you ask folk who they would like, they come out with flipping Branson
Or we’d end up with Simon Cowell or even Johnson (shudder).
I actually quite like the idea of a benevolent despot (not sarcasm!)

I'm going to post on this becuase you asked Fanny, even though I expect folk are sick of me going on about it...

We need to decide on what the role of a President is; it is in all probability NOT going to be the same as the role in the US or France, where the Head of State is also the Head of Government. Our Head of Government is the PM, and would continue to be, in all likelihood. I'm not aware anyone is asking for that to change, and if we don't like this lot, we'll we can vote them out in a few years

So the President would probably be a figurehead, of sorts, same as we have at the moment and similar to what they have in Germany, Ireland, Finland, a hundred other places that don't have monarchies. The difference is that we could have someone that represents the nature and characteristics of the British people, and not be landed with someone who is in position just because their ancestors were good at fighting or sucking up to whoever happened to be King at the time.

And if we decide they're not up to the job, we vote them out next time. And we don't expect them to take on a role that means they have to work into their nineties.

After 73 years being known as ‘Charles’, I think the public would find it very hard to call him ‘George’.

He should stick to his own name.

Apparently, when the Queen became monarch, she was asked what name did she want to be known by.

“My own, of course” she replied.

Calendargirl, how interesting, I didn’t know that
I wonder what they thought she was going to choose.
Which names would we all opt for?

Alegrias that sounds marvellous in practice. I just can’t see us making a decent fist of it…

Theory, not practice. Doh

Surely if it’s a league table the whole point is that it will change over time. The relative unpopularity of Charles now may well change before he becomes king, the Queen may live for another 10 years, or yet outlive Charles, or he may become increasingly popular as he takes over more of her duties over time. I think his position at present is because of his relationship with Harry, so no doubt that will change too, for better or worse.

Charles has had to cope with so much criticism, his first wife, now his younger son.

William is popular because he is younger and has a wife who accepts her role

FannyCornforth

Alegrias that sounds marvellous in practice. I just can’t see us making a decent fist of it…

You don't think we're very good at democracy? ?

Oh hello - I’ve just found this thread - looks awesome - I love the Royals and all they are and all they have been.
Oh and I’m Or-stray-lian and love having them as our head of state - I wouldn’t trust a polly to be in total control-I kinda feel like the Queen is the handbrake you can pull on if the brakes fail!

FannyCornforth

*Calendargirl*, how interesting, I didn’t know that
I wonder what they thought she was going to choose.
Which names would we all opt for?

Her other names are Alexandra and Mary, both former ‘Queen’ names, but they were only consorts.

I expect her father decided to use ‘George’ to break away from connotations of the abdication, as George V was a popular monarch with the people.

Going back to poor old Charles, surely when he was christened with that as his first name, it was assumed it was the name he would use when eventually King?

Think his other names are Philip, Arthur and George.

Are they on the move again?
news.sky.com/story/harry-and-meghan-discussed-moving-to-new-zealand-governor-general-says-12372335

The previous King Arthur certainly came to a more heroic end than the previous King Charles.
Who on here is old enough to remember being asked to punctuate,
“King Charles walked and talked half an hour after his head was cut off.”?

So the President would probably be a figurehead, of sorts, same as we have at the moment and similar to what they have in Germany, Ireland, Finland, a hundred other places that don't have monarchies

So, in other words, the same as we have at present but a complete nonentity that no-one has heard of or cares about and yet another election every 4 years, who would want a new Palace that didn't leak, refurbished every 4 years etc?

What's the point?

Callistemon

^So the President would probably be a figurehead, of sorts, same as we have at the moment and similar to what they have in Germany, Ireland, Finland, a hundred other places that don't have monarchies^

So, in other words, the same as we have at present but a complete nonentity that no-one has heard of or cares about and yet another election every 4 years, who would want a new Palace that didn't leak, refurbished every 4 years etc?

What's the point?

The difference is that we could have someone that represents the nature and characteristics of the British people, and not be landed with someone who is in position just because their ancestors were good at fighting or sucking up to whoever happened to be King at the time.

And if we decide they're not up to the job, we vote them out next time. And we don't expect them to take on a role that means they have to work into their nineties.

We don't have to give them a palace. Are you suggesting that a reason for keeping a hereditary monarchy is that they don't complain about living in a Palace that may be unfit for human habitation?

The many charities who have a member of the royal family as patron would have to turn to celebrities to find a patron , who
would be the chosen ones ?

Alegrias1

What a great way to run a country.

Tell a 3 year old boy that his destiny is decided for him but he'll have to wait 75 years for it to happen.

Its not nice is it?

No, it’s not very nice for him is it?

The Queen aged 25 knew she was going to live into her nineties
or longer , gosh

Id just like to say how I think Zara and Mike Tindall are a credit to the Royal family. Princess Anne made the right decision not to have the titled. I know they must lead a privileged life but they do so with grace. Other young royals could take a page out of their book.

No, of course she didn’t know how long she’d live, but I’ve felt a bit sorry for Charles for some time because he’s been preparing for this role for such a long time. It’s a bitter, sweet thing isn’t it as his mother will die, and then he will be king.

Alegrias1

What a great way to run a country.

Tell a 3 year old boy that his destiny is decided for him but he'll have to wait 75 years for it to happen.

Its not nice is it?

Furthermore, it will only come to pass when Mummy dies
It’s like a horrible fairytale, or an evil pact

You’re right Newsttis, Zara and Mike seem a very nice couple, but they are very lucky because they have none of the restrictions of royal life. Edward and Sophie seem to be doing a good job too.

Welcome Platypus!
I hope that you enjoy the thread!

We have some pretty strange conversations at times, but there are lots of really interesting facts and stuff (not actually my facts, they tend to be wrong. They’re not even ‘my truth’, as Oprah notoriously said).

It will be great to hear your Australian take on things! ?

(It took me an embarrassingly long time to work out what a ‘polly’ is!)

Ban royal lobbying and legal exemptions

The Queen and Prince Charles have a power called 'royal consent', (not to be confused with Royal Assent), which lets them insist laws give them unique exemptions. This includes exemptions from environmental protection laws, planning laws, tax laws, race discrimination laws and much, much more.

The royals also enjoy complete access to government ministers in London and devolved parliaments and complete secrecy surrounds what they say to our elected politicians.

It has also been claimed that Prince Charles has been caught up in a cash-for-access scheme, where rich and powerful people can pay to meet with the prince and potentially lobby for political intervention on their behalf.

All of this means the royals are able to demand laws suit their personal, private interests and may be persuaded to lobby on behalf of rich and powerful people from the UK and abroad. This has to stop.

We're calling for the royal consent law to be scrapped and for royal secrecy to end. Voters should know what Prince Charles is saying to our politicians, what he's demanding and why.

Two clear legal changes are needed:

Scrap the royal consent law.
Amend Freedom of Information laws so royal lobbying can be scrutinised.
Sign the petition. Let's get this done.

End the secrecy scrap the consent law.

www.gransnet.com/forums/chat/1298244-Royal-Thread-the-Second-Tiaras-Optional?pg=30