Royal Thread the Second- Tiaras Optional! ?

I thought I'd posted a link to pictures of presidential palaces but the link went somewhere else.
Apologies.

I dont know what happened there!

Which style will you choose?

I'm having a look through them all.

Call

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

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?

???

Politician's answer!

Charles hasn’t been hanging around waiting to be king, he has
done much as The Prince of Wales.

We don't need to decide on the role of a President because we we have a perfectly good monarchy.

And it is Anello and Davide.

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

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!)

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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 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 ?

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?

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 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.”?

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

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.

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

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? ?

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