Camilla-Queen Consort?

Grantanow

I just don't care. They already live such incredibly privileged lives that one fancy title or another is neither here nor there. We need to focus on things that matter like NATO, the cost of living, Covid and getting rid of BJ as PM.

I agree. With today's revelations, how do you think we can get rid of BJ?

Agree Jaxie they even tell us what the family are thinking

Can I draw our attention to the gruesome people, commentators on royalty, who appear on tv programmes mostly fawning but often coming out with nonsense that is pure supposition. It must pay quite well to talk tripe about people who can’t defend themselves. PS: I am a republican.

Grantanow Good idea. Whatever Camilla is called won’t make any difference to the important matters you mention.

I just don't care. They already live such incredibly privileged lives that one fancy title or another is neither here nor there. We need to focus on things that matter like NATO, the cost of living, Covid and getting rid of BJ as PM.

Ladyleftfieldlover

The last three Irish Presidents have been good. I can’t remember their names but two of them were women.

Mary McAleese and Mary Robinson.

Both did excellent work as Presidents of their country, as did Nelson Mandela whom I mentioned above.

I do believe that people think any president would either be a direct replacement for the Monarch, with the same responsibilities, or a Head of Government like Biden or Macron. Neither of which is true, of course.

Yes but as Pres he is a apolitical and not allowed to interfere with or comment publicly on Government policy.

The present Irish President was put forward for the election by
the Labour Party

The last three Irish Presidents have been good. I can’t remember their names but two of them were women.

Every time this thread title catches my eye I can hear Freddie Mercury singing “She’s Camilla Queen”

As you were,

Nelson Mandela is generally considered to have been a good President, I think.

Do name those Presidents grany

Are all monarchies so good? There no such thing as a good monarchy. A president is elected, plenty really good ones.

A president would have stopped Johnson . . .
Are all presidents so good? Like Trump, or Ceausescu?

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Clearly Britain loses more than it gains from the monarchy. Let us be brave and end it

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/17/britain-monarchy-end-royal-jubilee?fbclid=IwAR2r5E-r5zpnLMHLZytPDuTqVJ69Fvpo0gm1N6G5iBCl2Q1pxtewlawZ6L4

The crown and constitution are no longer abstract debates. The need for an elected president has become urgent now Boris Johnson’s arrival in Downing Street tests conventions, laws and civil rights beyond their limits. John Major expressed that constitutional outrage eloquently on these pages, listing Johnson’s abuses: deliberately breaking international law; tearing up the ministerial code; ordaining police stop and search “without any cause for suspicion”; removing British citizenship at whim, while waging war against the civil service and the BBC, those national safeguards.

Our monarchy has handed all royal prerogative to the prime minister with no check or balance, bar a House of Lords almost as weak as the monarch for the same bad reason – lacking the authority of election. Look how Johnson engages in voter suppression: his proposals for compulsory photo ID and abolishing colleges registering their students will deliberately deter the young and poor from voting. Look how he moves to curb the electoral commission’s power to prosecute illegal political donations protecting his own party’s pelf. There is no brake on an errant prime minister in a country without a written constitution, where a warped electoral system denies fair representation and there is no effective head of state to guard against law-breaking. The unelected Queen must do what the prime minister tells her to.

The constitutional problem is not the monarch’s power, but powerlessness. Presidents around Europe protect constitutions and guard against overmighty politicians breaking basic law. A president would have stopped Johnson illegally proroguing parliament: it takes the authority of election to take action as a vital backstop in a constitutional emergency.

I think Diana was definitely naive and innocent. But Meghan was very street wise and worldly wise when she agreed to marry Prince Harry. She may have got a shock when she realised the rigid protocol that went with being a member of the Royal family and I totally understood her wish to step back from it all.
But I don't think she and Diana were in anyway alike.

Agreed about respecting different opinions but I’d never base mine solely on the confidentiality breaking gossip of an ex personal protection officer.

Suggestions that the Royals are dysfunctional because you side with Meghan/Diana seems daft to me given the gossip about the Markles and the Spencers.

Well pantglas, then you will come up with one opinion and I will have another apart from if I consult the ex personal protection office who told me a few stories. It's fine to have opinions, I just goggle at the vile things some people say on the basis of gossip about people they've never met!

In the exact same places you found evidence of dysfunctionality of the royal family of course....read the books, interviews, articles, gossip columns.

It’s all there for those looking to find it.

Now where would I research that?

“As for Meghan and Diana, I see them as alike in that they are both innocents dragged into a dysfunctional family who are incredibly rich, badly behaved, over privileged and unable to maintain close relationships with others of the sort that raises non dysfunctional children. “

Not sure that the Royal family is any more dysfunctional than either of their families - you might need to research that a little ....

Oh come on, evidence? Very few of any of us have incontrovertible evidence! Our view of the Royals, if you can be bothered about them, comes from what we read or see on the box.
Just Google 'who runs the royal household' and you'll get all sorts of gossip magazines, tabloids, interviews with former members of the royal household and occasionally one of them spills the beans (which they sign never to do when they join the 'firm') and then they get frozen out forever. I think one lady in waiting of the Queen did so and there was Paul whatisname, Diana's butler amongst a few.

I did once come across a female police protection officer who had worked with the Royals and she did tell me a few stories which I'm afraid I can't remember. They were partly about Charles and Andrew and how petty they are about their personal servants remembering all the little peccadillos of their existence. There was a story of Prince William being such a charming young man when he was underage but learning to drive at Sandringham. Oh, and in private, Charles has a fantastic sense of humour. Is that evidence? What would evidence be?

As for Meghan and Diana, I see them as alike in that they are both innocents dragged into a dysfunctional family who are incredibly rich, badly behaved, over privileged and unable to maintain close relationships with others of the sort that raises non dysfunctional children.

I did read the other day that Kate M and William are giving George the choice of being a boarder or not (unlike H and W packed off to boarding school at 8!) and that he's likely going to a co-ed day school so that Charlotte can follow him and then they are both going to Marlborough, Kate's old school.
Times change, how refreshing.

Not judgemental Petera just factual.