Edward and Sophie are on tour

It just worries me that if we had a president someone like Farage might get elected. I can’t explain why but I’ve got a real soft spot for the royals. I know it goes against all my political beliefs!

Or somebody like Zelenskyy might get elected.

A president will be a politician

Or a comedian.

But whoever it was would have been chosen by the British electorate, not imposed by accident of birth and vast privilege, and mediocrity.

If we decide they are useless we can get rid of them, not wait for their death.

Chosen by the British electorate, as were Thatcher, Cameron,
Johnson

Do you think the British Electorate are particularly stupid then, Annie? And that its for our own good that we let the posh folks reign over us?

I think that the truth is that it support for the RF is very much a demographic thing.

The young like my not so young children and younger grandchildren have zero interest. They simply see the institution as an anachronism that is long past it’s sell by date.

The elderly like ourselves are the biggest supporters but of course this is fading with every year.

Sorry, I've said this before. But why on earth does anybody think that we shouldn't be allowed to vote for a Head of State?

Whether you want the Royals to stay or not, how can it ever be acceptable to say that we shouldn't be allowed to vote for people because we'll just choose the wrong people?

I seriously don't understand it.

My son who lives in New Zealand, thinks their prime minister will call for a referendum after the Queen after her death.

He also thinks the majority of ‘kiwis’ will support removing the Queen as their head of state.

It will be interesting to see how many countries drop the monarchy upon the sad event of her death.

My AC would not have a clue who Edward and Sophie were. the RF are completely irrelevant as far as my AC are concerned. As they are for me really if I am honest. Before anyone uses the term I’m not a “queen hater” (That appeared last week out of the blue ), just indifferent .

I think many countries will opt for a president

MayBe70 The Romans and Vikings made slaves of us.
Really? That's assuming that we are all Celts or descended from Celtic tribes! True that Icelandic Vikings raided the North of Scotland for women and Romans took slaves from all over the Empire, though a good many Britons made fortunes from supplying them with wool. Most of us probably have a smidgeon of DNA from invaders, including the Saxons and the Normans. The Royals can trace their ancestry to Robert the Bruce whose family was Norman.

annodomini The Royals can trace their ancestry to Robert the Bruce whose family was Norman.

Well if I get this right, Robert the Bruce and about 1800 other people, none of whom are guaranteed to be Norman.

The Bruce lived about 700 years ago, assuming 3 generations per hundred years it's more like 2 million people. Although I'm sure there was some inter-marrying.

It doesn’t worry me that we might get a president that we don’t like because they can be voted out and replaced. However, we are getting a king that many people say they don’t rate and yet he is there for his lifetime. Why is that preferable to having a choice?

I’m not sure you can equate the monarchy with a presidency. Presidents have more power than our monarchy who seem to have very little if any real power. They seem to be very much for display purposes. Perhaps they bring a little joy into mundane lives with all the pageantry but if that ceases they will no longer have a reason to be. If foreign countries don’t want them to visit then that’s up to them. When these countries start demanding reparations and pay outs I get a bit suspicious. Shouldn’t the tribes who sold their captives as slaves hand back the money they received to the descendants?

There are different kinds of president. The President of the US or the President of France have a lot of political power. The presidents of Eire, or Germany, less so. But they have a role in the constitution. Heads of state have a responsibility in the constitution of a country, and its something we're not currently getting from the people who ride in carriages and wear jewelled hats.

If we want joy and pageantry, that's one thing. But it doesn't really help our country other than as a distraction from the fuel bills and the corrupt government. But if we want a modern democracy, that's quite another thing. I have to say I am dreading all the "celebrations" that we are going to have in a couple of months, while the people of this country are mired in a cost of living crisis worse than many of us can remember.

Anniebach
Did not Lady Diana Spencer on her marriage to Charles, Prince of Wales become Diana Princessof Wales?
Not quite the same as 'duke'

Yes Daisend but not Princess Diana though the media refer to her as such

volver

The Bruce lived about 700 years ago, assuming 3 generations per hundred years it's more like 2 million people. Although I'm sure there was some inter-marrying.

Well I took the difference of genealogical/genetic ancestors into account in my calculation.

I did assume 4 generations per hundred years would be close to the average in the last 700 years.

However there are published works looking at data that show that, between 15-50 generations, the growth settles down to something close to linear due to many of the 'genealogical' ancestors being the same person. (If you're really interested about 66*k where k is the number of generations).

But 1800 or two million, our points are the same.

All these titles are just made up to justify a particular family’s wealth and sense of superiority. There would be nothing to stop Charles or William standing for election as HoS if that’s what they wanted to do. Prince Edward opened a school nearby a few years ago hardly any of the kids had a clue who he was. No one got excited .

Petera

volver

The Bruce lived about 700 years ago, assuming 3 generations per hundred years it's more like 2 million people. Although I'm sure there was some inter-marrying.

Well I took the difference of genealogical/genetic ancestors into account in my calculation.

I did assume 4 generations per hundred years would be close to the average in the last 700 years.

However there are published works looking at data that show that, between 15-50 generations, the growth settles down to something close to linear due to many of the 'genealogical' ancestors being the same person. (If you're really interested about 66*k where k is the number of generations).

But 1800 or two million, our points are the same.

Indeed they are Petera ??

volver

Do you think the British Electorate are particularly stupid then, Annie? And that its for our own good that we let the posh folks reign over us?

I think they’re easily manipulated these days. And that worries me.

I agree MayBee70. I don't know if its worse now than it used to be?

Either way, that's not an excuse for avoiding democracy.