Sign up to Gransnet Daily
Our free daily newsletter full of hot threads, competitions and discounts
Subscribe
What if the government's advice is to take action that is illegal or detrimental to the interests of the people of the UK?
The Monarch reigns, but he does not rule. Ruling is done by his government, and as head of state in the UK the King is constitutionally obliged to follow the government’s advice. I think this was the way the monarchy was reinstated after Oliver Cromwell.
Would have been interested in reading this thread but breast
feeding and pedophilia ? not interested
Looking at it from the others side, to me it just seems cruel that someone is born to a role and has no choice about it. I looked at Prince's William and George at the funeral and thought, you poor little toads, that's your future that is and there's nothing you can do about it. I can't think that this situation occurs in any other area of modern life.
All the bowing and scraping, the crown jewels of dubious origin, the knights of the garter fancy dress and the walking in order of importance rules make me realise how big a part the royal family have in perpetuating our crippling class system.
I really admire Prince Charles for what he has achieved for the environment but unless the monarchy regains some really useful role in government, in my opinion, it has had its day.
With regard to alternatives, Europe is full of countries demonstrating other ways.
You're welcome GG13
In the country where you live halfpint1 is the HoS also Head of Government?
Replace the monarchy with an elected HoS who will represent the people. Leave the Head of Government alone. That's the proposition.
When we have threads about how gracious the RF are and what nice hair they have, and who slept with who, republicans get told off for bringing up the topic of republicanism. So I started my own thread.
Oh dear off it goes again. How about putting up suggestions
on what to replace it with . Constantly critism is tedious.
I live in a Republic with a changing President as already said
many times. Its not the best as in the USA so give us the
alternatives.
volver
GrannyGravy13
The King can’t even go to COP27
The late Queen addressed COP26 because it was in the U.K.
Is there a precedent for the King/Queen to go to COP?www.reuters.com/business/environment/egypt-about-90-heads-state-confirmed-cop27-climate-summit-2022-10-03/
Heads of State go to COP. But not ours.
Thank you vovler I was unaware that there was a H of S section at the coming COP27
I think our monarchy is an anachronism and doesn’t suit our country’s needs nowadays.
I know some Gransnetters will leap up in outrage. I am not criticising the people who make up the royal family, that’s a different conversation.
Well I never had any mothers milk and my parents were republicans well I think Dad might have been a Bolshevik but I support the Royal Family and would prefer not to have a potential Putin, Mugabe or Amin for a President.
GrannyGravy13
^The King can’t even go to COP27^
The late Queen addressed COP26 because it was in the U.K.
Is there a precedent for the King/Queen to go to COP?
www.reuters.com/business/environment/egypt-about-90-heads-state-confirmed-cop27-climate-summit-2022-10-03/
Heads of State go to COP. But not ours.
Not a hope in the UK.
Just joining in volver. Giving my opinion as you gave yours.
Can we please not talk about decades-old potential scandals but maybe stick to why we think a monarchy is/isn't a good idea?
Of course it's a free country so we could re-hash all that again if that's what people want to talk about in a thread that is about a completely different topic...
The King can’t even go to COP27
The late Queen addressed COP26 because it was in the U.K.
Is there a precedent for the King/Queen to go to COP?
convicted, not convinced!
Kate1949
Personally I couldn't care less.
Yet you care enough to come and tell us don't care.
Grandma70s
You are wasting your time indeed. Nobody is going to change their mind because of your arguments.
Have I asked them to?
This could or could not be true.Lord Mountbatten has been dead for over 40 years. Who will be prosecuted? The dead can't defend theselves, the dead can't be tried, convinced or sentenced, so what on earth is the point of raising this now? No need to be insulting Paddyann, a lot of us genuinely admire and support the RF, even in Scotland, nothing to do with mothers milk but plenty to do with shady, shabby, crooked Presidents as observed in most parts of the world
Alleged abuse by a distant relative who has been dead 43 years
Personally I couldn't care less.
You are wasting your time indeed. Nobody is going to change their mind because of your arguments.
You're wasting your time,this site is full of people who were indoctinated along with their mothers milk about the RF .
Even the scandals made no difference and I notice theres been no mention of the court case(s) in Belfast about the abuse of Boys from the KilcoraBoys home by Mountbatten ..
There are many people in this country who think we should be a republic. Not everybody, granted, not even a majority of people. And there are lots of things for us to worry about right now. However that doesn’t mean we need to stop talking about it.
Having a monarch means that some person gets that job just because of who their mum/dad was. Most people seem happy for that to continue. But I think that some people who espouse that maybe don’t understand that it's not just that we want to have an election every few years to replace the King with another person, it's that we want a more modern and representative governance system for this country.
A HoS isn’t about just sitting in a gold coach or waving on the way to open the latest community centre. It's not about being the figurehead for a charity they have decided to support – they can do that as much as they like. But what they can’t (won’t?) do at the moment is intervene to prevent the government breaking the rules they were elected to uphold. Governments can lie to the Queen, try to impose policies that fewer than 1% of the country have voted for or approved, and try to change the rules of Parliament to suit themselves and their supporters. (Owen Patterson). And the King does nothing about it. Whether that’s by law or by precedent, I don’t know. But there are things above politics that need to be controlled, otherwise we end up being an out-of-control kleptocracy.
Now people can pop up and say we’ve had this for hundreds of years and its always worked. To those people I say – have you read the news lately? People can tell us how much tourism income they bring. Well, they bring about as much as we spend on them, and an ROI of 1 isn’t that great in business. They bring joy to people? So does Strictly. If we can get an inherited HoS to do all those things, then stick with it. But any move at all to protect the people of this country is seen as "interfering in politics". The King can't even go to COP27.
In my view, we need to grow up as a country. I’m sure others will differ.
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »Get our top conversations, latest advice, fantastic competitions, and more, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter here.
