Are the royals on the rocks?

1212224262742

Comments

  • @Golden Key - but this was Harry's job, to know these things. He was paid extremely well to uphold this institution for the last few years and to be a public face of the Royal Family. That's the money he lost when he stepped back, the money for doing a job he chose to stop doing. And according to this interview, Meghan took on her role with precisely zero research, which why this all came as a horrible shock.

    Are you seriously saying Harry and Meghan were right not to know significant information about their roles?

    And to then complain about things many of us knew and have known for years?

    You cannot help absorbing some of this stuff just skimming the front pages of the tabloids or hearing the broadcast news. I have known for 50 odd years that the Queen is sticky on protocol and that, e.g. you don't leave the table until she does and curtseys or bows are required. Living that life, Harry should have known far more.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited March 9
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    GK, the royals don't exist for the entertainment of anybody. They are there to support the Queen in the performance of her duties.

    What duties? I mean, seriously, what is she actually for? What does she do? What would happen if she didn't? Like @Doc Tor said, a five year old in a paper hat could do it. Honestly, monarchists talk such nebulous bullshit about "institutions" and "stability" and "identity" without ever pinning down anything you can actually identify. It starts to sound like the Emperor's new clothes. Well, he's naked.
    I'm sorry if that seems inhumane.

    No you aren't. If you were, you'd object to rather than supporting the status quo.

  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    @KarlLB I'm not an ardent royalist, but from where I'm sitting, what the Crown does is add a useful centre of power that is independent of the government of the day.

    It provides an independent judiciary, a rare and valuable asset.

    It also provides a degree of continuity in international diplomacy beyond the reach of a political leader with term limits. It's like the difference between a family-owned company and a listed company at the mercy of its shareholders. Sure, it's easier to hold the listed company to account, but most of the family-owned companies I know appear far more engaged in what they actually do, because they can afford to have truly long-term strategy based around what they do. Of course that requires a competent boss.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    The reflections on Newscast about the interview are quite good; as in non hysterical, non-side taking and compassionate.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited March 9
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    GK, the royals don't exist for the entertainment of anybody. They are there to support the Queen in the performance of her duties.

    What duties? I mean, seriously, what is she actually for? What does she do? What would happen if she didn't? Like @Doc Tor said, a five year old in a paper hat could do it. Honestly, monarchists talk such nebulous bullshit about "institutions" and "stability" and "identity" without ever pinning down anything you can actually identify. It starts to sound like the Emperor's new clothes. Well, he's naked.
    I'm sorry if that seems inhumane.

    No you aren't. If you were, you'd object to rather than supporting the status quo.

    But I said straight after that there were compensations. I'm very very sorry that these poor people are born into gilded cages. I'm sorry that they get to live in humungous houses filled with everything they need. All I ask is that they shut the fuck up. If they don't want to be a professional royal, that choice is available to them. Just shut the fuck up, that's all. Just don't engage with the bloody media. I mean, it is so very inhumane.

    What duties? The Monarch's duties are to sit down shut up and sign where indicated when indicated. If the fam want to do good works on the side, fine. If they want to do public service, like in the army, or fixing stuff or whatevs, more power to them. They get a bit of cash for that, probably too much, but there you go. But none of that can interfere with the Monarch's duty: "Sit down your Majesty, there's a good lady. If you would be so kind as to not speak just now. Sign here. Very good. And here. Well done. Now, would you like a nice cup of tea?"

    Now, I understand that in England, you haven't quite got your affairs in order. There seems to be some uncertainty around what the Queen can and cannot do, in terms of advice and some other matters. That field of action is rather narrower in Australia. You also seem to have argued your way into a position where you pay the upkeep of our Head of State. Bully for you. Pip pip, what ho, etc etc. I'm sure the English know what they're doing. Can I call you Bruce by the way? It makes things easier.

    This system works very well in Australia. In reality, all the Queen personally does here is appoint people to act in her stead. Her appointee can dismiss a government, appoint a caretaker to run the executive and do the necessary stuff to call an election. Its a good way out of a political impasse, a safety valve if you will. Now we could change the system and work out some other way. But why? This system isn't broken here, and you pay for it, mostly. Beautiful.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Can one ever say of one's grandchild, to one's white child, "I wonder how brown they'll be?"? Can one even ask this?

    Of course not. It's a stupid question which nobody can answer.

    One could certainly ask such a question, but it would probably be rhetorical - a question asked in order to create a dramatic effect or to make a point rather than to get an answer.

    Markle is well capable of thinking up such a question.

    Er, she wasn't present. She reported what her husband reported to her. There will be a Chinese whisper factor.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    @KarlLB I'm not an ardent royalist, but from where I'm sitting, what the Crown does is add a useful centre of power that is independent of the government of the day.

    Point of order: they are a centre of right-wing privilege and wealth that one party finds very easy to get on with, and suck up to, while the other major party, which is more attractive to those of a more republican bent, still have consider their every move against.

    The idea they are 'centre' is nonsense on a stick. They drag everything a long way to the right and they make bloody certain that it doesn't move.


  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited March 9
    Clement Atlee managed to do a pretty good first cut of your tall poppies. I loved reading the complaints of the Titled at the stately homes they must let people visit to stay afloat. All you need to do is finish the job he started. Hollow the bastards out and poke a stick up their arse. That will keep the natural conservatives among your working people happy. You need to keep them happy, remember, or they become tools of reaction.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    GK, the royals don't exist for the entertainment of anybody. They are there to support the Queen in the performance of her duties.

    What duties? I mean, seriously, what is she actually for? What does she do? What would happen if she didn't? Like @Doc Tor said, a five year old in a paper hat could do it. Honestly, monarchists talk such nebulous bullshit about "institutions" and "stability" and "identity" without ever pinning down anything you can actually identify. It starts to sound like the Emperor's new clothes. Well, he's naked.
    I'm sorry if that seems inhumane.

    No you aren't. If you were, you'd object to rather than supporting the status quo.

    But I said straight after that there were compensations. I'm very very sorry that these poor people are born into gilded cages. I'm sorry that they get to live in humungous houses filled with everything they need. All I ask is that they shut the fuck up. If they don't want to be a professional royal, that choice is available to them. Just shut the fuck up, that's all. Just don't engage with the bloody media. I mean, it is so very inhumane.

    What duties? The Monarch's duties are to sit down shut up and sign where indicated when indicated. If the fam want to do good works on the side, fine. If they want to do public service, like in the army, or fixing stuff or whatevs, more power to them. They get a bit of cash for that, probably too much, but there you go. But none of that can interfere with the Monarch's duty: "Sit down your Majesty, there's a good lady. If you would be so kind as to not speak just now. Sign here. Very good. And here. Well done. Now, would you like a nice cup of tea?"

    Now, I understand that in England, you haven't quite got your affairs in order. There seems to be some uncertainty around what the Queen can and cannot do, in terms of advice and some other matters. That field of action is rather narrower in Australia. You also seem to have argued your way into a position where you pay the upkeep of our Head of State. Bully for you. Pip pip, what ho, etc etc. I'm sure the English know what they're doing. Can I call you Bruce by the way? It makes things easier.

    This system works very well in Australia. In reality, all the Queen personally does here is appoint people to act in her stead. Her appointee can dismiss a government, appoint a caretaker to run the executive and do the necessary stuff to call an election. Its a good way out of a political impasse, a safety valve if you will. Now we could change the system and work out some other way. But why? This system isn't broken here, and you pay for it, mostly. Beautiful.

    That seems an awfully long winded way to say "she actually does bugger all".
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    It provides an independent judiciary, a rare and valuable asset.

    Second point of order - you'll have to do some work to explain how an independent judiciary can't be provided without a monarch.

  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    The idea they are 'centre' is nonsense on a stick. They drag everything a long way to the right and they make bloody certain that it doesn't move.

    You know perfectly well that this was not what I meant by "centre". "Locus" if you prefer. And @KarlLB, I never said that there were no other ways of providing an independent judiciary, but when one exists, it might be worth thinking twice before dismantling its source of legitimacy.

    And neither you nor @Doc Tor have addressed the question of diplomatic continuity. Yes it might be right-leaning and biased towards old boy networks, but still, again, it would be worth thinking twice before throwing away the source of that continuity, too.

    And again, an incompetent monarch would quickly undermine all that from within, so it's not bombproof. I think Elizabeth did a good job on those fronts, though, one that is not reflected in @KarlLB's earlier comment about a five-year-old being able to do her job.
  • TheOrganistTheOrganist Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Caissa wrote: »
    Based on the reports I have read, Harry refused to tell Meghan who made the remark in question.

    So why did he even mention it to her ?

    So she would know what their child was facing, and what she was facing.

    More to the point why did she bring it up?
  • Eh, if you're going to put your locus to the right of the political pitch, then everything is going to skew right. I'm pretty certain it's either a terrible analogy, or an accidentally very good one.

    And as for diplomatic continuity, two things. Firstly, we didn't get the name 'Perfidious Albion' because of our constancy. Secondly, we have had successive governments who regularly renege on international agreements. We still owe Iran £400m for some tanks from the 1970s, right up to the current shenanigans over the Good Friday Agreement.

    You're simply overreaching here, just as you are with regards to the independence of the judiciary.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited March 9
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    The idea they are 'centre' is nonsense on a stick. They drag everything a long way to the right and they make bloody certain that it doesn't move.

    You know perfectly well that this was not what I meant by "centre". "Locus" if you prefer. And @KarlLB, I never said that there were no other ways of providing an independent judiciary, but when one exists, it might be worth thinking twice before dismantling its source of legitimacy.

    And neither you nor @Doc Tor have addressed the question of diplomatic continuity. Yes it might be right-leaning and biased towards old boy networks, but still, again, it would be worth thinking twice before throwing away the source of that continuity, too.

    And again, an incompetent monarch would quickly undermine all that from within, so it's not bombproof. I think Elizabeth did a good job on those fronts, though, one that is not reflected in @KarlLB's earlier comment about a five-year-old being able to do her job.

    I'm sure we can find better sources for things than someone whose sole qualification for the job is that their ancestors' armies did a bit better than some other armies at Hastings, Bosworth Field and the Boyne.

    I imagine no-one's addressed "diplomatic continuity" because no-one's raised it until now.

    If an incompetent monarch could indeed bugger everything up, then isn't it a bit bloody stupid laying ourselves wide open to getting one by leaving things entirely up to accidents of birth?
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    For me the clincher about having a monarchy is that she is not there because she wanted it, or strove after it, or beat some other bugger in a popularity contest at a ballot box to be head of state. She had no choice, it was dumped on her.
    I find that a nice counterbalance to the lying, self-serving, power grabbing mockery that passes for democracy in politics.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Eh, if you're going to put your locus to the right of the political pitch, then everything is going to skew right. I'm pretty certain it's either a terrible analogy, or an accidentally very good one.

    I think institutions by their nature are going to lean socially "right" in the sense of a slide to cronyism and privilege regardless of their party political leanings, indeed some of the worst offenders in this respect seem to be the self-professed left in my experience.

    And I still think that an independent locus of power is better than it all being concentrated in one institution. I say that from the standpoint of a country in which the Interior Minister is the boss of all judges, and all judges (including those who investigate crime and interview suspects, supposedly with a presumption of innocence) report to the local prosecutor.

    If either you or @KarlLB have a road map for how to establish an independent judiciary in the UK starting from where it is now, I'm all ears.
  • demasdemas Shipmate
    I guess the Queen of Australia could be described as being democratically elected. Or at least, not democratically sacked.
  • Sure. Take what we have. Remove the words Crown and Royal where applicable. Job's pretty much done.

    I have some not-inconsiderable experience with the inner workings of both the CPS and the armed forces. The idea that either institution would be either rudderless and/or more susceptible to political interference is ludicrous. Power always derives from a mandate from the people. Pretending that it doesn't is actually more dangerous, not less so.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    GK, the royals don't exist for the entertainment of anybody. They are there to support the Queen in the performance of her duties.

    What duties? I mean, seriously, what is she actually for? What does she do? What would happen if she didn't? Like @Doc Tor said, a five year old in a paper hat could do it. Honestly, monarchists talk such nebulous bullshit about "institutions" and "stability" and "identity" without ever pinning down anything you can actually identify. It starts to sound like the Emperor's new clothes. Well, he's naked.
    I'm sorry if that seems inhumane.

    No you aren't. If you were, you'd object to rather than supporting the status quo.

    But I said straight after that there were compensations. I'm very very sorry that these poor people are born into gilded cages. I'm sorry that they get to live in humungous houses filled with everything they need. All I ask is that they shut the fuck up. If they don't want to be a professional royal, that choice is available to them. Just shut the fuck up, that's all. Just don't engage with the bloody media. I mean, it is so very inhumane.

    What duties? The Monarch's duties are to sit down shut up and sign where indicated when indicated. If the fam want to do good works on the side, fine. If they want to do public service, like in the army, or fixing stuff or whatevs, more power to them. They get a bit of cash for that, probably too much, but there you go. But none of that can interfere with the Monarch's duty: "Sit down your Majesty, there's a good lady. If you would be so kind as to not speak just now. Sign here. Very good. And here. Well done. Now, would you like a nice cup of tea?"

    Now, I understand that in England, you haven't quite got your affairs in order. There seems to be some uncertainty around what the Queen can and cannot do, in terms of advice and some other matters. That field of action is rather narrower in Australia. You also seem to have argued your way into a position where you pay the upkeep of our Head of State. Bully for you. Pip pip, what ho, etc etc. I'm sure the English know what they're doing. Can I call you Bruce by the way? It makes things easier.

    This system works very well in Australia. In reality, all the Queen personally does here is appoint people to act in her stead. Her appointee can dismiss a government, appoint a caretaker to run the executive and do the necessary stuff to call an election. Its a good way out of a political impasse, a safety valve if you will. Now we could change the system and work out some other way. But why? This system isn't broken here, and you pay for it, mostly. Beautiful.

    That seems an awfully long winded way to say "she actually does bugger all".

    No, she performs a specific and vital constitutional function. And you pay for it, instead of us, most of the time. You can't forget that bit Karl. That's the best bit.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    The idea they are 'centre' is nonsense on a stick. They drag everything a long way to the right and they make bloody certain that it doesn't move.

    You know perfectly well that this was not what I meant by "centre". "Locus" if you prefer. And @KarlLB, I never said that there were no other ways of providing an independent judiciary, but when one exists, it might be worth thinking twice before dismantling its source of legitimacy.

    And neither you nor @Doc Tor have addressed the question of diplomatic continuity. Yes it might be right-leaning and biased towards old boy networks, but still, again, it would be worth thinking twice before throwing away the source of that continuity, too.

    And again, an incompetent monarch would quickly undermine all that from within, so it's not bombproof. I think Elizabeth did a good job on those fronts, though, one that is not reflected in @KarlLB's earlier comment about a five-year-old being able to do her job.

    I'm sure we can find better sources for things than someone whose sole qualification for the job is that their ancestors' armies did a bit better than some other armies at Hastings, Bosworth Field and the Boyne.

    I imagine no-one's addressed "diplomatic continuity" because no-one's raised it until now.

    If an incompetent monarch could indeed bugger everything up, then isn't it a bit bloody stupid laying ourselves wide open to getting one by leaving things entirely up to accidents of birth?

    OOh. I was about to pull you up on that Boyne stuff, she being a Hannoverian and all, but I heard somewhere that she is related to Cerdic so you might be right.
  • demasdemas Shipmate
    Can't say I like the American habit of prosecuting in the name of The People.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    GK, the royals don't exist for the entertainment of anybody. They are there to support the Queen in the performance of her duties.

    What duties? I mean, seriously, what is she actually for? What does she do? What would happen if she didn't? Like @Doc Tor said, a five year old in a paper hat could do it. Honestly, monarchists talk such nebulous bullshit about "institutions" and "stability" and "identity" without ever pinning down anything you can actually identify. It starts to sound like the Emperor's new clothes. Well, he's naked.
    I'm sorry if that seems inhumane.

    No you aren't. If you were, you'd object to rather than supporting the status quo.

    But I said straight after that there were compensations. I'm very very sorry that these poor people are born into gilded cages. I'm sorry that they get to live in humungous houses filled with everything they need. All I ask is that they shut the fuck up. If they don't want to be a professional royal, that choice is available to them. Just shut the fuck up, that's all. Just don't engage with the bloody media. I mean, it is so very inhumane.

    What duties? The Monarch's duties are to sit down shut up and sign where indicated when indicated. If the fam want to do good works on the side, fine. If they want to do public service, like in the army, or fixing stuff or whatevs, more power to them. They get a bit of cash for that, probably too much, but there you go. But none of that can interfere with the Monarch's duty: "Sit down your Majesty, there's a good lady. If you would be so kind as to not speak just now. Sign here. Very good. And here. Well done. Now, would you like a nice cup of tea?"

    Now, I understand that in England, you haven't quite got your affairs in order. There seems to be some uncertainty around what the Queen can and cannot do, in terms of advice and some other matters. That field of action is rather narrower in Australia. You also seem to have argued your way into a position where you pay the upkeep of our Head of State. Bully for you. Pip pip, what ho, etc etc. I'm sure the English know what they're doing. Can I call you Bruce by the way? It makes things easier.

    This system works very well in Australia. In reality, all the Queen personally does here is appoint people to act in her stead. Her appointee can dismiss a government, appoint a caretaker to run the executive and do the necessary stuff to call an election. Its a good way out of a political impasse, a safety valve if you will. Now we could change the system and work out some other way. But why? This system isn't broken here, and you pay for it, mostly. Beautiful.

    That seems an awfully long winded way to say "she actually does bugger all".

    No, she performs a specific and vital constitutional function. And you pay for it, instead of us, most of the time. You can't forget that bit Karl. That's the best bit.

    What @Doc Tor said about the judiciary. She may officially appoint people but she doesn't choose them. Just take the words "Royal" and "Crown" out and do it exactly how it's currently done.
  • Boyne. 1690. William and Mary. One of the many bloody bits of the Glorious Bloodless Revolution.
    If you want to see a picture of William, I think there may have been some waving around Glasgow a few days ago.
  • Merry VoleMerry Vole Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Can one ever say of one's grandchild, to one's white child, "I wonder how brown they'll be?"? Can one even ask this?

    Of course not. It's a stupid question which nobody can answer.

    One could certainly ask such a question, but it would probably be rhetorical - a question asked in order to create a dramatic effect or to make a point rather than to get an answer.

    Markle is well capable of thinking up such a question.

    Er, she wasn't present. She reported what her husband reported to her. There will be a Chinese whisper factor.

    I agree about a likely 'Chinese whisper' factor in the alleged comments about what Archie's skin colour would be. (tangent: can one still say 'Chinese whispers'? Is there a more 'PC' equivalent of that phrase that describes a well-known phenomenon in the way stories get altered?)

    I recall 20 or more years ago a Ghanian lady friend of ours had a child with 'caucasian' man. The child, a girl, appeared completely 'caucasian'. When the mother took her daughter to Ghana to visit relatives there they could not believe the girl was really her daughter. There followed discussions about the curious way genetics works. Apparently there was a 1% chance of the daughter having a phenotype of her (white) father and no features of her (black West African) mother. But the daughter herself was well aware that any child of her own was very likely to look in some ways like her Ghanian mother.
    The point of this story is that these 'genetics' discussions came from those women themselves who didn't mind friends knowing, and there was nothing racist going on at all. Obviously for friends to have commented on the possible way genetics could work out in the future could have been racist, but would not necessarily have been so. I think it would have depended on the circumstances in which the 'genetics question' was raised and how much trust there was between friends.

    Hence the point about 'Chinese whispers'.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    edited March 9
    Eutychus wrote: »
    And I still think that an independent locus of power is better than it all being concentrated in one institution. I say that from the standpoint of a country in which the Interior Minister is the boss of all judges, and all judges (including those who investigate crime and interview suspects, supposedly with a presumption of innocence) report to the local prosecutor.

    If either you or @KarlLB have a road map for how to establish an independent judiciary in the UK starting from where it is now, I'm all ears.

    I fail to see how judges in the UK 'report' to the Queen (or the Crown) in any meaningful sense. What @Doc Tor says above applies.

    Specifically on an independent locus of power see @Ricardus 's post earlier in the thread, there is no meaningful sense in which the Crown/Royals/Queen are a separate locus of power. As the events of the last few years have shown, there's a bundle of conventions that in reality don't amount to a lot and which it turns out can be ignored without consequence.

    I'm somewhat tickled that this argument is made by someone who is fairly firmly non-Conformist.
    It also provides a degree of continuity in international diplomacy beyond the reach of a political leader with term limits.

    This is an argument for a diplomatic service retaining skilled staff. If it's an argument for a familiar face then I'd point you to the relative churn elsewhere, continuity with whom? Mugabe? The Saudis? America's relationship with the latter seems to fairly good in spite of the rotating presidentship.

    Besides the Queen's sole qualification is that at least in public she has been purposefully bland, even absent the scenario @KarlLB outlines it's possible to imagine a bunch of people doing a whole lot worse, including the current Prince of Wales.
  • I had a look to see if I could see any William of Orange flags in the coverage of the disgraceful scenes from Glasgow. I couldn't see any, but the orange flares going off refer back to William of Orange. Look at all the Union Jacks! Proud monarchists the lot of them.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbmTUakDgKs
  • ForthviewForthview Shipmate
    do we know anything about the circumstances in which an unnamed member of the royal family made a comment about the possible skin colour of the child of a caucasian man and a woman of mixed ethnicity ? Would it not normally be something which people might think about ? and not necessarily in a negative way.

    Queen Charlotte, the wife of George III, exhibited certain features in the colour of her skin which apparently went back several generations to a Portuguese blood relative of African provenance.
  • (I was replying to Simon Toad re the Boyne, but the thread is moving so quickly there are several posts between Simon's and my reply.)
  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    If there is a general desire on the part of the British public to abolish the monarchy, I have yet to discern it.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited March 9
    Eirenist wrote: »
    If there is a general desire on the part of the British public to abolish the monarchy, I have yet to discern it.

    Which is why we still have one. Doesn't mean I have to think that the majority is right about this particular topic. As it happens, I think they're absolutely wrong. But given the way we condition children by dragging them out to wave flags at the Queen for getting out of a car, I'm not particularly surprised.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    edited March 9

    I fail to see how judges in the UK 'report' to the Queen (or the Crown) in any meaningful sense. What @Doc Tor says above applies.

    That is not the position here, Canada or NZ although it used be. It may still be so in relation to the other dozen or so countries of which she is monarch. The ultimate court of appeal was the Privy Council, which advised the monarch whether to allow or dismiss an appeal. That was the theory, but in practice the appeal was heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council - and that Committee was constituted by the Law Lords, the most senior court in the UK. But it was advice to HM.

    That was abolished here for 2 reasons. Firstly, politicians at last realised that continuation was in fact an interference with the proper independence of Australia. Secondly, the judges of the High Court here (and this largely applies to the ultimate courts in Canada and NZ as well) were better lawyers and judges than the Law Lords were.
  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    If there is one conclusion to be drawn from the Brexit vote, it is that the English, at least, have a profound resistance to being the same as everybody else. We cling to what is old, familiar, quirky and adds to 'le gaiete des nations' (the gaiety of nations). The Crown stands for continuity and stability; its removal would inevitably lead to dissension. Any elected head of state would be chosen by a vote on party lines; the view across the Pond is a reminder of what what the result of that could be. At least our current head of state knows how to behave with dignity.
    And, KarlLB, without the monarchy, you'd bee deprived of a subject to moan about.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »

    I fail to see how judges in the UK 'report' to the Queen (or the Crown) in any meaningful sense. What @Doc Tor says above applies.

    That is not the position here, Canada or NZ although it used be. It may still be so in relation to the other dozen or so countries of which she is monarch. The ultimate court of appeal was the Privy Council, which advised the monarch whether to allow or dismiss an appeal.

    Your point is not entirely clear to me, but even if the scenario you outline stopped here, in practice there were a number of powers the monarch has/had on the basis that they would never exercise them. ISTM that those who stress the 'advise' angle don't ever deal with the situation where the monarch regularly departed from that advise, or what kind of state we would have if they did.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited March 9
    Eirenist wrote: »
    If there is one conclusion to be drawn from the Brexit vote, it is that the English, at least, have a profound resistance to being the same as everybody else. We cling to what is old, familiar, quirky and adds to 'le gaiete des nations' (the gaiety of nations). The Crown stands for continuity and stability; its removal would inevitably lead to dissension. Any elected head of state would be chosen by a vote on party lines; the view across the Pond is a reminder of what what the result of that could be. At least our current head of state knows how to behave with dignity.
    And, KarlLB, without the monarchy, you'd bee deprived of a subject to moan about.

    Less of the "we". I'm a democrat. I want to vote for the people who represent me, not have them foisted on me by the ludicrous decaying remnants of mediaeval feudalism. That's what the Crown "stands for" for me. And that's why I'd like rid.

    I'd also thank people to stop talking about what "we" cling to, or do, or vote for. I am fed up of being told what I should think on account of being British, especially as whenever someone takes it upon themselves to speak in this way they are almost always saying something I disagree with.
  • Eirenist wrote: »
    If there is one conclusion to be drawn from the Brexit vote, it is that the English, at least, have a profound resistance to being the same as everybody else. We cling to what is old, familiar, quirky and adds to 'le gaiete des nations' (the gaiety of nations). The Crown stands for continuity and stability; its removal would inevitably lead to dissension. Any elected head of state would be chosen by a vote on party lines; the view across the Pond is a reminder of what what the result of that could be. At least our current head of state knows how to behave with dignity.
    And, KarlLB, without the monarchy, you'd bee deprived of a subject to moan about.

    Sorry, but this is a terrible argument for perpetuating a system that corrupts our laws and impedes our liberality. Rather these chains than the worry of being free? Our current head of state may well have engineered nothing short of a coup in a sovereign state and has managed to interfere with democracy at home. And the next one, the one we have absolutely no choice over, is somehow worse.

    I am absolutely not afraid of an elected head of state (and I'm pretty certain it would be either David Attenborough or Judi Dench). And like @KarlLB , being deprived of this subject would mean I could tick this off the to-do list.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited March 9
    I had a look to see if I could see any William of Orange flags in the coverage of the disgraceful scenes from Glasgow. I couldn't see any, but the orange flares going off refer back to William of Orange. Look at all the Union Jacks! Proud monarchists the lot of them.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbmTUakDgKs

    Well my people were on the losing side of that battle, a Stewart v Stewart squabble AIUI, depending on how much agency Queen Mary had. The Saxe-Coburg-Gothe crew came in later, at the invitation of Parliament. But I am told that QE2 counts Cerdic of Wessex as an ancestor, so maybe the statement of @KarlLB I was referring to was correct, when at first blush it seems incorrect.

    That Glasgow crowd looks peaceful, more or less. Compare them with the Pittsburgers' efforts when their team won the suprbowl. They trashed the joint.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Eirenist wrote: »
    If there is one conclusion to be drawn from the Brexit vote, it is that the English, at least, have a profound resistance to being the same as everybody else. We cling to what is old, familiar, quirky and adds to 'le gaiete des nations' (the gaiety of nations). The Crown stands for continuity and stability; its removal would inevitably lead to dissension. Any elected head of state would be chosen by a vote on party lines; the view across the Pond is a reminder of what what the result of that could be. At least our current head of state knows how to behave with dignity.
    And, KarlLB, without the monarchy, you'd bee deprived of a subject to moan about.

    Sorry, but this is a terrible argument for perpetuating a system that corrupts our laws and impedes our liberality. Rather these chains than the worry of being free? Our current head of state may well have engineered nothing short of a coup in a sovereign state and has managed to interfere with democracy at home. And the next one, the one we have absolutely no choice over, is somehow worse.

    I am absolutely not afraid of an elected head of state (and I'm pretty certain it would be either David Attenborough or Judi Dench). And like @KarlLB , being deprived of this subject would mean I could tick this off the to-do list.

    FWIW, I agree with you - but what and where was this coup of which you speak?

  • TheOrganistTheOrganist Shipmate
    Forthview wrote: »
    do we know anything about the circumstances in which an unnamed member of the royal family made a comment about the possible skin colour of the child of a caucasian man and a woman of mixed ethnicity ? Would it not normally be something which people might think about ? and not necessarily in a negative way.
    Nothing. When on her own with Oprah Meghan said it was "conversations" when she was pregnant. When Harry joined them and was asked about it he said it was a remark before they were married. (One of many inconsistencies.)

    It could be that a child asked if any babies would look like Harry or Meghan - children do tend to ask the questions that adults shy away from. The subject was just left hanging with M opining it was racist.
    Queen Charlotte, the wife of George III, exhibited certain features in the colour of her skin which apparently went back several generations to a Portuguese blood relative of African provenance.
    Also the wife of Charles II, Catherine of Braganza had black/moorish ancestry.

  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Eirenist wrote: »
    If there is a general desire on the part of the British public to abolish the monarchy, I have yet to discern it.

    I think they look at the queen and look at politicians and draw conclusions.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    GK, the royals don't exist for the entertainment of anybody. They are there to support the Queen in the performance of her duties.

    What duties? I mean, seriously, what is she actually for? What does she do? What would happen if she didn't? Like @Doc Tor said, a five year old in a paper hat could do it. Honestly, monarchists talk such nebulous bullshit about "institutions" and "stability" and "identity" without ever pinning down anything you can actually identify. It starts to sound like the Emperor's new clothes. Well, he's naked.
    I'm sorry if that seems inhumane.

    No you aren't. If you were, you'd object to rather than supporting the status quo.

    But I said straight after that there were compensations. I'm very very sorry that these poor people are born into gilded cages. I'm sorry that they get to live in humungous houses filled with everything they need. All I ask is that they shut the fuck up. If they don't want to be a professional royal, that choice is available to them. Just shut the fuck up, that's all. Just don't engage with the bloody media. I mean, it is so very inhumane.

    What duties? The Monarch's duties are to sit down shut up and sign where indicated when indicated. If the fam want to do good works on the side, fine. If they want to do public service, like in the army, or fixing stuff or whatevs, more power to them. They get a bit of cash for that, probably too much, but there you go. But none of that can interfere with the Monarch's duty: "Sit down your Majesty, there's a good lady. If you would be so kind as to not speak just now. Sign here. Very good. And here. Well done. Now, would you like a nice cup of tea?"

    Now, I understand that in England, you haven't quite got your affairs in order. There seems to be some uncertainty around what the Queen can and cannot do, in terms of advice and some other matters. That field of action is rather narrower in Australia. You also seem to have argued your way into a position where you pay the upkeep of our Head of State. Bully for you. Pip pip, what ho, etc etc. I'm sure the English know what they're doing. Can I call you Bruce by the way? It makes things easier.

    This system works very well in Australia. In reality, all the Queen personally does here is appoint people to act in her stead. Her appointee can dismiss a government, appoint a caretaker to run the executive and do the necessary stuff to call an election. Its a good way out of a political impasse, a safety valve if you will. Now we could change the system and work out some other way. But why? This system isn't broken here, and you pay for it, mostly. Beautiful.

    That seems an awfully long winded way to say "she actually does bugger all".

    No, she performs a specific and vital constitutional function. And you pay for it, instead of us, most of the time. You can't forget that bit Karl. That's the best bit.

    What @Doc Tor said about the judiciary. She may officially appoint people but she doesn't choose them. Just take the words "Royal" and "Crown" out and do it exactly how it's currently done.

    That's the bloody point. If someone else did these things, you would have to go through a highly politicised process of working out how the new system is going to work. You can say just do a minimalist one and call the bastard Governor instead of Queen, but who appoints them, what favours can be called in by them and how and when are they removed. Who succeeds them? You can point to other ways of doing things, the Irish model, the American model, the French model, but the point is that we have to go through the process of debating and deciding what is the best course.

    Your lot just spent 5 years or more doing that over the EU. And you fucked it up. And you risk a renewal of the Battle of the Boyne.

    It isn't broke, for Australia. You pay for our head of state. Why fix it?
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    It isn't broke, for Australia. You pay for our head of state. Why fix it?

    Well...
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited March 9
    ahhh, :smiley: The 1975 Constitutional crisis. That proved the worth of the Constitutional Monarchy @Doc Tor . That is precisely why I support the current system and regard Australian Republicans as ideologically driven idiots and/or mad Irishmen who don't know a good thing when it kicks them in the throat.

    Edited to add "Mad Irishmen" and this note that the English pay for it, which I specifically use to salve mad Irishmen in these discussions.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    edited March 9
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    That's the bloody point. If someone else did these things, you would have to go through a highly politicised process of working out how the new system is going to work.

    The same quango that currently supplies 'advice' -- you can then have the grown up political debate as to whether that is a desirable state of affairs.
    what favours can be called in by them and how and when are they removed. Who succeeds them?

    All these issues exist already, they are just hidden by a veneer of polite fictions.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    GK, the royals don't exist for the entertainment of anybody. They are there to support the Queen in the performance of her duties.

    What duties? I mean, seriously, what is she actually for? What does she do? What would happen if she didn't? Like @Doc Tor said, a five year old in a paper hat could do it. Honestly, monarchists talk such nebulous bullshit about "institutions" and "stability" and "identity" without ever pinning down anything you can actually identify. It starts to sound like the Emperor's new clothes. Well, he's naked.
    I'm sorry if that seems inhumane.

    No you aren't. If you were, you'd object to rather than supporting the status quo.

    But I said straight after that there were compensations. I'm very very sorry that these poor people are born into gilded cages. I'm sorry that they get to live in humungous houses filled with everything they need. All I ask is that they shut the fuck up. If they don't want to be a professional royal, that choice is available to them. Just shut the fuck up, that's all. Just don't engage with the bloody media. I mean, it is so very inhumane.

    What duties? The Monarch's duties are to sit down shut up and sign where indicated when indicated. If the fam want to do good works on the side, fine. If they want to do public service, like in the army, or fixing stuff or whatevs, more power to them. They get a bit of cash for that, probably too much, but there you go. But none of that can interfere with the Monarch's duty: "Sit down your Majesty, there's a good lady. If you would be so kind as to not speak just now. Sign here. Very good. And here. Well done. Now, would you like a nice cup of tea?"

    Now, I understand that in England, you haven't quite got your affairs in order. There seems to be some uncertainty around what the Queen can and cannot do, in terms of advice and some other matters. That field of action is rather narrower in Australia. You also seem to have argued your way into a position where you pay the upkeep of our Head of State. Bully for you. Pip pip, what ho, etc etc. I'm sure the English know what they're doing. Can I call you Bruce by the way? It makes things easier.

    This system works very well in Australia. In reality, all the Queen personally does here is appoint people to act in her stead. Her appointee can dismiss a government, appoint a caretaker to run the executive and do the necessary stuff to call an election. Its a good way out of a political impasse, a safety valve if you will. Now we could change the system and work out some other way. But why? This system isn't broken here, and you pay for it, mostly. Beautiful.

    That seems an awfully long winded way to say "she actually does bugger all".

    No, she performs a specific and vital constitutional function. And you pay for it, instead of us, most of the time. You can't forget that bit Karl. That's the best bit.

    What @Doc Tor said about the judiciary. She may officially appoint people but she doesn't choose them. Just take the words "Royal" and "Crown" out and do it exactly how it's currently done.

    That's the bloody point. If someone else did these things, you would have to go through a highly politicised process of working out how the new system is going to work. You can say just do a minimalist one and call the bastard Governor instead of Queen, but who appoints them, what favours can be called in by them and how and when are they removed. Who succeeds them? You can point to other ways of doing things, the Irish model, the American model, the French model, but the point is that we have to go through the process of debating and deciding what is the best course.

    Your lot just spent 5 years or more doing that over the EU. And you fucked it up. And you risk a renewal of the Battle of the Boyne.

    It isn't broke, for Australia. You pay for our head of state. Why fix it?

    You miss my point. The Queen doesn't choose these people. Officially she does but in reality she rubber stamps whoever she's told to appoint. So just keep choosing how you currently choose, stop pretending the Queen does it and carry on otherwise as you were.

    Calling people idiots for seeing through the charade isn't a good look.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    demas wrote: »
    Can't say I like the American habit of prosecuting in the name of The People.
    That’s not a universal American practice. It’s the practice in some states—notably California, which means it makes its way into movies and TV. In many if not most states, prosecutions are in the name of The State (or The Commonwealth in those 4 states that are officially named commonwealths). Federal prosecutions are in the name of the United States.

    Merry Vole wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Can one ever say of one's grandchild, to one's white child, "I wonder how brown they'll be?"? Can one even ask this?

    Of course not. It's a stupid question which nobody can answer.

    One could certainly ask such a question, but it would probably be rhetorical - a question asked in order to create a dramatic effect or to make a point rather than to get an answer.

    Markle is well capable of thinking up such a question.

    Er, she wasn't present. She reported what her husband reported to her. There will be a Chinese whisper factor.

    I agree about a likely 'Chinese whisper' factor in the alleged comments about what Archie's skin colour would be. (tangent: can one still say 'Chinese whispers'? Is there a more 'PC' equivalent of that phrase that describes a well-known phenomenon in the way stories get altered?)
    Here, that children’s game is called Telephone.

  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    GK, the royals don't exist for the entertainment of anybody. They are there to support the Queen in the performance of her duties.

    What duties? I mean, seriously, what is she actually for? What does she do? What would happen if she didn't? Like @Doc Tor said, a five year old in a paper hat could do it. Honestly, monarchists talk such nebulous bullshit about "institutions" and "stability" and "identity" without ever pinning down anything you can actually identify. It starts to sound like the Emperor's new clothes. Well, he's naked.
    I'm sorry if that seems inhumane.

    No you aren't. If you were, you'd object to rather than supporting the status quo.

    But I said straight after that there were compensations. I'm very very sorry that these poor people are born into gilded cages. I'm sorry that they get to live in humungous houses filled with everything they need. All I ask is that they shut the fuck up. If they don't want to be a professional royal, that choice is available to them. Just shut the fuck up, that's all. Just don't engage with the bloody media. I mean, it is so very inhumane.

    What duties? The Monarch's duties are to sit down shut up and sign where indicated when indicated. If the fam want to do good works on the side, fine. If they want to do public service, like in the army, or fixing stuff or whatevs, more power to them. They get a bit of cash for that, probably too much, but there you go. But none of that can interfere with the Monarch's duty: "Sit down your Majesty, there's a good lady. If you would be so kind as to not speak just now. Sign here. Very good. And here. Well done. Now, would you like a nice cup of tea?"

    Now, I understand that in England, you haven't quite got your affairs in order. There seems to be some uncertainty around what the Queen can and cannot do, in terms of advice and some other matters. That field of action is rather narrower in Australia. You also seem to have argued your way into a position where you pay the upkeep of our Head of State. Bully for you. Pip pip, what ho, etc etc. I'm sure the English know what they're doing. Can I call you Bruce by the way? It makes things easier.

    This system works very well in Australia. In reality, all the Queen personally does here is appoint people to act in her stead. Her appointee can dismiss a government, appoint a caretaker to run the executive and do the necessary stuff to call an election. Its a good way out of a political impasse, a safety valve if you will. Now we could change the system and work out some other way. But why? This system isn't broken here, and you pay for it, mostly. Beautiful.

    That seems an awfully long winded way to say "she actually does bugger all".

    No, she performs a specific and vital constitutional function. And you pay for it, instead of us, most of the time. You can't forget that bit Karl. That's the best bit.

    What @Doc Tor said about the judiciary. She may officially appoint people but she doesn't choose them. Just take the words "Royal" and "Crown" out and do it exactly how it's currently done.

    That's the bloody point. If someone else did these things, you would have to go through a highly politicised process of working out how the new system is going to work. You can say just do a minimalist one and call the bastard Governor instead of Queen, but who appoints them, what favours can be called in by them and how and when are they removed. Who succeeds them? You can point to other ways of doing things, the Irish model, the American model, the French model, but the point is that we have to go through the process of debating and deciding what is the best course.

    Your lot just spent 5 years or more doing that over the EU. And you fucked it up. And you risk a renewal of the Battle of the Boyne.

    It isn't broke, for Australia. You pay for our head of state. Why fix it?

    You miss my point. The Queen doesn't choose these people. Officially she does but in reality she rubber stamps whoever she's told to appoint. So just keep choosing how you currently choose, stop pretending the Queen does it and carry on otherwise as you were.

    Calling people idiots for seeing through the charade isn't a good look.

    The Queen's speech makes me chortle. OK, she is opening her mouth and making noises. But I suppose the English like pretending, for some reason.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    My takeaways from this
    There is a massive gulf between British and American culture when it comes to how people interact and express themselves.
    The Palace is totally ill-equipped to deal with people with delicate emotional health.
    White people are assumed to be racists if they mention skin colour.
    Anf Harry expected to be paid for royal duties that he had walked away from.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited March 9
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    GK, the royals don't exist for the entertainment of anybody. They are there to support the Queen in the performance of her duties.

    What duties? I mean, seriously, what is she actually for? What does she do? What would happen if she didn't? Like @Doc Tor said, a five year old in a paper hat could do it. Honestly, monarchists talk such nebulous bullshit about "institutions" and "stability" and "identity" without ever pinning down anything you can actually identify. It starts to sound like the Emperor's new clothes. Well, he's naked.
    I'm sorry if that seems inhumane.

    No you aren't. If you were, you'd object to rather than supporting the status quo.

    But I said straight after that there were compensations. I'm very very sorry that these poor people are born into gilded cages. I'm sorry that they get to live in humungous houses filled with everything they need. All I ask is that they shut the fuck up. If they don't want to be a professional royal, that choice is available to them. Just shut the fuck up, that's all. Just don't engage with the bloody media. I mean, it is so very inhumane.

    What duties? The Monarch's duties are to sit down shut up and sign where indicated when indicated. If the fam want to do good works on the side, fine. If they want to do public service, like in the army, or fixing stuff or whatevs, more power to them. They get a bit of cash for that, probably too much, but there you go. But none of that can interfere with the Monarch's duty: "Sit down your Majesty, there's a good lady. If you would be so kind as to not speak just now. Sign here. Very good. And here. Well done. Now, would you like a nice cup of tea?"

    Now, I understand that in England, you haven't quite got your affairs in order. There seems to be some uncertainty around what the Queen can and cannot do, in terms of advice and some other matters. That field of action is rather narrower in Australia. You also seem to have argued your way into a position where you pay the upkeep of our Head of State. Bully for you. Pip pip, what ho, etc etc. I'm sure the English know what they're doing. Can I call you Bruce by the way? It makes things easier.

    This system works very well in Australia. In reality, all the Queen personally does here is appoint people to act in her stead. Her appointee can dismiss a government, appoint a caretaker to run the executive and do the necessary stuff to call an election. Its a good way out of a political impasse, a safety valve if you will. Now we could change the system and work out some other way. But why? This system isn't broken here, and you pay for it, mostly. Beautiful.

    That seems an awfully long winded way to say "she actually does bugger all".

    No, she performs a specific and vital constitutional function. And you pay for it, instead of us, most of the time. You can't forget that bit Karl. That's the best bit.

    What @Doc Tor said about the judiciary. She may officially appoint people but she doesn't choose them. Just take the words "Royal" and "Crown" out and do it exactly how it's currently done.

    That's the bloody point. If someone else did these things, you would have to go through a highly politicised process of working out how the new system is going to work. You can say just do a minimalist one and call the bastard Governor instead of Queen, but who appoints them, what favours can be called in by them and how and when are they removed. Who succeeds them? You can point to other ways of doing things, the Irish model, the American model, the French model, but the point is that we have to go through the process of debating and deciding what is the best course.

    Your lot just spent 5 years or more doing that over the EU. And you fucked it up. And you risk a renewal of the Battle of the Boyne.

    It isn't broke, for Australia. You pay for our head of state. Why fix it?

    You miss my point. The Queen doesn't choose these people. Officially she does but in reality she rubber stamps whoever she's told to appoint. So just keep choosing how you currently choose, stop pretending the Queen does it and carry on otherwise as you were.

    Calling people idiots for seeing through the charade isn't a good look.

    The Queen's speech makes me chortle. OK, she is opening her mouth and making noises. But I suppose the English like pretending, for some reason.

    Sometimes I feel utterly disconnected to my supposed countrymen. It's like banging on about football while wearing an England shirt, slagging off anything foreign while washing curry down with lager has tried to become a culture.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    GK, the royals don't exist for the entertainment of anybody. They are there to support the Queen in the performance of her duties.

    What duties? I mean, seriously, what is she actually for? What does she do? What would happen if she didn't? Like @Doc Tor said, a five year old in a paper hat could do it. Honestly, monarchists talk such nebulous bullshit about "institutions" and "stability" and "identity" without ever pinning down anything you can actually identify. It starts to sound like the Emperor's new clothes. Well, he's naked.
    I'm sorry if that seems inhumane.

    No you aren't. If you were, you'd object to rather than supporting the status quo.

    But I said straight after that there were compensations. I'm very very sorry that these poor people are born into gilded cages. I'm sorry that they get to live in humungous houses filled with everything they need. All I ask is that they shut the fuck up. If they don't want to be a professional royal, that choice is available to them. Just shut the fuck up, that's all. Just don't engage with the bloody media. I mean, it is so very inhumane.

    What duties? The Monarch's duties are to sit down shut up and sign where indicated when indicated. If the fam want to do good works on the side, fine. If they want to do public service, like in the army, or fixing stuff or whatevs, more power to them. They get a bit of cash for that, probably too much, but there you go. But none of that can interfere with the Monarch's duty: "Sit down your Majesty, there's a good lady. If you would be so kind as to not speak just now. Sign here. Very good. And here. Well done. Now, would you like a nice cup of tea?"

    Now, I understand that in England, you haven't quite got your affairs in order. There seems to be some uncertainty around what the Queen can and cannot do, in terms of advice and some other matters. That field of action is rather narrower in Australia. You also seem to have argued your way into a position where you pay the upkeep of our Head of State. Bully for you. Pip pip, what ho, etc etc. I'm sure the English know what they're doing. Can I call you Bruce by the way? It makes things easier.

    This system works very well in Australia. In reality, all the Queen personally does here is appoint people to act in her stead. Her appointee can dismiss a government, appoint a caretaker to run the executive and do the necessary stuff to call an election. Its a good way out of a political impasse, a safety valve if you will. Now we could change the system and work out some other way. But why? This system isn't broken here, and you pay for it, mostly. Beautiful.

    That seems an awfully long winded way to say "she actually does bugger all".

    No, she performs a specific and vital constitutional function. And you pay for it, instead of us, most of the time. You can't forget that bit Karl. That's the best bit.

    What @Doc Tor said about the judiciary. She may officially appoint people but she doesn't choose them. Just take the words "Royal" and "Crown" out and do it exactly how it's currently done.

    That's the bloody point. If someone else did these things, you would have to go through a highly politicised process of working out how the new system is going to work. You can say just do a minimalist one and call the bastard Governor instead of Queen, but who appoints them, what favours can be called in by them and how and when are they removed. Who succeeds them? You can point to other ways of doing things, the Irish model, the American model, the French model, but the point is that we have to go through the process of debating and deciding what is the best course.

    Your lot just spent 5 years or more doing that over the EU. And you fucked it up. And you risk a renewal of the Battle of the Boyne.

    It isn't broke, for Australia. You pay for our head of state. Why fix it?

    You miss my point. The Queen doesn't choose these people. Officially she does but in reality she rubber stamps whoever she's told to appoint. So just keep choosing how you currently choose, stop pretending the Queen does it and carry on otherwise as you were.

    Calling people idiots for seeing through the charade isn't a good look.

    The Queen's speech makes me chortle. OK, she is opening her mouth and making noises. But I suppose the English like pretending, for some reason.

    Sometimes I feel utterly disconnected to my supposed countrymen.

    I remember during the Falklands war, when local pubs had maps up showing the progress of "our boys". Crumbs.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    England has always had a bunch of cultures fepending on background, region etc.
Sign In or Register to comment.