The Royal Family

[Stan]

Nothing like a royal representative sitting on a gold throne travelling with a crown worth £5bn telling the country that the government plans to 'level up' and solve the poverty and food bank crisis currently happening...

[RandoEFC+]

I probably like Prince Charles more than most of the public, but the monarchy is becoming increasingly indefensible as times get more and more difficult for ordinary people. Apparently 2 million people in the UK can't afford food at the moment and are relying on food banks.

The Queen is considered untouchable by the public discourse but she doesn't have long left. After her, I think a lot more people will be willing to listen and re-assess just how much money and privilege the royals enjoy and what the payback is for the public.

That said, having seen what the elected autocracy that is what the UK parliament has effectively become now that we have a government that doesn't play by the usual unwritten rules and "gentlemen's agreements" that have always kept politicians in the UK largely in check, it makes me worried about what another shitty government could do to this country in future if you change the constitution to remove the monarch as the ultimate head of state, neutralising another one of the checks and balances that limits what a government with a large majority and free reign to run the country for 5 years are able to do.

[ScoRoss]

Very on brand, I guess 

[Beelzebub]

I agree with the notion that someone above politics should be the ultimate head of the state. I fairness I think places like Iran have it the best with a supreme leader elected among a council. 

[Reluctant Striker]

The thing with changing the monarchy, or doing away with it, is that it means President Johnson, Cameron, Blair, Thatcher, etc. I'm not sure there is any great appetite for that.

France & Russia did away with royalty at a time Britain went with reducing its own to toothless, figures of culture, rather than actual rulers. Both arguably Russian & French rulers now seem to expect certain levels of untreasonous public.

For me, personally, I feel the current arrangement of the monarchy being there as at least a token reminder to PM's of that which is not what they should be is.. quite good.

And when we prance around in uniform, on national memorial days, it's all about dressing up extra fancy, riding horses, the marching bands & waiving from or too a balcony. Not parading nuclear weapons or tooting guns.

Over my lifetime I have known the suggestion that Charles will not be popular. Or that William will be next. When royal scandal was falling out with parrners. I think a lot of anti monarchists will be in for some disappointment in the years & decades ahead.

And as for commonwealth countries, well we do live in an era where nations can choose to stay in or leave clubs, unions or groups. 

[RandoEFC+]

24 minutes ago, Reluctant Striker said:

The thing with changing the monarchy, or doing away with it, is that it means President Johnson, Cameron, Blair, Thatcher, etc. I'm not sure there is any great appetite for that.

This is the thing for me. The monarchy and the class system and everything that comes with it is outdated and wrong. You wouldn't implement it now if it didn't already exist. But my reluctance to go all out "Abolish" is that in the UK specifically, I fear what the constitution looks like moving forward.

[Rucksackfranzose]

1 hour ago, Reluctant Striker said:

The thing with changing the monarchy, or doing away with it, is that it means President Johnson, Cameron, Blair, Thatcher, etc. I'm not sure there is any great appetite for that.

France & Russia did away with royalty at a time Britain went with reducing its own to toothless, figures of culture, rather than actual rulers. Both arguably Russian & French rulers now seem to expect certain levels of untreasonous public.

For me, personally, I feel the current arrangement of the monarchy being there as at least a token reminder to PM's of that which is not what they should be is.. quite good.

And when we prance around in uniform, on national memorial days, it's all about dressing up extra fancy, riding horses, the marching bands & waiving from or too a balcony. Not parading nuclear weapons or tooting guns.

Over my lifetime I have known the suggestion that Charles will not be popular. Or that William will be next. When royal scandal was falling out with parrners. I think a lot of anti monarchists will be in for some disappointment in the years & decades ahead.

And as for commonwealth countries, well we do live in an era where nations can choose to stay in or leave clubs, unions or groups. 

Not at all. There's  no law neither written nor unwritten saying the president has to be the head of the government. There are many examples where those two offices are divided. Ireland, Germany, Italy, Israel, Iran, and Austria on top of my head. In Austria and Germany for example the president is only representing the state without any saying in daily politics. There are more republican systems than the ones the US or France have, you see.

On a side note Switzerland has even two presidents of two different parties and being in office for just one year to prevent single politicians from gaining too much power.

[Reluctant Striker]

32 minutes ago, Rucksackfranzose said:

Not at all. There's  no law neither written nor unwritten saying the president has to be the head of the government. There are many examples where those two offices are divided. Ireland, Germany, Italy, Israel, Iran, and Austria on top of my head. In Austria and Germany for example the president is only representing the state without any saying in daily politics. There are more republican systems than the ones the US or France have, you see.

On a side note Switzerland has even two presidents of two different parties and being in office for just one year to prevent single politicians from gaining too much power.

So to clarify, are you suggesting that the people of Great Britain & Northern Ireland would have elected a head of state (whatever job title you may be applying to it) that would have been better than the PM's it has chosen over just the last 40 years?

Or just that you feel anything would have been better than the Queen & the Royal Family.

It's ok whichever, but it sounds a little bit like you have a view you're not quite applying accurately to what I was saying.

[Beelzebub]

1 hour ago, Rucksackfranzose said:

Not at all. There's  no law neither written nor unwritten saying the president has to be the head of the government. There are many examples where those two offices are divided. Ireland, Germany, Italy, Israel, Iran, and Austria on top of my head. In Austria and Germany for example the president is only representing the state without any saying in daily politics. There are more republican systems than the ones the US or France have, you see.

On a side note Switzerland has even two presidents of two different parties and being in office for just one year to prevent single politicians from gaining too much power.

He meant that unlike the royals who aren't associated with politics a President will have some political affiliation so people can be political partisan over it specially if its figure like Blair with tainted history.

This is not a good look for a head of state, it should be someone above politics like I said. 

[UNORTHODOX]

I love and respect the Royal family, By that i mean the family in the legendary TV show.

[Devil-Dick Willie]

On 11/05/2022 at 18:44, RandoEFC said:

I probably like Prince Charles more than most of the public, but the monarchy is becoming increasingly indefensible as times get more and more difficult for ordinary people. Apparently 2 million people in the UK can't afford food at the moment and are relying on food banks.

 

Apparently 6 million English adults (15% of the English adult population give or take) have had to skip a meal due to a lack of money this year. 

[Spike]

1 hour ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

Apparently 6 million English adults (15% of the English adult population give or take) have had to skip a meal due to a lack of money this year. 

What about the Scots, the Welsh, and the Nirish?

[Devil-Dick Willie]

1 hour ago, Spike said:

What about the Scots, the Welsh, and the Nirish?

Those are different states of the nation of great Britain mate.

[Beelzebub]

2 hours ago, Devil-Dick Willie said:

Those are different states of the nation of great Britain mate.

United Kingdom. Nirish don't count in GB

[CaaC (John)+]

2 hours ago, Aladdin said:

United Kingdom. Nirish don't count in GB

Yes it does, Southern Ireland (eire) is not classed as part of Great Britain, NI is. 

The United Kingdom (UK) is made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

https://www.government.nl › brexit › question-and-answer

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RandoEFC+]

No, Britain is the island made up of England, Scotland and Wales. The UK is England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

That's why the UK's full name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

[Stan]

1 hour ago, CaaC (John) said:

Yes it does, Southern Ireland (eire) is not classed as part of Great Britain, NI is. 

The United Kingdom (UK) is made up of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

https://www.government.nl › brexit › question-and-answer

 

 

 

 

 

 

You've literally just quoted what the United Kingdom is, not what Great Britain is. 

[CaaC (John)+]

5 minutes ago, Stan said:

You've literally just quoted what the United Kingdom is, not what Great Britain is. 

Ok, I will go by this, not going to argue with you about geography as I was useless in the Global Game with my bloody islands and had to keep asking you. 

VIDEO

The names Great Britain and the United Kingdom are often used interchangeably. However, they are not actually synonymous. The reason for the two names, and the difference between them, has to do with the expansive history of the British Isles.

The British Isles are a group of islands off the northwestern coast of Europe. The largest of these islands are Britain and Ireland. (Smaller ones include the Isle of Wight.) In the Middle Ages, the name Britain was also applied to a small part of France now known as Brittany. As a result, Great Britain came into use to refer specifically to the island. However, that name had no official significance until 1707, when the island’s rival kingdoms of England and Scotland were united as the Kingdom of Great Britain.

[Devil-Dick Willie]

The point is. 

Your countries population is so poor they can't feed themselves and for the first time in 70 years are getting unicef aid, and even food aid from fucking Morocco. 

 

[RandoEFC+]

40,000 people relied on food banks when the Tories replaced Labour as the party of government and today that figure has indeed risen to 2,000,000.

Mathematically speaking, that means of every 50 people who go to a food bank, 49 of them wouldn't have needed to back in 2010.

It's messed up. I'm not saying it's the fault of the royals. But it's all linked in. Hereditary rule, the class system, the deference to distinctly average men like Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees Mogg because Mummy and Daddy paid thousands to send them to a posh school where they could learn to sound like they belonged in the ruling class, the belief that the poor are in their rightful place and if they want to get above the poverty line they should just work harder/more hours.

It's all just objectively very odd for a supposedly developed country.

[Beelzebub]

Those are actually surprising figures.

[Beelzebub]

[Stan]

Prince William has been a naughty boy allegedly. 

Not that this is 'new' news, but the media seem to be closer to revealing all. 

@MUFC knows all about pegging so can relate no doubt... 

[MUFC]

 

[MUFC]

2 hours ago, Stan said:

Prince William has been a naughty boy allegedly. 

Not that this is 'new' news, but the media seem to be closer to revealing all. 

@MUFC knows all about pegging so can relate no doubt... 

Not my thing but Nudge insisted.