|
Redundant? Unable to fulfil her one single primary role, probably for ever, unwilling to abdicate, time to give her the elbow?
|
|
Every day that goes by it strikes me that system we have is simply ludicrous. To nominate a person to hold supreme executive power based upon an accident of birth is mind boggling.
|
>> Every day that goes by it strikes me that system we have is simply ludicrous.
>> To nominate a person to hold supreme executive power based upon an accident of birth
>> is mind boggling.
It would be if she had power. But she hasn't. And by occupying the position, she denies power to anyone else who might arrogate it to themselves and misuse it.
|
>> Every day that goes by it strikes me that system we have is simply ludicrous.
>> To nominate a person to hold supreme executive power based upon an accident of birth
>> is mind boggling.
Yes, as least Putin wasn't born into it.
|
>> Yes, as least Putin wasn't born into it.
He wasn't fairly elected into it either.
Point is that there is no supreme power, or much at all, vested in the head of state and of course they have no visible mandate to pretend to any. If we elected one they would have some sort of mandate which could make them dangerous. Being arbitrarily qualified and powerless is a wonderful solution. The monarch's occupation of the position means the possibility is denied to potential Putin's or Xi's (both of whom have also changed their countries' laws to allow them to extend their reigns).
Nobody has supreme power here, the nearest individual is the prime minister but he can't act unilaterally. This has worked quite well for the most part. The current lot are unusually mercenary and corrupt it's true, but we collectively voted them in and we have the power to vote them out.
Allowing any single person to exercise extensive control is a bad idea, especially if the courts come under political control as in the US where there is a perfect storm brewing.
|
>> Every day that goes by it strikes me that system we have is simply ludicrous.
>> To nominate a person to hold supreme executive power based upon an accident of birth
>> is mind boggling.
>>
The Queen has no executive power whatsoever. That resides in the Government.
Of course in the past monarchy did provide perhaps the only long lasting and stable system of government as born out by the fact that it was near universal. The alternative is power being seized.by whoever lays claims to the largest army resulting in chaos and continuous fighting and wars
English history a has been a long story of trying to curb the power of the monarchy but retaining the stability that monarchy provides resulting int the system we have at the moment. We can be loyal to the idea of the state, embodied in the figure of the Queen., whilst opposing the actions of the Government. It’s a bit of an odd system but it mostly works.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Wed 11 May 22 at 12:32
|
>> Redundant? Unable to fulfil her one single primary role, probably for ever, unwilling to abdicate,
>> time to give her the elbow?
>>
I'm not sure anyone can do that, well constitutionally speaking anyway.
|
If we're going to have a monarchy we might as well do it properly and keep her there till the end, whether she can perform any duties or has to delegate them all.
Once she goes we will be heading for a Dutch style bicycle monarchy anyway, the affection she has from the public will never be afforded to anyone else. It is now impossible for anyone to be protected from the sort of scrutiny that will taint the reputations of her successors in some way. Charles already has baggage and it won't be too long before the press decide there is more mileage in turning their guns on William and Kate instead of venerating them.
The antics of Prince Netflix and his publicity hungry squeeze won't help the cause either.
|
|
I have never heard anyone deliver a government manifesto with such disgust and distain as Charlie managed. Perhaps the waste of space has something in him I have missed.
|
>> Perhaps the waste of space has something in him I have missed.
He clearly cares about farting and belching cows (I'm sure BBD has known a few)
:o}
|
>> I have never heard anyone deliver a government manifesto with such disgust and distain as
>> Charlie managed. Perhaps the waste of space has something in him I have missed.
Exactly how it struck me. His enthusiasm was notable for its absence.
Had it been a school report he might have added "We would prefer it should Boris not return after the summer recess".
Actually I suspect he was disdainful of the cliched language and jargon. "Levelling up", "driving growth", "empowering local leaders", "delivery", "champion(ing) international trade" (having nearly extinguished it). HRH probably didn't penetrate as far as the actual policies which are mostly motherhoods, the more divisive stuff having been left out.
|
The queen and the monarchy has no real power.
She is simply part of a tradition - England (which predates GB or UK) has a claim going back several hundred years as one of the worlds oldest surviving democracies.
Even though now largely an irrelevancy they evoke mostly (not wholly) positive feelings about the UK in both its own citizens and perceptions of the UK overseas.
|
One function I think has merit, is that our armed forces pledge loyalty to the monarch… not to a political party.
|
>> One function I think has merit, is that our armed forces pledge loyalty to the
>> monarch… not to a political party.
I'm sure that's right but in which democracy that is a Republic like France, Germany or Ireland do armed forces pledge loyalty to a party?
|
>> DPRK?
For sure. Possibly ex USSR or China too.
But Western countries that are Republics?
|
>> I have never heard anyone deliver a government manifesto with such disgust and distain as
>> Charlie managed.
>>
I'm glad I wasn't the only one who thought so. Except I've always had time for Prince Charles, and this speech was a fine example why.
|
Suddenly Lizzie is fit enough for a horse show
|
|
Good for her. I know I'd sooner be taken to (e.g.) a motor race than (e.g.) a family wedding in my twilight, but not being (e.g.) a queen I wouldn't get the choice.
|
>> Suddenly Lizzie is fit enough for a horse show
The official line is that she has episodic mobility problems. Other suggestions are that she's much more poorly than is being let on and that there may a need for succession arrangements at short notice. That, it is said, was a reason for William's early return from the Caribbean and lack of foreign travel since.
If she was well enough yesterday to go by car to the horse show than why not? From what I've seen she observed proceedings from the car.
If one has a fluctuating condition one plans for the bad days and makes the most of the good ones.
|
There’s a big difference between having a day out when you can sit down whenever you want and go home whenever you want and standing to read a long speech in a very formal ceremony with the worlds cameras trained on you .
Give her a break, She’s 96!!
|
>>If she was well enough yesterday to go by car to the horse show than why not?
Exactly. At her age, most people are retired and there is a huge difference in the effort required in being able to undertake a State Opening of Parliament and going to a horse race.
|
>> If she was well enough yesterday to go by car to the horse show than
>> why not? From what I've seen she observed proceedings from the car.
Now seen reports that she walked thirty feet from car to a seat and back with a stick in at least one direction.
|
|
I don't think you can argue successfully that a 96 year-old isn't frail:)
|
|
I thought queens were OK to go in any direction :-)
|
>> I thought queens were OK to go in any direction :-)
>>
i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/mobile/000/028/543/queen.jpg
:-)
|
>> I've always had time for Prince Charles,
>>
Que?
|
HM The Queen - Robin O'Reliant
