Queen Camilla?

Strip away all the politics and royal lineage and remember that these are just ordinary people underneath that had no say in their parentage. If they want to get married, the church should respect that and be pleased for them. If Harry is a Hewitt, then so what, it at least shows that these people can have real relationships and can break out of the restrictions that they have been dealt. I think we should start to respect them as ordinary people and disrespect their royal position. If they did the same and were given the chance to live like th erest of us and keep their jobs, then the whole thing may have a chance of surviving the next generation. It is the system that sucks, no necessarily the people caught up in it. I'm sure there are times that Charles wishes he wasn't a royal.
We should still respect them as people even if we don't agree with the system.

quote:

In any event get rid of the Royal Family and you sure as hell are going to have to write one.

Writing one seems like a good idea regardless.

quote:

What executive or political power does the Queen have? She is a figurehead no more no less but for all that an important one for the reasons I stated previously.

I see absolutely no good reason for a grown-up state to have a figurehead, elected or otherwise.

quote:

Would you be in favour of electing judges?

Of course. Judges, the police, managers, public servants, the whole shebang. Because I'm a consistent democrat I'm deeply unconvinced by the claims of modern parliamentary democracies to be even close to a democratic ideal. Part of the problem with these kinds of discussions is that they rarely address questions of principle, they're always focused on pragmatism. Start with the principles of democracy and it becomes obvious which elements of the average modern state violate them and are therefore worthy of being consigned to the dustbin, argue purely pragmatically and you can justify anything (look at the Labour government for evidence). We're the powerless citizenry, we don't have to be pragmatic, we can be principled; in fact, if we're truly going to have any chance of holding government even vaguely accountable, we have to be unreasonably principled. "Unreasonably", that is, from the POV of the bureaucracy who run our lives. We give them far too easy a time of it.

-- Ian

If it matters not a jot then why have a figurehead at all, never mind her hangers on? i found it remarkable how proud the irish were of their president and that regardless of what was going on in the dail, they felt unified behind a figurehead who they could engage intelligently at all levels and wasn't tainted by all the bagage that accompanies royalty. The opinion of the royals on this thread reflects what I've heard outside the forum and it shows a people who have no pride in their figurehead and to that extent the system is very much broken. Why should they respect them as the British royalty have by and large, not a lot to offer the modern world over beyond massive inherited wealth and suspect genes. I think that right now Britain could do with a popular, intelligent, elected figurehead a la Mary Robinson.

What's the story with Branson, never struck me as a bad boy, I've been away what's he done?

Ian

With my tongue firmly in my cheek, we would never stop voting and when a substantial minority of the population can't even be bothered to vote in a General Election, we may be just placing power in the hands of the politically committed few.

Democracy itself is a difficult concept to define. I guess that if we took your argument to it's logical conclusion we would, as a people, vote on every issue. That is clearly impractical.

I guess you would say that is pragmatism again but to succesfully run a society you need a combination of pragmatism and principles. I don't believe one or the other on it's own works - although I'm not sure anybody has tryed it either way.

To conclude, in my view you do need a figurehead in any state, it maintains balance. I would be uncomfortable with the armed forces and judiciary in particular swearing allegiance to a politician. History suggests that this is not a good idea.

I don't doubt that our American friends will point out that the US Constitution does just that. However, there is a lot of learned American opinion which believes that the Founding Fathers never intended the US presidency to have the power it enjoys now.

Now I will get shot down!

Harvey

If I argue that we need a non political figurehead, I can't argue with your premise. Again though no political party should be involved. I would have no problem with a Mary Robinson type of president but I still don't see that beyond blind prejudice the British people would somehow be better off. I am not arguing personalities here more principles.

With regard to Richard Branson, I don't believe that a self seeking publicist is what we require and if you are concerned as to how the Royal family accumulated there wealth then I am sure that you will want to consider how other potential candidates acquired their's

quote:

I guess you would say that is pragmatism again but to succesfully run a society you need a combination of pragmatism and principles.

Ah, but you don't run society, neither do I. So we have no need to be pragmatic. Politics is almost purely a spectator sport nowadays because there aren't enough utopians left in the world. We all sit here watching one tedious bureaucrat after another reneging on their previously-espoused promises, and allow them to get away with describing their vacillations as acts of necessity. Basic principles never get discussed.

-- Ian

Ian

I don't disagree with you. I thank the Lord that I don't run society. I know that I am espousing the lesser of 2 evils (again in my view)and I know you will say that is pragmatism. Such is life.

As an aside, translate your last post into latin, take it to Rome in the time of the Caesars and I bet you would get a hell of a lot of people agreeing with you.

Nothing changes I guess

Regards

Off with their heads!!!

Bob

I was never fond of togas unfortunately :-)

To get back to the question of monarchy, I'm very fond of the medieval Catalan oath of allegiance: "We, who are as good as you, swear to you, who are no better than us, to accept you as our king, provided you observe all our liberties and laws - but if not, not".

-- Ian

Ian

That is absolutely spot on. maybe we should all become Catalans!

Catalans are a fine example of a group of people who are almost completely ungovernable, have anarchism in their DNA, yet still contrive to create a functioning society. Wish I knew how they manage it :-)

-- Ian

quote:

Originally posted by Harvey:
The opinion of the royals on this thread reflects what I've heard outside the forum and it shows a people who have no pride in their figurehead and to that extent the system is very much broken. Why should they respect them as the British royalty have by and large, not a lot to offer the modern world over beyond massive inherited wealth and suspect genes. I think that right now Britain could do with a popular, intelligent, elected figurehead a la Mary Robinson.

Keep your Mary Robinsons and Richard Bransons. In terms of her fullfilling of her duties as monarch the queen has hardly put a foot wrong in over 50 years of service to the country.

I listened to her Christmas message this year - the one opportunity she has to broadcast her own thoughts and beliefs - and I was proud of her. I am proud of her.

Perhaps I'm the only person left in the country who feels the way I do but somehow I doubt it and anyway, I care not a jot.

Royal regards
Steve M

PS: I believe that we may be seeing the red and blue cracks appearing over the map of the USA. A single terrorist attack can do that. Let's see how they hold together over the next few years.

Steve
You cant be serious. Hardly put a foot wrong in 50 years? Who the hell are these people some jock and a German.
No disrespect to jocks and Germans before some PC cretin is on my case

I've just stopped crying with laughter at Steve's last post of pompous piety! Keep em coming lad!

Bob

Steve, it doesn't matter how much you toady to the old parasite, she's never going to give Seventh Veil the royal seal of approval.

-- Ian

quote:

Originally posted by Martin D:
You cant be serious. Hardly put a foot wrong in 50 years? Who the hell are these people some jock and a German.

What on earth has her nationality got to do with it? You weaken your case, Martin.

The queen has hardly put a foot wrong, in terms of her public duties, in over 50 years. Yes, I'm quite serious. But come on Martin, tell me where I'm wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by bob mccluckie:
I've just stopped crying with laughter at Steve's last post of pompous piety! Keep em coming lad!

Bob, I'm delighted that my post has amused you so much. However, I don't see that I'm exhibiting pompous piety. I'm just being truthful and I was fully aware that I would most likely get a certain amount of ridicule for it from some of the forum's 'deep thinkers'.

quote:

Originally posted by sideshowbob:
Steve, it doesn't matter how much you toady to the old parasite, she's never going to give Seventh Veil the royal seal of approval.

Ian, an unspoken agreement that I have with the moderators of this forum means that I am unable to report fully on any moves in this direction.

Regards
Steve M

Steve, thanks for that. Pure gold man. Even funnier than tonight's question time.

You're most welcome 'Windsor'.

Regards
Steve M

PS: If anyone needs convincing that I mean it:
"This Year's Queen's Message" - (in another place)

The Queen must move on one day and Charles will need support in his job. As he is getting past his use by date it is a bit much for him to be expected to come up with a new package. Camilla is not univerally loved but I am sure that from a protocol point of view she will be excellant. Allied to this is the fact that they genuinely wish to be married.
And I see her Title will not be Queen. I think you are missing an opportunity. There are great marketing possibilities in a name and Queen Camilla has a certain ring.

Lomo: I'm reasonably sure that Charles will have paid close attention to Camilla's "certain ring"!

G

quote:

Originally posted by Harvey:

What's the story with Branson, never struck me as a bad boy, I've been away what's he done?

Nothing that would remove my undying gratitude to him for bringing Harfield and The North, Henry Cow and Faust to my teenage years.



Stephen

On the Today programme this mmorning, the glorious John Prescott was asked what he thought of the nuptuals.

He replied: "I tink it's marvellous, two people getting together. Perhaps now they'll stop foxhunting".

Personally, I'm looking forward to adding to my collection of overpriced Franklin Mint tat.

Kevin

quote:

Originally posted by Kevin-W:
On the Today programme this mmorning, the glorious John Prescott was asked what he thought of the nuptuals.

He replied: "I tink it's marvellous, two people getting together. Perhaps now they'll stop foxhunting".


Kevin

I think it's absolutely wonderful that we have elected representatives like Prescott. He's never boring and puts paid to the 'bland men in suits' cliche of government. Makes me proud to be British.

But he is Andy Dalziel, isn't he?



And they are going to have to stop foxhunting.



Stephen

quote:

Originally posted by Rasher:
I think we should start to respect them as ordinary people and disrespect their royal position.

I'm sure there are times that Charles wishes he wasn't a royal.

We should still respect them as people even if we don't agree with the system.

Sorry Rasher but I think we should start to respect them when they earn our respect. Given that by and large they're a bunch of contemptible useless oafs with the morals of sewer rats I don't see much chance of that happening in the near future. And as for poor old Charlie wishing he wasn't royal, I don't buy that either. If he felt that way he could walk away and support himself in relative anonymity but I don't see much sign of that happening. Wouldn't that be like throwing out a winning lottery ticket every week?

quote:

Originally posted by TomK:
...Given that by and large they're a bunch of contemptible useless oafs with the morals of sewer rats I don't see much chance of that happening in the near future. And as for poor old Charlie wishing he wasn't royal, I don't buy that either. If he felt that way he could walk away and support himself in relative anonymity but I don't see much sign of that happening. Wouldn't that be like throwing out a winning lottery ticket every week?

A distinction should be made between the land and property that is owned by the various royals and that which comes with the job. Charles would be a very rich man even if he 'walked away' from the job. I'm not sure if he'd be 'Duke of Westminster' rich but pretty rich anyway. I suspect that many of us would happily lose the royal earnings and retire from public duty if we were in his position.

What are the grounds for saying that they have the 'morals of sewer rats'? Who are you talking about here, the Queen, Charles, Anne, William, Phillip?

Regards
Steve M