What happens next when the queen is gone?

I don't think money is the issue either and, never having met the woman, I have no particular complaints about the Queen. But, while I understand some of the points that royalist sympathisers make I'm often amazed at just how wooly and sentimental some otherwise extremely sharp and critical individuals become whenever the monarchy is mentioned.

While I've seen people list the things they like about the Queen and what they believe to be the advantages of the institution, I have never come across anything that even looked like an actual justification of the continuance of hereditary office in this day on age. What remotely acceptable principle can it possibly be based on? You can't get past the idea that we're being asked to believe there's something special about this unremarkable family which entitles them to exalted status and a vital role in our national life, just because they're descended from a more than usually successful bunch of robber barons.

Anyway, when we get to talking about the rightful heir allowing himself to be passed over in favour of his son, just because the tabloids think his ears stick out too much then the ball is clearly on the slates. And about time too.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
I think the Crown brings in a lot more £ than it costs.

I think the legacy of the previous crowns and that history brings in most of the "royal" income.
I reckon visitors will still want to visit BH, Windsor etc with or without ERII.
President and stand ins can officiate at trooping the colour and opening of parliament,they'll keep the fancy dress box, so that it's still as pretty!

Many good points have been raised by republicans and royalists, but if we had a president as head of state all of his actions are for his re-election and rarely for the good of the people.

Do soldiers fight for Prime Minister Brown or Blair ? Or Queen and country ?

quote:

Do soldiers fight for Prime Minister Brown or Blair ? Or Queen and country ?

Or because that's their job?

I don't think the argument for royalty will ever be won on a purely practical basis, maybe on an emotional one ?

quote:

Originally posted by Sniper:
I agree with Mike on the costs issue. This has been looked into and confirmed many times but idiots will always believe what they want to believe and sod the facts eh? The queen has never put a foot wrong in long years of service. I have enormous respect for her. I dont think Charles will ever be king - he will abdicate in favour of Prince William - I think thats the only way he was ever allowed to marry Camilla. The deal has already been done.

That's what I was after....

As for the argument about a president or not and the good/bad to that, I think though we have our corporate greed issues here, one of the biggest problems we face in America is that we've become too large and diverse of a country for everyone to really have an equal say anymore and make decisions that will benefit the largest number of people, yet hurt the least amount of them at the same time.

Personally, I think it will be a big part of our undoing. But I still have hope that we'll all stop bickering, dig in and solve some problems instead of just whining. We'll see...

The fact is that when she turned up at the UN toward the end of her tour, the Queen was accorded more interest, more deference and more time than any other leader, except possibly Nelson Mandela all those years ago. More embassies turned up at the UN for her speech than any other leader in 20 years and she received a standing ovation on entering the main auditorium.

That kind of notice means something. Is it because of her personally? Some of it is bound to be, but I think it's also because of what she represents, the head of state of the UK and the 34 countries of the commonwealth.

I do not think Charles would abdicate. Although I appreciate why you might think he would, I think he sees it as his solemn duty and that he's enjoyed the privilege of his role as prince in preparation for his role as king. As prince he's allowed to do a lot more than as king, which is why he's been able to be outspoken about so many things, but as king he will be far more restricted, yet with the weight of his kingship.

Of course, this is just conjecture, but I can't see him doing that to his son either. He must want his son to be able to travel relatively lightweight and gain experiences to further the role of the UK in the world when he is made king.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Lacey:
I think the Crown brings in a lot more £ than it costs.

Perhaps they should privatize them then, that would f**k up the monarchy better than any of us high minded republicans could.

You would have to book six months ahead to get a ticket to enter the Palace, and then you would find that a separate company deal with the guards and you had to have pre booked a pass to get past them to the exhibits.

As for the Queen doing a good job perhaps her sister who was barred from marrying the man she loved and drank herself to death should have been asked, or Diana and Fergie who she hounded through the royal couteers. A nice person, I think not, nor her bigot of a husband.

First of all, you can't know what really went on since you weren't there.

Secondly, the queen has a responsibility to her subjects but that doesn't make her perfect - she's as human as you or I, just as is her husband, and therefore prone to mistake just as easily as anybody else. After all, getting divorced and remarrying was pretty much seen as a failure in all classes right up to the 80s. She put country before her own family. Perhaps you'd like to consider that she must have felt great pain toward her sister in making that choice?

Finally, she's the queen. She can't afford to be nice. She can't show compassion to her sister or daughter-in-law because that would smack of elitist favouritism and you'd be howling about that.

Seems to me your view is as bigoted as you claim her husband's is.

quote:

Originally posted by shoot6x7:
Do soldiers fight for Prime Minister Brown or Blair ? Or Queen and country ?

The Army swear Allegiance to the Crown, so Queen and Country. Plenty of soldiers have very little time for politicians even though it is they who send them to fight.

Sailors swear Allegiance to the Board of the Admiralty, for some reason.

quote:

Originally posted by JamieL_v2:
[QUOTE]

A nice person, I think not, nor her bigot of a husband.

You do not have a single scrap of evidense that the queen is not a nice person - there is a good deal of evidense to the contrary. As for her husband who has had several public duties to perform each week (sometimes several in one day)for decades and decades I think his record is truly outstanding. Could you have done better? Occasionally her husband is accused of some gaff or other - total them up then total up the number of public duties he has performed since marrying the queen and work out the percentage of gaffs and you get a number so small it would only impress an idiot.

quote:

Originally posted by Sniper:

quote:

Originally posted by JamieL_v2:
[QUOTE]

A nice person, I think not, nor her bigot of a husband.

You do not have a single scrap of evidense that the queen is not a nice person - there is a good deal of evidense to the contrary. As for her husband who has had several public duties to perform each week (sometimes several in one day)for decades and decades I think his record is truly outstanding. Could you have done better? Occasionally her husband is accused of some gaff or other - total them up then total up the number of public duties he has performed since marrying the queen and work out the percentage of gaffs and you get a number so small it would only impress an idiot.

You sound impressed?

My favourite queen story is from a few years ago and I am assured is completely true.

It was at an investiture at Buckingham Palace. Such events are reheased to within an inch of themselves, and I imagine that these days they have a faraday cage or somesuch, but at this one, halfway through the queen knighting people and whatnot, someone in the audience's mobile phone rang out.

Quick as a flash, the queen stopped what she was doing, looked up, and said:

"You'd better answer that.
It might be someone important."

That's great Rod

I happen to enjoy it all from afar. I think they're a cornerstone on world scale.

But first things first. A HUUUUGE memorial service and cortege, the likes of no other. Documentaries and news reports for months at least.

My vote doesn't count and blast me if you want!

I think Charles should do it, just get over the fact of his chaotic personal life. Then it goes to one of the sons. Charles has some very good points around environment, development and humanity issues. That's most important to me.

Charles should do what?

M

quote:

Originally posted by Frank Abela:
First of all, you can't know what really went on since you weren't there.

Secondly, the queen has a responsibility to her subjects but that doesn't make her perfect - she's as human as you or I, just as is her husband, and therefore prone to mistake just as easily as anybody else. After all, getting divorced and remarrying was pretty much seen as a failure in all classes right up to the 80s. She put country before her own family. Perhaps you'd like to consider that she must have felt great pain toward her sister in making that choice?

Finally, she's the queen. She can't afford to be nice. She can't show compassion to her sister or daughter-in-law because that would smack of elitist favouritism and you'd be howling about that.

Seems to me your view is as bigoted as you claim her husband's is.

In my defense, I have never driven anyone to alcoholism or their death in the name of an anachronism, nor anything else.

Of course I was not there, nor where those who claim the opposite, I rely on news reporting. The fact that someone who would not become queen had her life ruined because she fell in love with someone who her sister did not like for either state or personal reasons is good enough cause for me to have an negative opinion of them.

Times were changing, and so should the constitution.

Regardless of all that, being a citizen I think is something very important, and not being some sort of imaginary chattel of an outdated form of government. If it is only for show, then lose the show and grant the people of this land the kind of rights that suit this century, and not one several hundred years past.

Do it..... take over and play King for a year. Wear the crown and the ermine cape, wield that sceptor or whatever it's called.

quote:

Originally posted by JamieL_v2:

In my defense, I have never driven anyone to alcoholism or their death in the name of an anachronism, nor anything else.

Of course I was not there, nor where those who claim the opposite, I rely on news reporting. The fact that someone who would not become queen had her life ruined because she fell in love with someone who her sister did not like for either state or personal reasons is good enough cause for me to have an negative opinion of them.

Times were changing, and so should the constitution.

Regardless of all that, being a citizen I think is something very important, and not being some sort of imaginary chattel of an outdated form of government. If it is only for show, then lose the show and grant the people of this land the kind of rights that suit this century, and not one several hundred years past.

Margaret was given the chance to walk away from the life of subsidised outrageous luxury she was used to in order to ride off into the sunset with her true love Peter Townsend. Yet she chose not to. She chose to live a life of free loading debauchery at the tax payer's expense. What does that say about her? Your sympathies are misplaced.

Group Captain Townsend on the other hand went on to live a dignified productive life as an author without ever mentioning her.