Be careful what you wish for… I’m on your side (unless you’re a tool), even if you don’t realize it 😀

Oh I am a tool!!

Treason laws have been modified but still stand, Molgrips. It came close with Lady Di.

Rubbish. Back that up.

No one has been convicted of treason in the UK for nearly 70 years.

Obviously this means that according to Edukator’s constitutional analysis of the situation no one has bad mouthed the royal family in that time. Which proves one of two things, either, everyone loves Her Majesty and the rest of the Royal Family, gawd bless’em, or, gripped by fear through oppression and subjugation no one has dared to speak out against their tyrannical rule.

BTW I would like to point out to any members of the security services who might be monitoring this forum for treasonous acts, that I love the Royal family as if they were my own family. And no mistake.

I spoke out from my oppression and the mods deleted it… thats double oppression!!

Love the irony 🙂

but Charlies letters suggest that their influence may be greater than we are led to believe.

So let us know what were in these letters then.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m very much against the royals having any influence in politics, and I think it’s bad that they won’t publish the letters.

However that still doesn’t mean we are an oppressed people.

I think they’ve got better people to monitor, Ernie. Some of the articles, sites and blogs I’ve read on the royals today have been pure gold. Tomorrow is a new day though, back to reality after a day of wayward royals, ding donging drivers, evil solar panels and an hour on the home trainer as the only productive effort.

You’ve spend your whole Easter Sunday on here?

At least I went riding!

I think they’ve got better people to monitor, Ernie.

Oh go on, tell me – who ?

According to you :

“The head of the protestant church is the Queen which somewhat limits a protestant’s freedom of speech.”

So is it wayward protestants ?

o let us know what were in these letters then.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26544124

Your link doesn’t provide any information about what was in the letters beyond describing them as : “letters the prince had written in 2004 and 2005 seeking to advance the work of charities or to promote views”.

So you’re outraged but you’re not entirely sure what you’re outraged about ?

And this provides your prime evidence that you are oppressed and subjugated by the Queen, along with the claim that Princess Anne wants badgers gassed ?

All this is great if you’re content to live in a medieval theme park. If you would like to live in a progressive, egalitarian and truly democratic society it is profoundly depressing. Sadly, can’t see it changing in my lifetime 🙁

Progressive – tick
Egalitaritan – tick
Deomcratic – tick

Blimey, as others said above, some folk need to look beyond their borders and appreciate what they have…..

(Tick as in broadly correct in absolute terms and correct in relative terms)

Mr Grieve argued that releasing the letters would undermine the principle of the heir being politically neutral.

Mr Grieve is the attorney general blocking release of the letters. Also where it says promote views those are his not charities.

Mr Smith said that law change gave the Royal Family “complete freedom to lobby the government in secret and on whatever issue they choose”, adding: “This has nothing to do with their royal duties and everything to do with the Windsor family protecting their own interests and pursuing their own agendas.”

If you dont think this is important then fair enough but I do.
We could go on to explore why Anne wants badgers gassed to.

Is it domocratic to have Charlie trying to influence ministers. If he wants to do that fair play to him but he needs to do it from an equal footing to the other voters.

Do you publish the letters you send to your MP? If you want equal footing….. (Blimey you really get agitated by some letters????)

Anne thinks that is a preferred method of culling – big deal.

We could go on to explore why Anne wants badgers gassed to.

That sounds absolutely fascinating. Unfortunately I’ve got to be in Leith Hill by 10.15 and I still need to get my bike and gear in the car. So I will have to hang on ’til later to find out.

Your arguments are confused. Could the pro royal people let me know. Do the royals have power and influence or not? If they do how does it help and if they dont whats the point of them.
THM any letters could be released under the freedom of information act unless I am the heir to the thrown and they would bring into question my impartiality.

Yes a positive influence – read what the long list of PMs who have served under ER2 say about the value of her meetings for a start….

EL, has it right. Go and have a ride, you are stressing over little things. It can’t be healthy…..

Progressive – Sometimes yes, othertimes not
Egalitaritan – Royalty shows not
Deomcratic – First past the post is a questionable version of democracy, it suits top down centralised rule, rather than representing the peoples wishes.

Yes a positive influence – read what the long list of PMs who have served under ER2 say about the value of her meetings for a start.

Establishment figures support the establishment, go figure 😆

So its democratic to have a family in a position of power and influence.. OK…your idea of democratic is different to mine.

Yes it can be obviously, especially if it has broad appeal – the definition of democracy.

We even give power and influence to lots or people when the majority don’t want them to have it and more often than not. Funny old place, GB isn’t it?

The idea that we are born equal is fanciful at best anyway. It is clearly not true since we are all born different and unique (except in the eyes of one who many here believe is fictional anyway). How dull would it be if we were all equal. Imagine having to watch a footie match when they were all as bad as me….at least that would keep the wages down I guess.

So we have established that you have some odd ideas about democracy and you believe people are not born equal. Fair enough that explains a lot.

It does doesn’t it!

Of course we’re all born different and unique – what a silly way to support your argument that the subjects of the royal family (again, of whom I’m not one, so I struggle to understand your deference…it’s not something with which I’ve been indoctrinated) are somehow not equal to them. Perhaps you don’t understand the concept of “all men are born equal”? Either that or you’re just condescendingly trolling a_a? (I mean, y’know, we have a well established history of you believing those who disagree with you are impertinent, don’t we?) Maybe that’s it, is it? Anyone who doesn’t agree with the concept of royalty is “impertinent”?

Obviously, now off with your head…

So its democratic to have a family in a position of power and influence.. OK…your idea of democratic is different to mine.

So, if we had a referendum tomorrow about the disestablishment of the monarchy (yes or no) , and the majority voted to keep it

then would it be democratic, or not?

So, if we had a referendum tomorrow about the disestablishment of the monarchy (yes or no) , and the majority voted to keep it

then would it be democratic, or not?

That’s a tricky one when you look at the bigger picture…

If for example that Monarchy had many friends in high places, skewing media output and thus public perception in their favour, not to mention laws preventing less savoury truths about their exploits being published, would it be an illusory democracy?

If for example that Monarchy politicians had many friends in high places, skewing media output and thus public perception in their favour, not to mention laws preventing less savoury truths about their exploits being published, would it be an illusory democracy?

Applies just as well, surely? All democracy could be argued to be an illusion, the problems of skewed media, vested interests and abuse of power are hardly restricted to a monarchy are they?

If for example that Monarchy politicians had many friends in high places, skewing media output and thus public perception in their favour, not to mention laws preventing less savoury truths about their exploits being published, would it be an illusory democracy?

Applies just as well, surely? All democracy could be argued to be an illusion, the problems of skewed media, vested interests and abuse of power are hardly restricted to a monarchy are they?

Certainly… all the more reason to ditch the current system in favour of direct democracy 😉

You think that wouldn’t apply in a direct democracy?

So, there would be no vested interests and nobody running skewed media campaigns in a direct democracy?

What a quaint and impossible concept!

all the more reason to ditch the current system in favour of direct democracy dictatorship

Then some people might learn what real oppression is and exactly how far the state could go to sort things out.

The funny thing is DD his example of footballers was a great example of people rising up on merit. He has to rely on being facetious as his points are not good enough to back up his argument.
Ninfan a referendum would be a start I suppose at least the points would be debated. Australia had one didnt they?

You think that wouldn’t apply in a direct democracy?

So, there would be no vested interests and nobody running skewed media campaigns in a direct democracy?

What a quaint and impossible concept!

all the more reason to ditch the current system in favour of direct democracy dictatorship

Then some people might learn what real oppression is and exactly how far the state could go to sort things out.

Sounds like fear of the unknown to me… no system will ever be 100% flawless, but improvements beyond the current mess of a network of Monarchs, Etonians and Oligarchs skewing the entire picture in their favour, with minimal meaningful input from the populace are guaranteed.

Try it, you might like it…

Yep and it was kicked into touch, there was talk of another one until the Queen’s last visit and then it all died off again. I think secretly they are happy about having something with history attached 😉

The bigger part is what actual difference does it make over here?

Progressive – tick

Well we have moved away from an absolute monarcgy – is that what you mean by progressive? How many new and emerging states have created a democracy just like oursa? How succesful was it when wwe gave ot to the world?

Egalitaritan – tick

Cool so Charles and I have an equal chance to be head of state and hereditary Lords dont actually exist and its equal opportunities for all. That not the best description of reality I ever saw.

Deomcratic – tick

yes it is with some obvious areas where it could be improved….like say unelected people in our [ machine of ] governement.

Do you publish the letters you send to your MP? If you want equal footing…..

I think what the future head of state says Is more important than what i say but honestly I have no issues wiht my voews being known publicly on matters of politics. the problem is he is not meant to have any as he is a figure head/neutral. We both know they are being withheld because this veneer of impartiality will slip and it will most likely show him trying to interfere.

Yes it can be obviously, especially if it has broad appeal – the definition of democracy

And here was me thinking it meant rule of the people …ah well you learn something new everyday. In what sense is the rule of the people being exercised in an unelected hereditary tittle handed down to the eldest son [ I know they have modernised now]?

Your over egging your pudding somewhat

Its hard to argue that the Royal family dont entrench privileged and it is truly democratic
you can credibly, though I disagree, argue it provides some benefits be it stability or a guiding ear to the PM as you claim

The idea that we are born equal is fanciful at best anyway

i think we can all agree we are not clones but i m anot sure what this adds to this debate
We are discussing people having an equal chance, equal opportunity, equal likelihood to achieve their goals.
From each according to his ability to each according to his needs 😉

PS when you tell him he is annoyed and to have a ride are you trolling him or speaking down to him…I know you object to that sort of thing.

and I have a poorly bad knee and cant ride, I did take the dog for a nice walk though 😆

The idea that people are not equal does fit in with his views on education too.
It seems odd to me that people can agree that queenie and charlie influence ministers and yet are shocked that someone considers this a form of oppression.

The idea that we are born equal is fanciful at best anyway

As I said pages ago, this is the heart of the issue. If you really believe that, I’m sorry for your limited horizons and lack of self-worth, but there’s really no further substantive discussion possible.

Well DrJ that would ignore the very substantive debate that exists on exactly that point. No need to feel sorry for me, I enjoy reading the extensive material on the debate rather than pretending it doesn’t exist. It’s really very interesting and helps to expand rather than restrict horizons.