[Closed] God save the queen

She's hardly a direct descendent of anyone, is she?

It's not a job I fancy ernie but I bet plenty would like to have a go at it but can't because they weren't born to the relevant parents.

Consequently it has no place at all in an advanced democracy

I'm not sure I have any leftie credentials.

💡 Maybe for completely pointless vindictive reasons then ?

But maybe you can explain how abolition of the monarchy would be 'a move in the right direction' ?...... how it would enhance the lives of ordinary working people ?

As an indefatigable leftie I am more than happy to live in a society free of antiquated and archaic institutions, which are replaced by democratic structures. But since replacing the monarchy with democratic structures doesn't appear to to be on the agenda, I can only see as a completely pointless and futile exercise.

Show me how the abolition of the monarchy right now will increase the power of ordinary working people, and I will enthusiastically support it. In the meantime I don't have a problem with it - I actually quite like the Royal Family 🙂

EDIT : Perhaps I should add that whilst I quite like the Royal Family, I'm hugely uninterested in them. They just seem pleasant enough.

something 'royal' that amused me recently was the discussion about females succeeding the throne over their younger brothers and how it would take a lot of discussion for such a change of protocol.

Now forgive me if I am being simplistic, but it wouldn't take that much thought or work at all to change to a slightly more gender-equal system would it?

Sir, I salute your indefatigability 😉

I certainly don't like or dislike the people themselves as I don't know them. I'm not feeling particularly vindictive or unpleasant towards them either, but I do object to the concept of monarchy.

Maybe you, or I, or Dave down the road should become the monarch and our families can be added to the civil list. We're pleasant enough, deserve it as much as anybody else and it won't affect ordinary working people as they won't notice the extra few pence spent from their taxes.

Alternatively, we could just do without a monarchy at all as it is archaic, incompatible with a meritocratic, egalitarian society, not important and we don't need one.

Consequently it has no place at all in an advanced democracy, but as I say, that's a different issue altogether.

I thought that was ENTIRELY the issue.

I thought that was ENTIRELY the issue.

😀

You think we live in an advanced democracy ?

It's the people what govern is it ?

How quaint.

to distract attention away from the real issues of economic power and privileges

That's probably the salient point. The monarchy might be a horrible feudal itch that needs scratching, but, if we're sharpening the guillotine to cleanse us of the unwanted, Liz would be near the back of a long queue headed, most probably, by Murdoch.

....but thats the point, Murdoch may well get offed by his shareholders, his son already has been to some extent. Regardless of how big a knob a royal is the only way they get offed is via the great expense of a state funeral.

Regardless of how big a knob a royal is the only way they get offed is via the great expense of a state funeral.

Really ? What do you base that on ?

The King just two monarchs ago was given the sack, or forced to abdicate as it is more politely referred to, precisely because too many people thought he was a knob.

When Edward visited depressed mining villages in Wales his comment that "something must be done" led to concerns among elected politicians that he would interfere in political matters, traditionally avoided by constitutional monarchs. Ramsay MacDonald, Lord President of the Council, wrote of the king's comments: "These escapades should be limited. They are an invasion into the field of politics & should be watched constitutionally." As Prince of Wales, Edward had publicly referred to left-wing politicians as "cranks" and made speeches counter to government policy During his reign as king, his refusal to accept the advice of ministers continued: he opposed the imposition of sanctions on Italy after its invasion of Ethiopia (then known as "Abyssinia"), refused to receive the deposed Emperor of Ethiopia, and would not support the League of Nations.

Although Edward's comments had made him popular in Wales, he became extremely unpopular with the public in Scotland following his refusal to open a new wing of Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, claiming he could not do so because he was in mourning for his father. On the day after the opening he was pictured in the newspapers cavorting on holiday: he had turned down the public event in favour of meeting Mrs Simpson.

Members of the British government became further dismayed by the proposed marriage after being told that Wallis Simpson was an agent of Nazi Germany. The Foreign Office obtained leaked dispatches from the German Reich's Ambassador to the United Kingdom, Joachim von Ribbentrop, which revealed his strong view that opposition to the marriage was motivated by the wish "to defeat those Germanophile forces which had been working through Mrs. Simpson" It was rumoured that Wallis had access to confidential government papers sent to Edward, which he notoriously left unguarded at his Fort Belvedere residence. While Edward was abdicating, the personal protection officers guarding Mrs Simpson in exile in France sent reports to Downing Street suggesting that she might "flit to Germany".

Files from the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation, written after the abdication, reveal a further series of claims. The most damaging allege that in 1936, during her affair with King Edward, she was simultaneously having an affair with Ambassador Ribbentrop. The Bureau's source (Duke Carl Alexander of Württemberg, a distant relative of Queen Mary then living as a monk in the United States) claimed that Simpson and Ribbentrop had a relationship, and that Ribbentrop sent her 17 carnations every day, one for each occasion they had slept together. The FBI claims were symptomatic of the extremely damaging gossip circulating about the woman Edward proposed to make queen.

Relations between the United Kingdom and the United States were strained during the inter-war years and the majority of Britons were reluctant to accept an American as queen consort

Apart from the political and constitutional objections to Edward VIII remaining king there were moral objections :

The king's ministers (like his family) found Mrs Simpson's background and behaviour unacceptable for a queen. Rumours and innuendo about her circulated in society. The king's mother, the dowager Queen Mary, was even told that Mrs Simpson might have held some sort of sexual control over Edward, as she had released him from an undefined sexual dysfunction through practices learnt in a Chinese brothel. This view was partially shared by Dr. Alan Campbell Don, Chaplain to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who wrote that he suspected the king "is sexually abnormal which may account for the hold Mrs. S. has over him". Even Edward VIII's official biographer, Philip Ziegler, noted that: "There must have been some sort of sadomasochistic relationship ... [Edward] relished the contempt and bullying she bestowed on him."

Police detectives following Mrs Simpson reported back that while involved with Edward, she was also involved in another sexual relationship, with a married car mechanic and salesman named Guy Trundle. This may well have been passed on to senior figures in the Establishment, including members of the royal family. A third lover has also been suggested, the Duke of Leinster. Joseph Kennedy, the American ambassador, described her as a "tart", and his wife, Rose Kennedy, refused to dine with her. Edward, however, was either unaware of these allegations, or chose to ignore them.

Wallis was perceived to be pursuing Edward for his money; his equerry wrote that she would eventually leave him after "having secured the cash". The future prime minister Neville Chamberlain wrote in his diary that she was "an entirely unscrupulous woman who is not in love with the King but is exploiting him for her own purposes. She has already ruined him in money and jewels.

Relations between the United Kingdom and the United States were strained during the inter-war years and the majority of Britons were reluctant to accept an American as queen consort.

And there were legal objections too :

Wallis's first divorce (in the United States on the grounds of "emotional incompatibility") was not recognised by the Church of England and, if challenged in the English courts, might not have been recognised under English law. At that time the church and English law considered adultery to be the only grounds for divorce. Consequently, under this argument, her second (and third) marriages would have been bigamous and invalid.

If Elizabeth II behaved in an illegal or unconstitutional manner, or become deeply unpopular due to her moral behaviour, she'd be out on her 'ear.

Her Majesty however has proved to have been an exemplary monarch for the last half a century.
Gawd bless you ma'am.

The King just two monarchs ago was given the sack, or forced to abdicate as it is more politely referred to, precisely because too many people thought he was a knob

A very subjective interpretation which doesn't detract from the fact that its still a case of the clear fact that there is no sensible argument in favour of retaining this archaic institution. At best it highlights the fallacy that the Royals are in some way "special", and at worst it is yet another case of the old boy network sweeping things under the table so as to maintain the status quo, the very status quo that very coincidentally benefits them.

There is a very strong argument that as a nation we are severely hampered by class structure and the lack of social mobility that it creates. In my world, I have no problem with people being successful, or wealthy, as long as its through their own efforts. We need more of them as role models IMHO. What I object to really strongly, is this ridiculous notion that an accident of birth by and large determines all of our futures. That notion is perpetuated by the institution of the Royal Family, and for that reason they are the weakest link and we need to say goodbye.

ernie_lynch - Member

You think we live in an advanced democracy ?

It's the people what govern is it ?

How quaint.

No. Isn't that a more preferable state to be in? Don't the obstacles to it need to be removed so that it can be achieved? Isn't the royal family one of these? Anything else about this obvious point that you don't understand?

How obtuse.

Mrs Windsor gives the Royal Assent to all legislation. As she is a part of the political process she should be elected and accountable. she is neither.

Mrs Windsor gives the Royal Assent to all legislation. As she is a part of the political process she should be elected and accountable. she is neither.

Good question. What if she refuses to give the RA to reform of the House of Lords, or a bill divorcing the UK from the EU passed by the partly-elected parliament?

What happens if she refuses?

Apparently according to Ernie she gets fired and sent off to live in splendour in France and/or the Bahamas....... that'll teach her!

What if she refuses to give

Well going by historical precedent, she'll be executed.

Berm Bandit - Member

[b]The King just two monarchs ago was given the sack, or forced to abdicate as it is more politely referred to, precisely because too many people thought he was a knob[/b]

A very subjective interpretation which doesn't detract from the fact that its still a case of the clear fact that there is no sensible argument in favour of retaining this archaic institution.

It's not any sort of interpretation. It was a clear fact which contradicts your false claim that the monarch can't be sacked for acting like a knob.

Whether the monarchy should be retained or not is a completely different issue.

In the same way that Woppit's ludicrous comment which implied that the Queen hasn't got a job needed to be challenged as she has very clearly an extensive and highly time consuming job. Whether this is a worthwhile job or not is also a completely different issue.

If you are going to make the case for the abolition of the monarchy then don't base it on bollocks. Not only will people see straight through it but it suggests that your argument is so weak and inadequate that you are forced to make up for the shortfall by relying on false statements. Which is actually probably the case.

Well said Ernie.

your argument is so weak and inadequate that you are forced to make up for the shortfall by relying on false statements.

You appear to have succinctly summed up the cause of most of the arguments on STW here, I think.

It's not any sort of interpretation. It was a clear fact which contradicts your false claim

Go on then provide the evidence that the Monarch can be sacked for behaving like a knob. I would love to see the bit of legislation that states that. Don't bother, looking because as you well know there isn't any.

As I said all there is, is the wispy and mysterious unwritten constitution which is made up by those in power as they go along and perpetuates the status quo.

Why would you need legislation ? They are just "forced to abdicate". Don't pretend that it can't happen because it clearly can. Despite your false claim that regardless of how big a knob a royal is, the only way to end their rule is by a state funeral.

Blimey. And it all started as a little joke about the Sex Pistols.
😆 @ STW

DezB - Member

😆

[b]We are not amused[/b]

[img] [/img]

The current queen chooses to keep herself busy, meets the people regularly (There is presumably no formal requirement for these duties)and is regarded as a 'good' person. Previous monarchs and some of her close relatives would not necessarily be consideed the same.

The system of having one specially privileged family with ceremonial duties endorsed and funded by the state is an outdated one, extremely wrong and there is no justification for it as far as I can see. The cost or benefit to the taxpayer is an irrelevance.

The masses don't give these things much thought and may well be happy with being unquestioning. What puzzles me is that the people I've spoken to about it generally seem to think that a diamond jubilee is a good thing and that it's fine to have a monarchy, "because they've always been there" -That's hardly a strong case.

There are jokes about multiple generations of a family living on benefits in council houses, but I'm not going to stoop to that sort of level 😉

Don't pretend that it can't happen because it clearly can.

Well no actually, it can't, at least not in the way you describe. The situation with Edward VIII was that he made himself ineligible, in respect of the role of leader of the Church of Engalnd, in much the same way as Charles would have done had he divorced and subsequently married Camilla. That is not the same as being fired for some misdemeanour or other.

History is littered with cases of deranged royals being maintained in situ, George III and Henry VIIIth to name but two. There is also some evidence to suggest that Edward VIIth wasn't playing with a full hand either. Whatever, he was certainly an embaressment for a good bit of his life and definatly was a bit of a knob.

Finally, in answer to this

Why would you need legislation

Now, I've given a clear case to support my assertion. Wheres yours?

My brother's mate put this on the player, at the Silver Jubilee garden party in our back garden, . . .. my dad (RIP) ran upstairs tore it from the player and snapped it in half . . . .lol

Berm Bandit - Member

Don't pretend that it can't happen because it clearly can.

Well no actually, it can't, at least not in the way you describe. The situation with Edward VIII was that he made himself ineligible, in respect of the role of leader of the Church of Engalnd, in much the same way as Charles would have done had he divorced and subsequently married Camilla. That is not the same as being fired for some misdemeanour or other.

History is littered with cases of deranged royals being maintained in situ, George III and Henry VIIIth to name but two. There is also some evidence to suggest that Edward VIIth wasn't playing with a full hand either. Whatever, he was certainly an embaressment for a good bit of his life and definatly was a bit of a knob.

Finally, in answer to this

Why would you need legislation

The reason is self evident, in that it is necessary so that there is a clear route to follow which is inexorable, as opposed to some fantasy in your mind, which may or may not be played out depending on whose self interest is being served at the time.

Now, I've given a clear case to support my assertion. Wheres yours?

Nah mate, I've made my point and you've made yours. I'm not going round in circles anymore - we've already done one full circle. Specially as I can't be any more right than "right", so it's therefore quite pointless. I'll just leave you with a glaring look of disapproval...

[img] ?w=275[/img]

Mr Woppit - Member

ernie_lynch - Member

You think we live in an advanced democracy ?

It's the people what govern is it ?

How quaint.

No. Isn't that a more preferable state to be in? Don't the obstacles to it need to be removed so that it can be achieved? Isn't the royal family one of these? Anything else about this obvious point that you don't understand?

How obtuse.

Mr Woppit - Member
ernie_lynch - Member

You think we live in an advanced democracy ?

It's the people what govern is it ?

How quaint.

No. Isn't that a more preferable state to be in? Don't the obstacles to it need to be removed so that it can be achieved? Isn't the royal family one of these? Anything else about this obvious point that you don't understand?

How obtuse.

If you claim she is worthless and doesn't do anything, why do we need to vote for someone to be worthless and do nothing?

In the same way that Woppit's ludicrous comment which implied that the Queen hasn't got a job needed to be challenged as she has very clearly an extensive and highly time consuming job. Whether this is a worthwhile job or not is also a completely different issue.

Getting dressed up, waving and gurning, travelling abroad for nice holidays at my expense is not a job.

You sidestepping my other point on your tendency to the obtuse?

why do we need to vote for someone to be worthless and do nothing?

We don't. Did I say that? Can't seem to find it...

You sidestepping my other point on your tendency to the obtuse?

Well I didn't answer you at all, so I can hardly be accused of [i]sidestepping[/i] your point .... I ignored you ! 😀

I wonder why.

If you claim she is worthless and doesn't do anything, why do we need to vote for someone to be worthless and do nothing?

How is having a pseudo-divinely-appointed monarch and royal family that are supported through throughout their entire lifetime (Even if the king abdicated because he decided to marry a divorcee in the 1930s) and do as much for "us" as they feel like doing, superior to this?

We are not amused
[img] [/img]

We don't. Did I say that? Can't seem to find it...

Then all is fine we can go about our lives then.

Because we could have some voted-for or even appointed for a fixed term, with the option to extend the 'reign' up to a point.

Like a Prime Minister?

I can't really say I'm too bothered either way.

More people seem to want to keep the monarchy than get rid of it. As we apparently live in a democracy I guees they can all stay until this changes.

Anyway

God bless her and all who sail in her!

Singlespeed_Shep - Member

We don't. Did I say that? Can't seem to find it...

Then all is fine we can go about our lives then.

Can't think why it would be otherwise.

God bless her and all who sail in her!

Ooooh, I don't think that's likely.

Singlespeed_Shep - Member

Because we could have some voted-for or even appointed for a fixed term, with the option to extend the 'reign' up to a point.

Like a Prime Minister?

...but, I take your point that the Prime Minister basically 'runs'/manages the country and agree with you that the queen is unnecessary and we could do without her.

She can keep one of her castles and spend the rest of her days in retirement.

...but, I take your point that the Prime Minister basically 'runs'/manages the country and agree with you that the queen is unnecessary and we could do without her.

Yes I agree on political terms,

But as a symbol of our state, a representative of our nation then no.

a symbol of our state, a representative of our nation

...that's precisely why we need to get rid of them. An unelected individual, born into privilege, should not be symbolic of our state and nation in the 21st century.

...and yet, and yet, lots of people seem quite happy with the situation. They're a funny bunch, the public.

... and lots of people don't. What's your point, caller?

and lots of people don't. What's your point, caller?

If it were put to a vote, then we would in all likely hood have a democratically elected queen

If thats not an oxymoronic statment!

I'm the chap who asked,
"What's the point?"

The public are, inexplicably, happy to have the current constitutional monarchy.

-The public are a funny bunch.

The people may well vote for the queen, but would they vote for King Charles & Queen Camilla, King William & Queen Kate?
...They won't have the choice under the current system.