This law was changed by the rf before it even went to parliament
Surely it's simply more evidence that out system of governance needs updating? How many laws have been influenced by other undemocratic means?
I think the one thing a great many agree on is Westminster is a clown show so there seems to be the best place to start, things on the periphery (royalty) will simply need to adapt or they will die.
Improving that element of governance (which has a larger consensus of agreement it seems) will set the conditions for change in a more impactful way and would be a more effective way of creating momentum further change, or we could go the way of Brexit and start with an incredibly divisive topic and see where that takes us.
IMO removing the royals doesn't impact that lines the benches in Westminster, they'll still tap up their mates for favours and fingerbang aides on work time regardless of having a Monarch mooching about with a crown on at a jaunty angle.
Why do people worship them ?
Born lucky .... I'd sooner follow Bezos than that lot 🙁
For the same reason they voted Brexit. They fall for the Land of Hopeless Glory line every time
Why do people worship them ?
Same question could be asked why of religion, celebrity, etc.
Surely it’s simply more evidence that out system of governance needs updating? How many laws have been influenced by other undemocratic means?
Exactly - the royal family is a symptom, not the cause, and focusing just on them won't solve the underlying issues.
Whataboutery ^^^.
This thread is about HRH and the royals.
They're pricey as per the guardian piece above, may not be central to govt policy but do have influence (chatgpt pulled out the examples I cited, Inc refs which I didn't post), and bring a bunch of negatives for many of us. Positives for others of course: continuity, tradition, focal point for the nation etc, ongoing soap...
Yes there are other problems we face that republics do too. But let's just at least scale back the bloody royals whilst we worry about the more intractable stuff
Really because you actually manage to acknowledge multiple recent cases but then casually dismiss them.
I acknowledge multiple claims. I don't see any multiple facts and and I don't see any multiple replies on here to "this affects us how?"
The entire argument is "the royals are interfering with our laws in secret." Are they? How would you know if it's a secret?
And why shouldn't they, isn't that what they're supposed to do? Commons > Lords > Monarchy is how our sovereign representative democracy is founded. I don't like it either, it's inherently ****ed at every level and the populace demonstrably can't be trusted with direct democracy either. But here are. What the preferable alternative is I do not know.
However you win. There is no point trying to have a discussion with someone who sneers away with “ooh its a secret” and inane comparisons to “student lobbying”.
Am I wrong? I might be. I probably am. Show me.
You appear to have fixated on a throwaway comment yet have neatly ignored "so what?" and I'm not quite sure why. What exactly are you objecting to, privileged people being privileged? That's reasonable but you're in the wrong country if so, the British class system is turtles all the way down.
Cameron > May > Johnson > Truss > Sunak. You want to depose the monarchy, be careful what you wish for.
Cameron > May > Johnson > Truss > Sunak
are/were PMs; HRH is head of state, entirely different roles. Like others I favour an irish model for the latter, but whatever. QEII was head of state for 54 countries at the start of her rain, 16 by the end. Countries don't automatically go to wrack and ruin when they lose the royals as head of state.
The rest seems to be saying you've not had it demonstrated to your satisfaction that the royals interfere with legislation, but fine if they do? You're entitled to an opinion, if that's it?
You’re entitled to an opinion, if that’s it?
Ahh, but you're talking to the guy who said other people aren't entitled to their opinions [about steam] when they're based on pig ignorance [about science]. So that could be a bit awkward for someone that's recognised what the royals do is an abuse of privilege, and whose ignorance of the historical record has become clear... 🤐
are/were PMs; HRH is head of state, entirely different roles.
Thanks for pointing that out, I wouldn't have realised.
My point was, the grass isn't always greener.
Ahh, but you’re talking to the guy who said other people aren’t entitled to their opinions [about steam] when they’re based on pig ignorance [about science].
I have never in my life suggested that people aren't entitled to their opinions.
Rather that everyone else is equally entitled to call those opinions bollocks.
Cameron > May > Johnson > Truss > Sunak. You want to depose the monarchy, be careful what you wish for.
My point was, the grass isn’t always greener.
On the other side or this side?
Cameron > May > Johnson > Truss > Sunak all occurred as prime ministers under a constitutional monarchy. Does that make the monarchy a good idea? Did the monarchy somehow curtail their powers?
I am struggling to understand why the last 13 years would have been worse had the UK been a republic.
Cameron > May > Johnson > Truss > Sunak all occurred as prime ministers under a constitutional monarchy.
Its a rather special counterargument isnt. Be careful what you wish for otherwise you get what we got?
Did the monarchy somehow curtail their powers?
Well we did have the time when the Queen declined to illegally prorogue parliament.
Oh wait no she didnt. We needed the courts to sort that out.
Yes there are other problems we face that republics do too. But let’s just at least scale back the bloody royals whilst we worry about the more intractable stuff
Er, yes, that's kind of what I've been saying.
Has anyone noticed how similar he looks to star treks commander Data?
So a lot of press about Royal Family health issues; Charles and his prostrate, Catherine and her bowel surgery, Fergie having cancer treatment.
Whilst as individuals I wish them best health. I find it incredibly irksome how its reported glowingly that they are receiving excellent care whilst so many are still waiting for treatment. Why are they not going through the NHS like any other normal citizen? I get the comments that they are the symptom of a wider issue. I am not particularly radical, I loathe Corbyn as much as Johnson, Truss etc, but surely the Windsors should lead from the front on this?
What - with their level of entitlement and privilege?
Or more realistically, would you sit on an NHS waiting list for months on end if you had a few million in the bank? I know I certainly wouldn't.
There's an argument for bringing public health care up to a high standard, a very strong one, but I don't think there's an argument for bringing others down to the current level.
People don't vote for higher tax though, and along with monsterous reform, it will need higher taxes all round*
*Unless Google/Facebook/Amazon/twitter et. al. all of a sudden get very generous....good luck with that...
It's not the royals that are the real problem here, they are just a very visible symptom of it.
Why are they not going through the NHS like any other normal citizen?
Because they arent? Thats pretty much the definition of monarchy.
Leading from the front got dropped a long time back and even then it was lead from the front with nice armour, bodyguards and generally being worth more alive than dead balancing the risk out.
Catherine and her bowel surgery
I had to Google to find out who "Catherine" was. I wasn't aware she had bowel cancer either.
How did I miss this vital piece of news?
Hope she recovers anyway.
Edit: Oh perhaps it's not bowel cancer? Whatever the issue with her bowels is then.
She doesn't. They specifically reported non-cancerous. And it wasn't specifically bowel surgery, it's being reported as 'abdominal' and there's a lot of stuff in the abdomen that isn't bowel.
People don’t vote for higher tax though, and along with monsterous reform, it will need higher taxes all round*
We did in Scotland
ooof!
outrageous, but plausible!
Catherine and her bowel surgery
Aye Ernie, dont let a deliberate misquote get in the way of a good narrative....
Because they arent? Thats pretty much the definition of monarchy.
Yeah. That.
There’s an argument for bringing public health care up to a high standard, a very strong one, but I don’t think there’s an argument for bringing others down to the current level.
I personally think there is absolutely a case for bringing decision makers down to the education or health level of everyone else, because see how quickly they stop faffing and sort it out when they have to. Funding is there. I would argue for a big increase in inheritance tax (with the caveat of high value house owners etc) to fund the health care of the same elderly affected.
But this distracts from the lack of leadership of the Windsors
I'm not in favour of the monarchy but, tj, I think your last post is...unnecessary.
Your view may be that, as she's a public figure, we can speculate publicly about an unspecified medical procedure.
I don't agree.
Moving on - and being contradictory/hypocritical - I hope that the appearance of trump's hands is a sign he has 'secondary syphilis' (whatever that is) or something much more serious...and terminal.
Whilst as individuals I wish them best health. I find it incredibly irksome how its reported glowingly that they are receiving excellent care whilst so many are still waiting for treatment. Why are they not going through the NHS like any other normal citizen?
I imagine if they were going through NHS there would be another group of people complaining that they are hogging beds from ordinary citizens when clearly they can afford to pay. They can't win (and I'm no royalist). Can you imagine the security impact of the King or future Queen going in for elective surgery in a local NHS hospital? They would inevitably end up disrupting ordinary cases, possibly having an extra ward opened just for them etc. The media would explode.
I get the comments that they are the symptom of a wider issue. I am not particularly radical, I loathe Corbyn as much as Johnson, Truss etc, but surely the Windsors should lead from the front on this?
Most people with even a fraction of their wealth/income probably have private health insurance for precisely this sort of scenario - a comfortable hospital stay without a long wait. Assuming its OK for me to do that (and I know some people believe that it is fundamentally wrong) then I don't see why its not OK for her.
I’m guessing the royal baby machine is having a hysterectomy.
There are many things it could be. I don't really see any advantage in speculating, or that its any of our business.
Interesting attitude about speculating. They put an amount of info into the public domain. Of course folk will speculate. I wonder what the express and mail will have on their front pages 🙂
I imagine if they were going through NHS there would be another group of people complaining that they are hogging beds from ordinary citizens when clearly they can afford to pay. They can’t win
I differ. I think they would be seen as much more part of the country if they didnt choose privilege. When May was PM she still shopped in Waitrose Twyford every saturday at 1-2pm. People ignored her and let her get on with it. I didn't rate her PMship but I respect that.
Most people with even a fraction of their wealth/income probably have private health insurance for precisely this sort of scenario – a comfortable hospital stay without a long wait. Assuming its OK for me to do that (and I know some people believe that it is fundamentally wrong) then I don’t see why its not OK for her.
The difference is they are exceptional leadership figures, so need to show exceptional leadership. I dont assume its ok for anyone frankly, as it becomes part of the same problem undermining the brilliant health service we should have.
What would the impact have been if any of the Windsors had a good whinge about waiting lists if they had been put on them? Wonder how the Mail/Telegraph would have reported that? Would have massively increased the case for a better NHS?
tj - front pages of mail and/or express are irrelevant to all but committed tory voters.
Are you saying the continued fecundity of the royal womb should be a matter of debate - nationally or on STW?
now he’s just getting universally slagged off by by the Mail, Telegraph, Times, Clarkson, Morgan and everyone else who is grifting big cash on the royal soap opera
FTFY etc
Interesting attitude about speculating. They put an amount of info into the public domain. Of course folk will speculate. I wonder what the express and mail will have on their front pages 🙂
Presumably they felt they had to put the information into the public domain because they couldn't rely on either hospital staff respecting patient confidentiality (presumably a much smaller cohort of people know why she's there than know a VIP was coming and the extra complications that would entail) or that the parazzi who follow them everywhere would soon work out there was something going on and hunt for leaks or make shit up. I'm pretty much as far from being a royalist as you can get without actually joining "not my king" protests and getting arrested etc. BUT I think its a bit of a sad situation that they've had to tell the press.
The difference is they are exceptional leadership figures, so need to show exceptional leadership. I dont assume its ok for anyone frankly, as it becomes part of the same problem undermining the brilliant health service we should have.
There are many problems with private healthcare in the UK and the inequality it creates BUT its a benefit offered by many businesses that it would frankly be bizzare if someone on their income and "level of responsibility" within their respective organisations didn't have some sort of arrangement. Whilst within my company we treat it as an "employee benefit", it is also seen as a business benefit - because we potentially get sick people back at work sooner. I know its difficult to see the Royal's "duties" as work - but if you subscribe to that approach then its a no brainer that their employer should want them back in action doing the "great work they do".
What would the impact have been if any of the Windsors had a good whinge about waiting lists if they had been put on them?
Well then they'd have been accused of political interference too. Monarchists seem to like the fact that they don't interfere. The only way they could have shown "great leadership" would have been to quietly wait in line and say nothing bad... ...that's probably not the sort of leadership that's useful (see Mr X, the King has waited months for his op without complaining, so you should too...; yes Mrs Y you are having the same operation that the Princess had, you are quite lucky you've only been off your work for 3 months waiting for this - she was waiting for 6 months, one of her cancellations because of the strikes actually meant her lady in waiting had to reorgnise the holiday she planned to take when she was in hospital, at least you've no staff to inconvenience Mrs Y!)
Wonder how the Mail/Telegraph would have reported that? Would have massively increased the case for a better NHS?
I doubt it. It would just have made people like me say, "well you've got the money, why don't you stop adding to the burden".
When May was PM she still shopped in Waitrose Twyford every saturday at 1-2pm
No greater sign that someone is down with the commoners than shopping in Waitrose! Personally I'd rather she had been worrying a bit less about what was for tuesday night's tea and a bit more about what brexit meant!
The fact that three Royals are all in the papers for medical reasons means that one of them - probably Kate, is having a op that they don't want talked about (Probably hysterectomy). The multiple press teams they hire are trying to pull distraction stories.
They have the funds to go private, many people do. If they went through the NHS, they'd be torn apart for taking up vital services or queue jumping.
I am not particularly radical, I loathe Corbyn as much as Johnson, Truss etc, but surely the Windsors should lead from the front on this?
I am not sure you understand the concept of Royalty
They have the funds to go private, many people do. If they went through the NHS, they’d be torn apart for taking up vital services or queue jumping.
It would be a logistical nightmare to make an NHS hospital suitably secure. Other in-patients wouldn't be allowed visitors, day cases and consultations might be cancelled, etc, etc, so the HRHs would be slagged off for that.
It makes practical sense that they do as lots of other folk do in an environment that effects fewer of the population
I think the health of the Royal family is very much in the public interest given that creating functioning heirs is 90% of the job description. 9% is to have a pulse. The rest is waving.
I mean, it's a ridiculous state of affairs to be in but it's not one I or many others chose. They also didn't choose to be involved in it but they chose to remain a part of it. Sorry, but having every part of their personal health speculated about is just part and parcel of being a member of the Royal family.
I can think of a solution if any of them don't like this arrangement and want a change.
I am not particularly radical, I loathe Corbyn as much as Johnson, Truss etc,
Just as an aside, the definition of radical is someone who doesn't loathe Corbyn as much as Johnson and Truss?
That bar just gets lower and lower, doesn't it?
I differ. I think they would be seen as much more part of the country if they didnt choose privilege. When May was PM she still shopped in Waitrose Twyford every saturday at 1-2pm. People ignored her and let her get on with it. I didn’t rate her PMship but I respect that.
I wonder how much extra the security detail cost us, so she could have a little bit of "normal" time in Waitrose ?
Or did you think she slipped out the back door of No 10 and skipped over the wall for her bit of freedom ? 😉
Or did you think she slipped out the back door of No 10 and skipped over the wall for her bit of freedom ?
I assume she was home for the weekend.
I would also assume not a huge amount (although I cant see the bodyguards being happy with that sort of routine). Our PMs dont quite get the armoured battalion the US president does.
There are many problems with private healthcare in the UK and the inequality it creates BUT its a benefit offered by many businesses that it would frankly be bizzare if someone on their income and “level of responsibility” within their respective organisations didn’t have some sort of arrangement. Whilst within my company we treat it as an “employee benefit”, it is also seen as a business benefit – because we potentially get sick people back at work sooner. I know its difficult to see the Royal’s “duties” as work – but if you subscribe to that approach then its a no brainer that their employer should want them back in action doing the “great work they do”.
The vast majority if the roles I have had - included private medical cover, some you could opt out of and not be personally taxed - but some you could choose not to use, but could not opt out of that part of the package and associated personal tax. Does the employer pay any tax on private healthcare if it is also a business benefit?
I think the health of the Royal family is very much in the public interest given that creating functioning heirs is 90% of the job description. 9% is to have a pulse. The rest is waving.
Bruce - even if you subscribe to that argument, having provided three potential future heirs, I'm not sure the function or otherwise of her uterus is any longer a matter of public interest, especially given she's 42 with a 5, 10 and 8 yr old so it would be no surprise if there were no further contributions to the family tree.
Certainly Charlie's prostrate would be more notable if it was in perfect working order at his age, and the live-in ex-wife of dodgy andy having skin cancer is similarly noteworthy given I seem to recall she spent a lot of the 80/90s on the beach entertaining the paparazzi.
The remarkable thing is not what may or may not be physically wrong with any of them, but that frankly anyone cares.
The fact that three Royals are all in the papers for medical reasons means that one of them – probably Kate, is having a op that they don’t want talked about (Probably hysterectomy). The multiple press teams they hire are trying to pull distraction stories.
Its a bit weird to me that in 2024 hysterectomy is still something that people feel needs some sort of hush about - half the population have a uterus, some of them will need removed, but its her medical details and I don't see why she should feel the need to tell anyone whether its a hysterectomy, a gastic band, apendectomy, polyp or cyst removal, gaul bladder, or any other procedure.
I'm even more cynical than you. When the third story came out - I assumed it was "well Kate and daddy seemed to get a positive response from this, could we tell them about Sarah and see if it can help make me see more normal please, and if they think I'm supporting my ex-wife in these difficult times then maybe they'll forget about this fuss about the young girls"...
