It's a meaningless symbolic role.
And if you're going to have one, an air fryer, or a lettuce would make a better head of state than what we have. Anything would be preferable to a hereditary aristocrat who acts as a symbol of social inequality that we're taught to celebrate and worship.
I don't recall Queen Worship being on the curriculum when I was at school. Must've been brought in after I left.
Odd you mention that given your previous comment about who you are in bed with and their liking for the monarchy.
I don't particularly "like" the monarchy, if that's what you're implying. I just don't carry the frothing hatred that some here seem to. I am broadly ambivalent, they stir about the same degree of emotion in me as Elton John does.
to me the ‘royal interference’ argument is the fact that Brenda, and now Charlie, got advance view of all the laws and are able to write their own personal exemption
Sure. But if the argument is that they only interfere when it's in their own interests, you've pretty much just described parliament.
It’s a meaningless symbolic role.
And if you’re going to have one, an air fryer, or a lettuce would make a better head of state than what we have. Anything would be preferable to a hereditary aristocrat who acts as a symbol of social inequality that we’re taught to celebrate and worship.
Got to say I do pretty much agree with this.
Sure. But if the argument is that they only interfere when it’s in their own interests, you’ve pretty much just described parliament.
Argh the classic "yeah but something else is bad too" defence...like it, good foruming
Anything would be preferable to a hereditary aristocrat who acts as a symbol of social inequality that we’re taught to celebrate and worship.
North Korea is worse. Russia is worse. China is worse. In fact, most countries in the world are worse. A few are better, but the U.K. does actually have one of the better systems of government.
It’s a meaningless symbolic role.
Symbolism is important and has meaning. "Representing" the UK at home and broad influences people, and the fact that the person doing the representing isn't tarred with a political history can be important to that. OK it is soft power, but it is power.
Anything would be preferable to a hereditary aristocrat who acts as a symbol of social inequality that we’re taught to celebrate and worship.
North Korea is worse.
Isn't the first quote Kim Jong Un in a nutshell?
politecameraaction
Free Member
USA
President – directed elected by populaceThat’s not correct. In 2000 and 2016, the less popular candidate was elected, and it was a fairly rubbish outcome: Bush and Trump.
Ah yes, my mistake and technically correct. Due to the bonkers electoral college vote, their system allows for certain votes to be worth more than others. But I think my point stands, there's actually very few people in our parliamentary system who are elected.
China is the only country in the world that has more unelected parliamentary members than Britain.
Argh the classic “yeah but something else is bad too” defence…like it, good foruming
Spectacularly missing the point is even better foruming.
Isn’t the first quote Kim Jong Un in a nutshell?
He's not a hereditary aristocrat, he's a great person, born of heaven, the father and savior of the nation.
I reckon it is quite reasonable to describe the Kim Dynasty and Mount Paektu bloodline as a hereditary aristocracy.
I reckon it is quite reasonable to describe the Kim Dynasty and Mount Paektu bloodline as a hereditary aristocracy.
This is cultural imperialism, projecting the values of your culture onto others. North Koreans say that he's descended from heaven. Surely they would know.
Spectacularly missing the point is even better foruming.
And then blame everyone else for not understanding you.......it's like foruming top trumps, well done sir.
Who was that guy who kept telling us that the adults were going to sort out Brexit, he was the best at telling anyone who thought he was talking bollocks that they just didn't understand him.
So can we have a simple answer, maybe in bullet points? Why do we need a head of state? What would happen if we didn’t have one?
Why do we need a head of state
They're totally useless OR they stop Boris Johnson becoming Hitler
What would happen if we didn’t have one?
The Pope doesn't get met at the airport OR the downfall of civilisation
We haven't reached consensus yet, but it's definitely one of the two options
And then blame everyone else for not understanding you…….it’s like foruming top trumps, well done sir.
Well, it's hard to argue with that.
Did you have something you actually wanted to say about the thread subject or are you just having a pop at me because the sun's out?
Maybe we could start off every thread by messaging one or two posters to tell them they’ve won the argument and we are all in awe of them, then the rest of the board could get on with actually discussing the subject.
