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 sidestepping 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?

Because we could have someone voted-for or even appointed for a fixed term, with the option to extend the ‘reign’ (up to a point) who has the job of shaking hands with people and turning up to meet dignitaries. We wouldn’t need to accommodate their extended family in various palaces and castles.

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

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?
A Prime Minister is the ‘first’ Minister of the government who are elected.

…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.

I think the Windsor woman and what people think she represents, have become a focal point for those seeking reassurance in the face of threats of all sorts, from Islamic violence to financial insecurity and the slipping of the focus of history from the west to the east.

She’s a sort of mammary to which the peasants cling as they re-discover their helpless feudal neediness.

I’d agree that there is something in that. My use of the word “Inexplicable” was the wrong one. It can be explained even if I can’t sympathise with the view.

As I posted earlier in the thread, It seem to me that many people don’t actually know/think about what the monarchy/royalty/Hereditary Peers and bishops in The Lords etc. actually mean.

There is a lot of ignorance about the issue.

Many do seem to find it impossible to separate these things from some mythical notion of “Britishness”. Having a National Anthem with a first verse that talks almost exclusively about God saving the Queen (and allowing her to reign over us, the inferior, common people), rather than saving the country or, heaven forbid, the people, reinforces this situation.

A lot of people seem convinced that this feudal, birth-right system of privilege is better than having elected/appointed1 head-of-state with some degree of accountability, which I find very difficult to understand.

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

Thats far from certain, especially if there were to be an informed debate about the pros and cons. Remember in her lifetime most of her subjects have kicked her, (and us for that matter) into touch, and continue to do so. In case thats not clear 80% of people to whom she was monarch at her coronation no longer recognise her as such.

The people may well vote for the queen, but would they vote for King Charles & Queen Camilla, King William & Queen Kate

Well they voted for King Cameron and Queen Osborne, so their tastes are hardly impeccable…

Well they voted for King Cameron and Queen Clegg, so their tastes are hardly impeccable…

I think you’ll find that the electorate voted for their local MPs, and David Cameron, as Prime Minister, wasn’t given the keys to a few palaces, castles and counties for his family to enjoy for evermore.

Well they voted for King Cameron and Queen Clegg

That was fast – I ninja edited Clegg…

But my point was that people are easily deceived into tasteless putting of “x”s into boxes…

But my point was that people are easily deceived into tasteless putting of “x”s into boxes…

…as they are easily deceived that a constitutional monarchy is the correct and only way.

Do these people think that republics are somehow not proper countries?

people are easily deceived

Actually the evidence doesn’t support that statement.

If you can remeber this, you might also remember that Bernie Grant, Ken Livingstone and Paul Boetang were all absolutely villified by the press throughout the campaign. They were all elected, so its harder to deceive the electorate than you might think.

” Every generation imagines itself to be more intelligent than the one that went before it, and wiser than the one that comes after it. “

Can never quite understand why anybody would want to fix something that is not broken.

Or not fix something that is….

I can never understand why people want to maintain the status quo because,
“It’s always been done that way”