King Charles III

Ol' Charlie boy is getting ideas about spouting forth his wisdoms to the great unwashed. I say that if he wants to speak out and spread his ideas he should run for office.

Quote:

---

Members of Prince Charles’s inner circle are preparing the ground for him to break the monarch’s traditional vow of silence when he is king.

The Prince of Wales, who celebrated his 60th birthday on Friday, has told confidants he would like his role to “evolve” so that his knowledge and experience are not wasted once he inherits the crown, Jonathan Dimbleby, his friend and biographer, reveals today.

Writing in The Sunday Times, Dimbleby says that “there are now discreet moves afoot to redefine the future role of the sovereign so that it would allow King Charles III to speak out on matters of national and international importance in ways that at the moment would be unthinkable”.

---

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5162710.ece

Git.

Isn't it more appropriate to have a younger King? There are many cases in history of grandchildren inheriting his grandparent...

i am all for Charlie III in principle, and the monarchy in general, but whether we need an outspoken monarch is another question entirely.

i shall need to give it more thought.

I was under the impreshion that the current Queen was the first monarch to be truely neutral, and mainly because the last time she intervened she messed up, badly.

Hooray! I look forward to a Saudi Arabia in Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

Hooray! I look forward to a Saudi Arabia in Europe.

---

LOL.

This is exactly the reason why the Queen is hanging on for as long as she is.

Outspoken? No. Able to give opinion? Yes.

It is a shame that politicians aren't so self censorial when they screw up.

~:smoking:

Suddenly, the thought of being ruled by Brown or Cameron doesn't seem so bad anymore...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I was under the impreshion that the current Queen was the first monarch to be truely neutral, and mainly because the last time she intervened she messed up, badly.

---

i'm not aware of that.............

I don't think the Prince of Wales would make a bad king. I hold a great deal of respect for his views on conservation, urban planning and architecture, views which have often been proved to be correct in the long run, and stand in stark contrast to the short-sighted culture of greed the results of which we can all see the results.

The Federal Republic of the British Isles.:yes:

Long live her Britannic Majesty, and long may she reign!

~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Doctor

The Federal Republic of the British Isles.:yes:

---

I think the Southern Irish would disagree...

Bring back the Commonwealth!

I don't know how it works for you Brits, but over here our cabinet is held completely responsible for everything the queen does or says. Just about everything she says in public is written beforehand by someone else.

Personally I think that if Charles wants to do something useful he should renounce his right to the throne and get an honest job.

Australia looks set for another Republican Referendum in 2012... this time it won't be rigged.

So the Queen just has to hold out another 4 or 5 years. I never thouht I would ever say this in my life, but in all seriousness... Long Live the Queen...

Quote:

---

I think the Southern Irish would disagree...

---

After they see our prosperity then will be begging to join the union.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Ol' Charlie boy is getting ideas about spouting forth his wisdoms to the great unwashed. I say that if he wants to speak out and spread his ideas he should run for office.

Git.

---

Umm, okay. Anyone who thinks that the Commons is any better at working for the people needs to slap themselves. To be honest I would rather have a more active monarch than a quite one, the Commons has become so vile that almost anything would be better.
Charles would be able to publicise the more disgusting excesses of the "representative government" the Commons pretends to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Australia looks set for another Republican Referendum in 2012... this time it won't be rigged.

So the Queen just has to hold out another 4 or 5 years. I never thouht I would ever say this in my life, but in all seriousness... Long Live the Queen...

---

it would be a sad thing for Oz, NZ or Ca to become a republic, but if that is there choice then they have my full support. regardless of whether they have the queen as head of state they will always share a common ancestry, shared ideals, similar goals, and much the same methods. in short they are family that the UK can depend on, much like the US.

For the love of the gods, Long Live the Queen. The last thing the country and the Commonwealth needs is King Charles. We can only hope Her Majesty outlives her son. A terrible thing to say, i know, but at least that way William can become King. I have the feeling he would make a great King.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Australia looks set for another Republican Referendum in 2012... this time it won't be rigged.

So the Queen just has to hold out another 4 or 5 years. I never thouht I would ever say this in my life, but in all seriousness... Long Live the Queen...

---

I know where you're coming from mate, the thought of an ex PM being shoehorned in as the gaffer scares the :daisy: outta me.

Long live the queen!

:balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikeus Caesar

For the love of the gods, Long Live the Queen. The last thing the country and the Commonwealth needs is King Charles. We can only hope Her Majesty outlives her son. A terrible thing to say, i know, but at least that way William can become King. I have the feeling he would make a great King.

---

What in God's name is the reason for your hatred of Charles to the point of you wishing him dead?
Where has this absurd sentiment sprung up from? His awful marriage to an awful woman?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

What in God's name is the reason for your hatred of Charles to the point of you wishing him dead?
Where has this absurd sentiment sprung up from? His awful marriage to an awful woman?

---

No, just that the man's a complete muppet. If he is to inherit one of the most respected positions in the world, he'd do best to keep his opinions to himself, or risk making us a laughing stock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikeus Caesar

A terrible thing to say, i know, but at least that way William can become King. I have the feeling he would make a great King.

---

I must say I'm not sure I can see where you're coming from there; I've always got the impression he's a bit of a twit. In many ways a younger version of his father, in fact.

EDIT: But I do agree that if and when Charles becomes King, he would do well to take note of one of the things that has made his mother such a popular monarch, and keep his mouth shut on politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikeus Caesar

No, just that the man's a complete muppet. If he is to inherit one of the most respected positions in the world, he'd do best to keep his opinions to himself, or risk making us a laughing stock.

---

Why is he a complete muppet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

Why is he a complete muppet?

---

Irrational views on subjects such as homeopathic medicine, horse of a wife.

Well, hopefully he ends up being a good, strong, and quiet King. Either that or exactly like the Duke of Edinburgh - entertaining.

God Save the Queen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Well, hopefully he ends up being a good, strong, and quiet King. Either that or exactly like the Duke of Edinburgh - entertaining.

God Save the Queen.

---

I thought you favoured an Interventionist King?

What amuses me about the British and conversations on the succession, is the quaint idea that you have any opinion that counts.

To quote one of the finest French philosophers, Denis, "You don't vote for kings."

The essence of monarchy is heredity. Charles succeeds as your head of state whether you like it or not. Otherwise, get a republic - and then you can decide on the basis of looks, youth, quality of wife, just as the rest of the world does.

Having said that, the Prince of Wales is just kicking against the traces. He knows all too well the wearisome burden of the Crown's inability to comment on almost anything - save in private. This has been tradition pretty much since the usurper William of Orange. The monarch who abrogates this tradition will, in all likelihood, be the last of their line to hold a role beyond an elaborate method for relieving tourists of their dollars.

The Prince is a decent cove, and makes fascinating conversation in private. He suffers from a serious disconnect to real society, but is warm, passionate and well-informed in a theoretical sense. In this, he is not much different from many politicians I have met.

The biggest mistake the monarchy has made is to try and pander to the people. Monarchy stands on its own, and relies on mysticism and ancient right. If a modern country is going to have one, they better get used to the unfairness inherent in the system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

Why is he a complete muppet?

---

Any man who would cheat on Diana to be with that horse needs his head checked....

how can you trust the decision making of a man who made that choice??


either he is completely bonkers or he desperately needs to be referred to a good optometrist :wiseguy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

He knows all too well the wearisome burden of the Crown's inability to comment on almost anything - save in private. This has been tradition pretty much since the usurper William of Orange.

---

It was my understanding that the throne was still a pretty strong position until it passed to the Hannoverians, who didn't speak English and weren't particulary interested in British politics anyway- paving the way for a more dominant position of the cabinets.

The rest of your post is true enough, but I don't think that changing the head of state to a president (in the German mould) would make much difference at all, except that it would be marginally cheaper. It would be more acceptable for such a president to give his or her opinion about stuff (even though they're expected to distance themselves from petty politics, too) but the tasks of the office would still be mostly ceremonial. That is, unless you abandon the parliamentary system entirely.

I myself am a republican in principle, but it's near the bottom of my priority list :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

Any man who would cheat on Diana to be with that horse needs his head checked....

how can you trust the decision making of a man who made that choice??

---

I dunno...was Diana all that great? I think Charles made a poor choice in marrying Diana, not in seperating from her. She was his junior by many years, not on his intellectual level either. I can see how a man in his early thirties like Charles would fall madly in love with a nineteen year old, and will think the fascination will last forever. But then he turns forty, it becomes ever more painfully obvious that he really didn't have much in common with her in the fist place, he slowly starts to realise that his old youthfriend Camilla more than makes up in mental connection what she lacks in looks.
A young glamorous bride loses will lose her appeal to a man after the infatuation has worn off.

Quote:

---

Any man who would cheat on Diana to be with that horse needs his head checked....

---

5 minutes with Diana is enough to make you put her in a car with a drunken driver , noytonlywas she bloody annoying she was thick as pig **** too

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

I dunno...was Diana all that great? I think Charles made a poor choice in marrying Diana, not in seperating from her. She was his junior by many years, not on his intellectual level either. I can see how a man in his early thirties like Charles would fall madly in love with a nineteen year old, and will think the fascination will last forever. But then he turns forty, it becomes ever more painfully obvious that he really didn't have much in common with her in the fist place, he slowly starts to realise that his old youthfriend Camilla more than makes up in mental connection what she lacks in looks.
A young glamorous bride loses will lose her appeal to a man after the infatuation has worn off.

---

agreed, there was not much to recommend diana barring her looks, and a great deal to dislike.

[edit] the world just ended, i agreed with tribesman too. ;) [/edit]

Ouch, I also agree with Tribesman. Although the flipside is that Charles was clearly never in love with Diana, Heir and Spare was the purpose of that marriage and the spare is still supsect so she couldn't even do that.

The only people who didn't know this at the time were the masses, and Diana. I'm sure her parents and her brother were well aware of what they were getting her into, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

I thought you favoured an Interventionist King?

---

Yes, but only within the appropriate system. The King should also remain dignified and diplomatic when doing so.

I think Charles is a nice guy, he means well, and probably has a romanticised view of the monarchy and its role.

But when you consider that his decisions could influence the running of the country, especially at a time like this (or maybe we will be coming out of the economic problems, but still feeling the effects), is it really wise to let him have too much influence?

This is the whole problem of a heriditary monarchy - not all monarchs will be up to the job. I can't remember your exact views EFMF, but do you not think an elective monarchy might be better?

Britain is an unconstitutional monarchy. Most people think the House of Commons rules. But, in fact every bill passed by the House of Commons must be signed by the monarch before it becomes law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I can't remember your exact views EFMF, but do you not think an elective monarchy might be better?

---

That's called a President. ~;)

I never understood monarchies and I will never understand why people would want one. It seems to go against enlightenment philosophy....but what do I know I am just an American.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

I never understood monarchies and I will never understand why people would want one. It seems to go against enlightenment philosophy....but what do I know I am just an American.

---

It's like American Idol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

I never understood monarchies and I will never understand why people would want one. It seems to go against enlightenment philosophy....but what do I know I am just an American.

---

Well tbh the way certain democracies behave the people may aswell not have a say anyway, the way the Commons is acting these days we may as well give up voting now. I really do not understand the growin British dislike for the the Lords or the Monarchy, the Commons will end up being far far worse, in fact it already is.

As for Charles being a muppet, clearly those who think he is, have no real reason to think so but are simply keeping in step with the popular line:dizzy2:

Unless an effective form of Republic is thought up, I see none at present, what is the point of changing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

Unless an effective form of Republic is thought up, I see none at present, what is the point of changing?

---

Eh merely the principle of the thing. It would anger me knowing that just because someone got spit out of a different birth canal they are now inherently better than me. Im not saying it doesnt happen here Im just saying,,,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Eh merely the principle of the thing. It would anger me knowing that just because someone got spit out of a different vagina they are now inherently better than me. Im not saying it doesnt happen here Im just saying,,,

---

I do not have a problem with the idea of bowing to him, none at all, but lets remember that in the UK it should not just be the Monarch who rules, but the two Houses as well. I just dislike the Commons continued accumulation of power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Eh merely the principle of the thing. It would anger me knowing that just because someone got spit out of a different birth canal they are now inherently better than me. Im not saying it doesnt happen here Im just saying,,,

---

So all inheritance tax should be raised to one hundred percent so that everyone has an equal start?

I always knew you were a communist at heart SFTS!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

:clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Eh merely the principle of the thing. It would anger me knowing that just because someone got spit out of a different birth canal they are now inherently better than me. Im not saying it doesnt happen here Im just saying,,,

---

So, so true.

WHERE IS CROMWELL??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

WHERE IS CROMWELL??

---

Largely in a pit at Tyburn.

Just as a small point of interest: it's unlikely that a "Charles III" will ever sit on the British throne. He's more likely to be George VII when (if?) he ever succeeds to the Crown.

The previous two monarchs called Charles were both Stuarts, and their dynasty wasn't exactly a rip-roaring success overall, having caused a civil war, and provoked serial rebellions for (1688) and against (1715 and '45) and even between bits of the family (Monmouth's rebellion against James II). Charles I remains the only English/British monarch to declare war on his own people, and the only one to be tried and executed by his subjects. Charles II is often portrayed as a romantic figure, but he was a serial womaniser with poor impulse control was almost certainly receiving a subsidy from the French Louis XIV and is likely to have converted to Catholicism. These are not good precedents for a name.

As a sprig of the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas (hurriedly renamed "Windsor" when having German antecedents was a problem during the First World War), the current Charles Philip Arthur George is more likely to go with the more-recent family tradition by being George VII.

I was wondering who was going to pick up on that. Charles has already stated that he would change his name to George when he became King.

Having Prince Albert then King Edward VII as a predecessor there is a good stock of randiness in the current bloodline.

~:smoking:

So, to summarize, the most common response to Mr. Windsor's comments would be something like:

"Shut up, twit! You're supposed to be a quiet, vaguely regal-looking figurehead. If we want you to express and actual opinion we'll beat it out of you."


Followed by a substantial minority assessment of:

"Abolish the monarchy now (& House of Lords?); tradition is bollocks anyway."



Given the tenor of Charles' "supporters" on this thread, he might as well acede to the monarchy (such as it is) under the name of Katerina der Grosse -- but that would start all the "horse" comments again, wouldn't it?

Monarchy has certian advantages:

You have a certain figure that can be mentioned truly independent from any source of power in our society. No need to be elected and to be responsible to those who pay the money for the election campaign. In addition, each house prepares its heir since childhood for that task.

A long reigning monarch could give precious advises to his prime-ministers who excercise the real power.

In moment of crisis the authority of the monarch could stop any attempts to establish dictatorship of any kind (most often than not)

The disadvantages: Yes, the personality of the monarch matters. But nowadays he has few power and I believe that if he lacks the qualities for the monarch, he would be simply ignored and left in the political background. And yet, if he really creates big problems, he can simply resign and be replaced from one of his relatives. As far as Prince Charles is concerned if he continues in this way, it is easy to predict that he will be by-passed and replaced by his son.

Yes, it is true his right is inherited but there are many heads of state that do not deserve the honour to rule their country.

Republic or modern monarchy: there is not such a great difference!

As far as the monarchs of Great Britain: many of them were famous with their scandals. But none of them had ruined the country...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jolt

WHERE IS CROMWELL??

---

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephen Asen

Monarchy has certian advantages:

You have a certain figure that can be mentioned truly independent from any source of power in our society. No need to be elected and to be responsible to those who pay the money for the election campaign. In addition, each house prepares its heir since childhood for that task.

A long reigning monarch could give precious advises to his prime-ministers who excercise the real power.

In moment of crisis the authority of the monarch could stop any attempts to establish dictatorship of any kind (most often than not)

The disadvantages: Yes, the personality of the monarch matters. But nowadays he has few power and I believe that if he lacks the qualities for the monarch, he would be simply ignored and left in the political background. And yet, if he really creates big problems, he can simply resign and be replaced from one of his relatives. As far as Prince Charles is concerned if he continues in this way, it is easy to predict that he will be by-passed and replaced by his son.

Yes, it is true his right is inherited but there are many heads of state that do not deserve the honour to rule their country.

Republic or modern monarchy: there is not such a great difference!

As far as the monarchs of Great Britain: many of them were famous with their scandals. But none of them had ruined the country...

---

That ignores the fact that it is my right to pick who rules me - Monarchy is incompatible with a Democratic society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

That ignores the fact that it is my right to pick who rules me - Monarchy is incompatible with a Democratic society.

---

Well, the modern monarchs are not rulers in the real sense of the word. It is the Parliament and the Prime-Minister that rule.

Many monarchies are really democratic and liberal. You can not say that modern Spain and Great Britain are not democracies. Juan Carlos, the King of Spain, even prevented a military coup-de-etat that could have resulted in something non-democratic. I also think the monarchies are far more resistant to totalitarian regimes than the others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephen Asen

Well, the modern monarchs are not rulers in the real sense of the word. Many monarchies are far more liberal and democratic in the true sense of the word than many states ruled by presidents.

---

If they were truly Democratic they would step aside.

A democracy in the true sense of the word would be mob-rule. A dictatorship of the proletariat. :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

If they were truly Democratic they would step aside.

---

Democracy is a compromise.

There is no absolute democracy.

Do you really think that the politicians only serve the common voters and not those who pay the money for their campaigns?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenring

except that it would be marginally cheaper

---

It is my understanding that in my country we pay more for our President than many countries do for their monarchies. There was an excellent link at the Paradox Forum, but I believe I have forgotten it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Count Arach

That ignores the fact that it is my right to pick who rules me - Monarchy is incompatible with a Democratic society.

---

In Germany we don't really vote for our President either, so that is a moot point. Secondly, monarchy is not incompatible with democracy - it can even safeguard it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephen Asen

Do you really think that the politicians only serve the common voters and not those who pay the money for their campaigns?

---

That's why I would ban donations :wink:

Quote:

---

In Germany we don't really vote for our President either, so that is a moot point.

---

Well maybe you should :idea:

Quote:

---

Secondly, monarchy is not incompatible with democracy - it can even safeguard it.

---

I sense a Franco moment coming on...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mangudai

Britain is an unconstitutional monarchy. Most people think the House of Commons rules. But, in fact every bill passed by the House of Commons must be signed by the monarch before it becomes law.

---

Let me channel my inner Tribsy :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Yes they have to sign it. But, the second part of your statement is bollox, they have no say in the matter, if the don't sign it they're out on their :daisy:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Well maybe you should :idea:

---

Why bother? If they have no power at all, why hold votes for them. Sounds like a waste of time, a bundle of red tape and a whole lot of bureaucracy. If you don't have a Monarchy why the hell have a equivalent figurehead position at all?

And I've never understood all the beef about the Monarchy coming from Australia. We, do after all get a holiday out of it, something they don't get in the UK after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rythmic

And I've never understood all the beef about the Monarchy coming from Australia. We, do after all get a holiday out of it, something they don't get in the UK after all.

---

The Australian way of life dictates that we would probably make up a new Public Holiday.

To be honest I dont understand what is wrong with the idea of a vocal Monarch - im all for a King/Queen who states and discusses their opinion - so long as they dont take their opinion and uses what little power they have left to force it on Parliment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Moody

To be honest I dont understand what is wrong with the idea of a vocal Monarch - im all for a King/Queen who states and discusses their opinion - so long as they dont take their opinion and uses what little power they have left to force it on Parliment.

---

Sir M:

Good to see you back! :yes:


Now, go to the Gameroom, sign up for GH's Pirate ship, and tell him I sent you.

:yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rythmic

Why bother? If they have no power at all, why hold votes for them. Sounds like a waste of time, a bundle of red tape and a whole lot of bureaucracy. If you don't have a Monarchy why the hell have a equivalent figurehead position at all?

---

:yes:

We already spend far too much money on our President, and as I have said before, I saw somewhere on Paradox Forums where someone proved that Germany spends more on the German President than [I believe] Britain spends on theirs, once the final totals are all factored in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

:yes:

We already spend far too much money on our President, and as I have said before, I saw somewhere on Paradox Forums where someone proved that Germany spends more on the German President than [I believe] Britain spends on theirs, once the final totals are all factored in.

---

That sounds like putting a price tag on freedom...

Royalty should be elected in the UK or dissolved. They could use a "King" as a traditional figurehead or Cultural Representative like President or Chancellor.

"Born into it" is simply not good enough anymore.

Landmarks would have the allure with or without Royals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

That sounds like putting a price tag on freedom...

---

What freedom? The monarch doesn't interfere with or restrict our freedom, and they don't in Britain. The Labour Party is already good enough at that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

That sounds like putting a price tag on freedom...

---

Oh please! The Drama!

C'mon CA you are smarter than that, and anyone who believes the Commons cares about freedom is an idiot.

The Monarchy would be a good butress against the ever absurd stance of Parliament.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Royalty should be elected in the UK or dissolved. They could use a "King" as a traditional figurehead or Cultural Representative like President or Chancellor.

"Born into it" is simply not good enough anymore.

Landmarks would have the allure with or without Royals.

---

Bollox, show me how your own elected representatives give a damn about your freedom, Christ an American talking about safeguards of freedom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

Bollox, show me how your own elected representatives give a damn about your freedom, Christ an American talking about safeguards of freedom.

---

Okay

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar

Bollox, show me how your own elected representatives give a damn about your freedom, Christ an American talking about safeguards of freedom.

---

Seconded. Democratic they're not, but there's few elected officials that have done as good a job, and on average the elected ones are far down in the gutter.

~:smoking:

our system may indeed be an anachronism, but it works, and the test for whether change should be instituted is whether it would actually make things better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Seconded. Democratic they're not, but there's few elected officials that have done as good a job, and on average the elected ones are far down in the gutter.

---

Might be worth looking at that track record over more than just the current generation, don't you think? Since, you know, heredity is important in selection here.

Elizabeth II - Exceptional
George VI - Decent

(Note, both of the above were by accident, and not due to inherit because of:)

Edward VIII - Coward who shirked his responsibility
George V - Coward and brute
Edward VII - Drunkard and rake who would have made President Clinton blush
Victoria - Self-obessed depressive who refused to particiapte in government role for years
William IV - Decent sort, responsible for ten illegitimate children but no legal issue
George IV - Drunk, crook, gambler, rake, opium addict
George III - Mad as a sack of badgers

In the same time line, there were some pretty outstanding Presidents of the United States, and some equally outstanding Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom.

And whilst the recent two, favoured by the abdication, have been Good Monarchs, the whole point of this thread was the dread in which Charles' accession is held by a substantial part of the populace.

Kings make for great entertainment, but not much of a system of government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

What freedom? The monarch doesn't interfere with or restrict our freedom, and they don't in Britain. The Labour Party is already good enough at that.

---

How about my freedom from Tyrrany? My freedom to elect my own leaders?

Quote:

---

C'mon CA you are smarter than that, and anyone who believes the Commons cares about freedom is an idiot.

---

The Commons don't care about Freedom - point me to where I said that and I shall correct it. Oh wait, I didn't!

Simply because elected officials don't care about us doesn't mean we should try to:
1. Scrap the system
2. Reform the system

Quote:

---

The Monarchy would be a good butress against the ever absurd stance of Parliament.

---

Then why haven't they done that already? Because they have no power! Why do you even bother keeping the Queen around at all?

Quote:

---

Why do you even bother keeping the Queen around at all?

---

She looks a lot better on postage stamps than Pa McBroon. :laugh4:

Actually the King/Queen can reject a PM and if they really wanted too they could dissolve Parliment which does put a check and balance on the Commons and the PM.

The King/Queen is apart from the powers above just the cerimonial head of state - the PM holds most of the power and last time i checked we do elect them so saying we are not "democratic" is somewhat a leap.

The Monarchs powers are layed out in a number of documents and barring millitary coup they wouldnt be able to gain anymore without the commons support.

What we REALLY need in the UK is a single written Consitution defining the Monarchs and the Houses roles and the rights of the people as we currently are stuck with an emalguration of numerous court rullings/treaties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Sir M:

Good to see you back! :yes:


Now, go to the Gameroom, sign up for GH's Pirate ship, and tell him I sent you.

:yes:

---

who says i havent been here all along?

/hides behind his cape and moves back into the shadows laughing manically

:evilgrin: