National anthem?

[Greasy Chap Butty]

There was no Kaiser when the actual Hitler came to power. He was able to seize the reins after the piss poor leadership of Germany which resulted from this vacuum.

Different scenarios. Kaiser was ousted as a result of ww1 disaster.
Point, as you know, is the monarch here wouldn't safeguard that happening.
I get that people want a monarch for various reasons, but to claim it is a democratic safeguard is nonsense.

 

[Katzenjammer]

Different scenarios. Kaiser was ousted as a result of ww1 disaster.
Point, as you know, is the monarch here wouldn't safeguard that happening.
I get that people want a monarch for various reasons, but to claim it is a democratic safeguard is nonsense.

Royal prerogative still allows for the dismissal of the Prime Minister by the King. This is very seldom used, but it was in 1834 in Britain and again by the Queen's governor-general to dismiss Australia's Gough Whitlam in 1975.

So yes, it is a safeguard.

 

[Bashamed]

What would happen? No limiting principle on power.

Ye because she really limited it when BJ lied to her to illegally prorogue parliament didn't she? The Supreme Court is what stepped in. Feels quite an easy transition to make to me.

 

[Ball_Sup (Phil)]

All the why changers & leave it like it isers & what the majority wanters, what do you think the direction of travel is? It's clear isn't it? Less and less power, less & less influence, less & less symbolism. Institutions previously associated with the monarchy, The Royal Mail for eg, no longer are. The monarchy are happily giving up the odd palace. They can now marry Catholics & even Commoners. A large number of Commonwealth countries no longer have the monarch as head of state. We have parliaments in Cardiff & Edinburgh. Martin McGuinness in the handshakes. The Queen speaking phonetic Irish to the President. The monarchy has always been a fluid, changing, taking account of modern life institution. It's going to change. It wants to change. I believe most people have supported the changes made in my lifetime. It ain't going to stay the same. Can't do...

 

[Cheesebored]

It would make you happy?
So are you an unhappy person because we have a royal family?
Come on mate they have no impact on your life whatsoever so how can them being there or not have any effect on your mood?

Yes I'd genuinely feel better if we didn't have a royal family. We can discuss it all day but as you rightly point out I'm in the minority and nothing is likely to change in the foreseeable. I find the idea that in the 21st century you can rule over your subjects through a birth right and everyone has to pay for that luxury slightly disgusting.

 

[Katzenjammer]

Ye because she really limited it when BJ lied to her to illegally prorogue parliament didn't she? The Supreme Court is what stepped in. Feels quite an easy transition to make to me.

And if she'd used the Royal prerogative, you'd be stomping around and crying about how it's an affront to "democracy", so it's a moot point.

 

[Bashamed]

And if she'd used the Royal prerogative, you'd be stomping around and crying about how it's an affront to "democracy", so it's a moot point.

Well if she was ever going to use it that was the time. She did absolutely fuck all.

 

[Katzenjammer]

Well if she was ever going to use it that was the time. She did absolutely fuck all.

Not really, only remainers and Guardian readers gave a shit about that to be fair.

 

[Chingo]

I like football and all the excitement around it. It doesn't mean some footballer should be head of state.

Doesn’t mean it should be abolished either!

 

[Greasy Chap Butty]

Royal prerogative still allows for the dismissal of the Prime Minister by the King. This is very seldom used, but it was in 1834 in Britain and again by the Queen's governor-general to dismiss Australia's Gough Whitlam in 1975.

So yes, it is a safeguard.

It isn't. Because the practicality of that situation it would be ignored, with the extreme leader, quite easily pointing to his own legitimacy and none for the supposed over-ruling monarch.

The whole lot - Commons ,Lords, monarchy needs a full sort out. Will take years, but the current system is not fit for purpose.

 

[pommpey]

Yes I'd genuinely feel better if we didn't have a royal family. We can discuss it all day but as you rightly point out I'm in the minority and nothing is likely to change in the foreseeable. I find the idea that in the 21st century you can rule over your subjects through a birth right and everyone has to pay for that luxury slightly disgusting.

What, exactly, would make you feel better? Would it functionally improve your life? If so, then how?

Or is it just a gut feeling 'Errrugh, I don't like rich, privileged people like them living the life they do' then say so.

How do you feel about your boss? Or the Chief Executive of the company you work for?

pommmpey

 

[Bashamed]

Not really, only remainers and Guardian readers gave a shit about that to be fair.

Ye so you don't really care about checks and balances on power do you? As long as its something you agree with you're happy for it to be illegal. As far as arguments in favour of the monarchy go yours is pretty terrible.

The Supreme Court cared.

 

[pommpey]

The whole lot - Commons ,Lords, monarchy needs a full sort out. Will take years, but the current system is not fit for purpose.

Might be a great point yet to unravel that and make a 'one size fits all' solution is impossible

pommpey

 

[Katzenjammer]

Ye so you don't really care about checks and balances on power do you? As long as its something you agree with you're happy for it to be illegal. As far as arguments in favour of the monarchy go yours is pretty terrible.

The Supreme Court cared.

Not really, you just need something serious to happen for the monarch to exercise power. The Queen's hands-off approach was admirable.

 

[Greasy Chap Butty]

Doesn’t mean it should be abolished either!

I don't propose liquidising them! Just changing what they think they do or are entitled to

 

[Bashamed]

Not really, you just need something serious to happen for the monarch to exercise power. The Queen's hands-off approach was admirable.

OK so your argument is we need the monarchy to keep power limited. I've given an example of a time she should have done that but didn't because she's pointless. And your response is you don't care about that because it was something you wanted to happen. Great argument.

 

[Katzenjammer]

It isn't. Because the practicality of that situation it would be ignored, with the extreme leader, quite easily pointing to his own legitimacy and none for the supposed over-ruling monarch.

The whole lot - Commons ,Lords, monarchy needs a full sort out. Will take years, but the current system is not fit for purpose.

You're stating unknown hypotheticals. I'm telling what has actually happened before. Such a leader would not have any more legitimacy than the constitution already allows

 

[Greasy Chap Butty]

Might be a great point yet to unravel that and make a 'one size fits all' solution is impossible

pommpey

Clearly not, or every other country would still have the same system they had hundreds of years ago.
Obviously they don't.

A country should be run by a fairly elected set of people. People of competence and experience running appropriate departments, according to a clear and concise set of laws.
That should have an overriding method of ensuring whoever is in power at any given time abides by those laws.
Not rocket science.

How can we claim to be a modern society, with the ridiculous system we have? The monarchy is one of the smaller parts of what is wrong with it.

 

[Katzenjammer]

OK so your argument is we need the monarchy to keep power limited. I've given an example of a time she should have done that but didn't because she's pointless. And your response is you don't care about that because it was something you wanted to happen. Great argument.

Unless the PM was trying to seize power for himself and create a dictatorship then there was no need to act. Being a lying bastard isn't a reason to do it, otherwise there would never be any politicians.
So yeah, it's a moot point.

 

[Greasy Chap Butty]

You're stating unknown hypotheticals. I'm telling what has actually happened before. Such a leader would not have any more legitimacy than the constitution already allows

In 1834? Do you genuinely believe that to be of relevance today, or would happen?
Do you think that's better than a system that would be designed for the purpose?

 

[Bashamed]

Unless the PM was trying to seize power for himself and create a dictatorship then there was no need to act. Being a lying bastard isn't a reason to do it, otherwise there would never be any politicians.
So yeah, it's a moot point.

Ye except it's not a moot point at all if you think illegally proroguing parliament isn't a good thing. If you don't care like you, then you don't care about checks on power so your entire argument for the monarchy collapses. There are some arguments for the monarchy but yours is terrible. Nothing more than flag waving deference.

 

[Cheesebored]

What, exactly, would make you feel better? Would it functionally improve your life? If so, then how?

Or is it just a gut feeling 'Errrugh, I don't like rich, privileged people like them living the life they do' then say so.

How do you feel about your boss? Or the Chief Executive of the company you work for?

pommmpey

I've clearly explained why. It's privilege through birth that we have to pay for without any say. I may or may not like my bosses at work but I can at least respect they've been through a process to get to that position. The chief executive of the company I work for should have been sacked for partying at downing street through lockdown. A period where your beloved queen had to mourn alone the death of her husband. Surely you remember that?

 

[Hackey Blade]

I've got an idea we all agree nothing's going to change so lets all shut the fuck up about it and get back to football.

 

[Katzenjammer]

Ye except it's not a moot point at all if you think illegally proroguing parliament isn't a good thing. If you don't care like you, then you don't care about checks on power so your entire argument for the monarchy collapses. There are some arguments for the monarchy but yours is terrible. Nothing more than flag waving deference.

Not my fault that you and the activist media got triggered over an irrelevant detail, not Her Majesty's either. Maybe you need some perspective, then maybe you wouldn't get so upset and shout at flags.

 

[Bashamed]

Not my fault that you and the activist media got upset over an irrelevant detail, not Her Majesty's either. Maybe you need some perspective, then maybe you wouldn't get so upset and shout at flags.

It was the Supreme Court not "activist media". The irrelevant detail was illegally proroguing parliament. Not really a minor thing. Should the Supreme Court decision be dismissed because you don't like the decision?

Seems like you're not really into checks on power at all doesn't it.

I'm not upset.

 

[Katzenjammer]

It was the Supreme Court not "activist media". The irrelevant detail was illegally proroguing parliament. Not really a minor thing. Should the Supreme Court decision be dismissed because you don't like the decision?

Seems like you're not really into checks on power at all doesn't it.

I'm not upset.

I never claimed to be "into" anything. I was just describing how it works because you were misinformed.

 

[Ball_Sup (Phil)]

The fact that the closest any of these people will ever get to the monarch is when they walk past the corpse is rather illustrative I feel.

 

[Bashamed]

I never claimed to be "into" anything. I was just describing how it works because you were misinformed.

My example shows it doesn't work though. Your answer is, good I didn't want it to work in that situation.

Think this has run its course. All the best for the future

 

[bladesmanluke]

I always think of myself as British, not English, I don’t really feel an affinity with the English flag but I do with the Union Jack. When it comes to international football I am as interested in how Wales and Scotland get on as much as I am England. In fact I am quite apathetic towards England playing, if I’m honest.

I'm much the same, but i will support England in tournaments. Wish we'd all get on a bit better

 

[Chingo]

I've clearly explained why. It's privilege through birth that we have to pay for without any say. I may or may not like my bosses at work but I can at least respect they've been through a process to get to that position. The chief executive of the company I work for should have been sacked for partying at downing street through lockdown. A period where your beloved queen had to mourn alone the death of her husband. Surely you remember that?

What if the firm was passed down father/mother to son/daughter?