The Queen passing was as good a reason as any is ever going to exist to properly consider whether we really need or want a monarchy or not.
I think many folk were quite happy not to think about it too much or ask probing niggly questions about it when the Queen was in charge. Her stability, longevity and general keep-your-head-down-and-get-on-with-it approach singlehandedly lent the whole institution a credibility it doesn't really have any longer. She did a sort of weird Hari Seldon Foundation type thing by being largely invisible except for popping up at the key moments in history to reassure everyone it'd all be ok in a bit, then disappearing again.
If everyone shut up now and Charles could do a similar strong-n-stable-but-you-don't-need-to-hear-from-me-much maybe they'd get away with it, but it feels like the whole thing now has a bit of a death spiral feel to it.
No it doesn't.
The Queen was an exceptional monarch, a once in centuries head if state. However the monarchy has survived terrible monarchs, eg George IVth or Edward VIII and James IInd and Charles so far has been at least average with the popular William to come.
In any case Republicans had a once in a generation chance to elect a republican PM in 2017 and 2019 with the republican Corbyn. They failed and now both Starmer and Sunak want to keep the monarchy and back the King
The issue isn't surviving terrible monarchs. It's about surviving terrible all-of-them-at-the-moment after the only one demonstrably not terrible is no longer around to keep it all together. Now it's just sub-par horsey Kardashian shite, I think the phrase was.
Your reason for keeping them basically boils down to "we've had them for a long time even when they've been shit". It's not exactly a hugely enticing proposition.
Rubbish. Just you Republicans have an ideological agenda to destroy probably the most unique, historic and globally visible thing we have in the UK and which still unites the nation way more than any Labour or Conservative President ever could.
In Brazil and the US mobs are even storming their Parliaments their Presidential elections are so divisive. Our constitutional monarchy works
The Queen passing was as good a reason as any is ever going to exist to properly consider whether we really need or want a monarchy or not.
I think many folk were quite happy not to think about it too much or ask probing niggly questions about it when the Queen was in charge. Her stability, longevity and general keep-your-head-down-and-get-on-with-it approach singlehandedly lent the whole institution a credibility it doesn't really have any longer. She did a sort of weird Hari Seldon Foundation type thing by being largely invisible except for popping up at the key moments in history to reassure everyone it'd all be ok in a bit, then disappearing again.
If everyone shut up now and Charles could do a similar strong-n-stable-but-you-don't-need-to-hear-from-me-much maybe they'd get away with it, but it feels like the whole thing now has a bit of a death spiral feel to it.
Royal chat is UK displacement activity. The book has worked a treat.
Well of course it is. It's a very basic human need to tell sad stories of the death of kings; what do Oedipus, Agamemnon, Lear, Macbeth and Hamlet have in common? Where are the great tragedies about democratically elected presidents?
The Queen passing was as good a reason as any is ever going to exist to properly consider whether we really need or want a monarchy or not.
I think many folk were quite happy not to think about it too much or ask probing niggly questions about it when the Queen was in charge. Her stability, longevity and general keep-your-head-down-and-get-on-with-it approach singlehandedly lent the whole institution a credibility it doesn't really have any longer. She did a sort of weird Hari Seldon Foundation type thing by being largely invisible except for popping up at the key moments in history to reassure everyone it'd all be ok in a bit, then disappearing again.
If everyone shut up now and Charles could do a similar strong-n-stable-but-you-don't-need-to-hear-from-me-much maybe they'd get away with it, but it feels like the whole thing now has a bit of a death spiral feel to it.
No it doesn't.
The Queen was an exceptional monarch, a once in centuries head if state. However the monarchy has survived terrible monarchs, eg George IVth or Edward VIII and James IInd and Charles so far has been at least average with the popular William to come.
In any case Republicans had a once in a generation chance to elect a republican PM in 2017 and 2019 with the republican Corbyn. They failed and now both Starmer and Sunak want to keep the monarchy and back the King
The issue isn't surviving terrible monarchs. It's about surviving terrible all-of-them-at-the-moment after the only one demonstrably not terrible is no longer around to keep it all together. Now it's just sub-par horsey Kardashian shite, I think the phrase was.
Your reason for keeping them basically boils down to "we've had them for a long time even when they've been shit". It's not exactly a hugely enticing proposition.
Rubbish. Just you Republicans have an ideological agenda to destroy probably the most unique, historic and globally visible thing we have in the UK and which still unites the nation way more than any Labour or Conservative President ever could.
In Brazil and the US mobs are even storming their Parliaments their Presidential elections are so divisive. Our constitutional monarchy works
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
If you don't find Meghan extraordinarily beautiful then I assume in the most non judgemental sense in the world that you are gay. Then again if you can't pick the looker out of Haz and pudding head, you can't be. So I conclude this is really about something else.
She is alright, if I was single I definitely would be interested. However, she's not in the top 1%. I was in Paris this weekend and more than a few women who were more beautiful than her
I'd rather go to bed with one of the failed Sigourney Weaver clones in Alien: Resurrected.
Can we choose for you?
Not thinking specifically of CR here: but the chatter today has made me reflect that it's curious how many PB royalists feel that they can pick and choose from amongst the RF. Completely misses the logic, indeed USP, of having a royal family.
The fundamental difference between a constitutional monarchy and an absolute monarchy is that in a constitutional monarchy the country chooses its monarch and in an absolute monarchy the royal family fight over the inheritance between themselves.
Britain has replaced a number of unsuitable monarchs since becoming a constitutional monarchy. The idea that there's a risk of the country being stuck with an Andrew as King is false. If necessary Parliament can act if the monarch doesn't keep to their side of the constitutional bargain.
I'm instinctively a Republican, but I'm also amused at how Royalists and Republicans conspire to elevate the monarchy to a more powerful role than it possesses.
Rishi’s strike abolition gambit shows again why he has astonishingly bad political judgement.
His instincts are totally out of sync with with British people’s.
Spot on. But is it just bad judgement or forced on a weak leader in behind the scene compromises?
Hunt briefs we should rejoin EU - Sunak position too weak to sack him - Leaky Sue calls asylum seekers invading force, Sunak’s position too weak to sack her.
He is balancing a fractious party at the end of the day, we need to keep remembering this.
Did Hunt say or hint he wanted to rejoin the EU?
He was explicit - said UK needs unfettered’ trade with EU. That can only be one thing, can’t it?
No. We could have unfettered trade with the EU by a number of routes. The most obvious is joining the EEA via EFTA. There is absolutely no need to rejoin the EU for that.
Oh and Robert is right, you are not using 'explicit' in its proper meaning. I believe what you should have said was 'implicit'.
“We could have unfettered trade with the EU by a number of routes. The most obvious is joining the EEA via EFTA.”
Royal chat is UK displacement activity. The book has worked a treat.
Well of course it is. It's a very basic human need to tell sad stories of the death of kings; what do Oedipus, Agamemnon, Lear, Macbeth and Hamlet have in common? Where are the great tragedies about democratically elected presidents?
JFK
Donald Trump.
He may yet return in 2024 however to reclaim the White House
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
If you don't find Meghan extraordinarily beautiful then I assume in the most non judgemental sense in the world that you are gay. Then again if you can't pick the looker out of Haz and pudding head, you can't be. So I conclude this is really about something else.
She is alright, if I was single I definitely would be interested. However, she's not in the top 1%. I was in Paris this weekend and more than a few women who were more beautiful than her
I'd rather go to bed with one of the failed Sigourney Weaver clones in Alien: Resurrected.
Can we choose for you?
Not thinking specifically of CR here: but the chatter today has made me reflect that it's curious how many PB royalists feel that they can pick and choose from amongst the RF. Completely misses the logic, indeed USP, of having a royal family.
The fundamental difference between a constitutional monarchy and an absolute monarchy is that in a constitutional monarchy the country chooses its monarch and in an absolute monarchy the royal family fight over the inheritance between themselves.
Britain has replaced a number of unsuitable monarchs since becoming a constitutional monarchy. The idea that there's a risk of the country being stuck with an Andrew as King is false. If necessary Parliament can act if the monarch doesn't keep to their side of the constitutional bargain.
I'm instinctively a Republican, but I'm also amused at how Royalists and Republicans conspire to elevate the monarchy to a more powerful role than it possesses.
Indeed, otherwise Charles Ist, James IInd and Edward VIIIth would never have been removed
Rishi’s strike abolition gambit shows again why he has astonishingly bad political judgement.
His instincts are totally out of sync with with British people’s.
Spot on. But is it just bad judgement or forced on a weak leader in behind the scene compromises?
Hunt briefs we should rejoin EU - Sunak position too weak to sack him - Leaky Sue calls asylum seekers invading force, Sunak’s position too weak to sack her.
He is balancing a fractious party at the end of the day, we need to keep remembering this.
Did Hunt say or hint he wanted to rejoin the EU?
He was explicit - said UK needs unfettered’ trade with EU. That can only be one thing, can’t it?
I don't think "explicit" means what you think it means.
Well I’m explicitly off to bed, because the sheep will be implicitly waiting for their muesli at sunrise. Got to keep their calcium up - we’ve had two die this week.
I might stay here in Yorkshire looking after sheep, guiding them around and writing poetry on my phone, whilst they graze or watch their lambs play around.
What is my life if, full of care, it has no time to sit and stare. To watch them wander around, like little clouds, Floating o'er the hills and dales. How sweet is this shepherds lot, From early morn to evening strays; She shall follow her flock all the day, And all her poems shall be filled with praise.
The Queen passing was as good a reason as any is ever going to exist to properly consider whether we really need or want a monarchy or not.
I think many folk were quite happy not to think about it too much or ask probing niggly questions about it when the Queen was in charge. Her stability, longevity and general keep-your-head-down-and-get-on-with-it approach singlehandedly lent the whole institution a credibility it doesn't really have any longer. She did a sort of weird Hari Seldon Foundation type thing by being largely invisible except for popping up at the key moments in history to reassure everyone it'd all be ok in a bit, then disappearing again.
If everyone shut up now and Charles could do a similar strong-n-stable-but-you-don't-need-to-hear-from-me-much maybe they'd get away with it, but it feels like the whole thing now has a bit of a death spiral feel to it.
No it doesn't.
The Queen was an exceptional monarch, a once in centuries head if state. However the monarchy has survived terrible monarchs, eg George IVth or Edward VIII and James IInd and Charles so far has been at least average with the popular William to come.
In any case Republicans had a once in a generation chance to elect a republican PM in 2017 and 2019 with the republican Corbyn. They failed and now both Starmer and Sunak want to keep the monarchy and back the King
The issue isn't surviving terrible monarchs. It's about surviving terrible all-of-them-at-the-moment after the only one demonstrably not terrible is no longer around to keep it all together. Now it's just sub-par horsey Kardashian shite, I think the phrase was.
Your reason for keeping them basically boils down to "we've had them for a long time even when they've been shit". It's not exactly a hugely enticing proposition.
Rubbish. Just you Republicans have an ideological agenda to destroy probably the most unique, historic and globally visible thing we have in the UK and which still unites the nation way more than any Labour or Conservative President ever could.
In Brazil and the US mobs are even storming their Parliaments their Presidential elections are so divisive. Our constitutional monarchy works
It works because they explicitly don't get involved. So the rest of the stuff is just pomp and circumstance.
It's globally visible, fine. I'll give you that. Is it sufficient on its own?
You'll notice, by the way, that I stick to the substance of the topic in question without resorting to getting snippy and personal attacks, unlike yourself.
Being a constitutional monarchy also helped ensure the UK was the only major European nation that avoided having a Fascist or Communist leader by 1940 (a few other smaller constitutional monarchies like Sweden followed suit).
Now too, in the US republic the far right Trump has been President and may return and in the French republic the right is led by the far right Le Pen who may yet become President in 2027.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
If you don't find Meghan extraordinarily beautiful then I assume in the most non judgemental sense in the world that you are gay. Then again if you can't pick the looker out of Haz and pudding head, you can't be. So I conclude this is really about something else.
Catherine was very beautiful up to a few years ago - age is catching up but she’s still good looking. Meghan is very pretty. But I don’t think there’s that much between them, and certainly wasn’t five years ago.
Meg will age OK. Kate is getting the face she deserves. Psychotic deaths head look.
Did she poo-poo you at a social occasion? Don’t get the Kate hatred.
It’s the phenomenon of Big Endians vs Little Endians.
You pick a side. That side is more beautiful, intelligent…. The other side are evil subhumans.
Being a constitutional monarchy also helped ensure the UK was the only major European nation that avoided having a Fascist or Communist leader by 1940 (a few other smaller constitutional monarchies like Sweden followed suit).
Now too, in the US republic the far right Trump has been President and may return and in the French republic the right is led by the far right Le Pen who may yet become President in 2027.
How did having a consitutional monarchy (not sure how the UK can be called one seeing as our `constitution' is unwritten and made up as we go along) avoid fascism/communism?
"You can get a certificate on the basis of self-ID... of course men are going to use that, it has happened," says Guardian's Sonia Sodha on Scottish gender reforms
"You don't make law based on single instances," says barrister Robin White
Being a constitutional monarchy also helped ensure the UK was the only major European nation that avoided having a Fascist or Communist leader by 1940 (a few other smaller constitutional monarchies like Sweden followed suit).
Now too, in the US republic the far right Trump has been President and may return and in the French republic the right is led by the far right Le Pen who may yet become President in 2027.
How did having a consitutional monarchy (not sure how the UK can be called one seeing as our `constitution' is unwritten and made up as we go along) avoid fascism/communism?
As it ensured we did not have a Communist leader like Stalin or a Fascist leader like Mussolini, Hitler or Franco.
France admittedly only fell to Fascism due to Nazi invasion but given over 40% of the French voted for the far right Le Pen for President last year they may make up for that and finally elect a far right President in 2027.
Our constitution based on Crown in Parliament works. Note too that none of the Commonwealth realms such as Australia, Canada and NZ have fallen to Fascism or Communism either
I have discovered another gem in my wanderings in the undergrowth of 19th century classical music, Piano Concerto in E minor by Mihaly Mosonyi. That was his stage name - he was born Michael Brand ( but still Hungarian). His symphony No. 1 is also good. Now looking at Ludwig Spohr ( sometimes called Louis). He wrote 18 violin concertos and was said to rival Beethoven.
Cheers I will take a listen. Beethoven's Violin Concerto Opus 61 is, to my mind, the greatest piece of classical music ever composed. I have about 20 different recordings of it and am always looking to collect more. But at the same time I am always up to be educated about other composers.
The Queen passing was as good a reason as any is ever going to exist to properly consider whether we really need or want a monarchy or not.
I think many folk were quite happy not to think about it too much or ask probing niggly questions about it when the Queen was in charge. Her stability, longevity and general keep-your-head-down-and-get-on-with-it approach singlehandedly lent the whole institution a credibility it doesn't really have any longer. She did a sort of weird Hari Seldon Foundation type thing by being largely invisible except for popping up at the key moments in history to reassure everyone it'd all be ok in a bit, then disappearing again.
If everyone shut up now and Charles could do a similar strong-n-stable-but-you-don't-need-to-hear-from-me-much maybe they'd get away with it, but it feels like the whole thing now has a bit of a death spiral feel to it.
No it doesn't.
The Queen was an exceptional monarch, a once in centuries head if state. However the monarchy has survived terrible monarchs, eg George IVth or Edward VIII and James IInd and Charles so far has been at least average with the popular William to come.
In any case Republicans had a once in a generation chance to elect a republican PM in 2017 and 2019 with the republican Corbyn. They failed and now both Starmer and Sunak want to keep the monarchy and back the King
The issue isn't surviving terrible monarchs. It's about surviving terrible all-of-them-at-the-moment after the only one demonstrably not terrible is no longer around to keep it all together. Now it's just sub-par horsey Kardashian shite, I think the phrase was.
Your reason for keeping them basically boils down to "we've had them for a long time even when they've been shit". It's not exactly a hugely enticing proposition.
Rubbish. Just you Republicans have an ideological agenda to destroy probably the most unique, historic and globally visible thing we have in the UK and which still unites the nation way more than any Labour or Conservative President ever could.
In Brazil and the US mobs are even storming their Parliaments their Presidential elections are so divisive. Our constitutional monarchy works
Republicans want to destroy Manchester United?
Know several in Ireland who are (or at least were) huge MU fans.
I have discovered another gem in my wanderings in the undergrowth of 19th century classical music, Piano Concerto in E minor by Mihaly Mosonyi. That was his stage name - he was born Michael Brand ( but still Hungarian). His symphony No. 1 is also good. Now looking at Ludwig Spohr ( sometimes called Louis). He wrote 18 violin concertos and was said to rival Beethoven.
The Queen passing was as good a reason as any is ever going to exist to properly consider whether we really need or want a monarchy or not.
I think many folk were quite happy not to think about it too much or ask probing niggly questions about it when the Queen was in charge. Her stability, longevity and general keep-your-head-down-and-get-on-with-it approach singlehandedly lent the whole institution a credibility it doesn't really have any longer. She did a sort of weird Hari Seldon Foundation type thing by being largely invisible except for popping up at the key moments in history to reassure everyone it'd all be ok in a bit, then disappearing again.
If everyone shut up now and Charles could do a similar strong-n-stable-but-you-don't-need-to-hear-from-me-much maybe they'd get away with it, but it feels like the whole thing now has a bit of a death spiral feel to it.
No it doesn't.
The Queen was an exceptional monarch, a once in centuries head if state. However the monarchy has survived terrible monarchs, eg George IVth or Edward VIII and James IInd and Charles so far has been at least average with the popular William to come.
In any case Republicans had a once in a generation chance to elect a republican PM in 2017 and 2019 with the republican Corbyn. They failed and now both Starmer and Sunak want to keep the monarchy and back the King
The issue isn't surviving terrible monarchs. It's about surviving terrible all-of-them-at-the-moment after the only one demonstrably not terrible is no longer around to keep it all together. Now it's just sub-par horsey Kardashian shite, I think the phrase was.
Your reason for keeping them basically boils down to "we've had them for a long time even when they've been shit". It's not exactly a hugely enticing proposition.
Rubbish. Just you Republicans have an ideological agenda to destroy probably the most unique, historic and globally visible thing we have in the UK and which still unites the nation way more than any Labour or Conservative President ever could.
In Brazil and the US mobs are even storming their Parliaments their Presidential elections are so divisive. Our constitutional monarchy works
Republicans want to destroy Manchester United?
Know several in Ireland who are (or at least were) huge MU fans.
I was assuming he meant hatred of Man Utd united the country.
Being a constitutional monarchy also helped ensure the UK was the only major European nation that avoided having a Fascist or Communist leader by 1940 (a few other smaller constitutional monarchies like Sweden followed suit).
Now too, in the US republic the far right Trump has been President and may return and in the French republic the right is led by the far right Le Pen who may yet become President in 2027.
Yeah but this is a lesson in being a parliamentary system, rather than being a monarchy.
Being a constitutional monarchy also helped ensure the UK was the only major European nation that avoided having a Fascist or Communist leader by 1940 (a few other smaller constitutional monarchies like Sweden followed suit).
Now too, in the US republic the far right Trump has been President and may return and in the French republic the right is led by the far right Le Pen who may yet become President in 2027.
Yeah but this is a lesson in being a parliamentary system, rather than being a monarchy.
I also love your move to anti-Trumpism. Weren't you all about excusing the coup attempt?
Rishi’s strike abolition gambit shows again why he has astonishingly bad political judgement.
His instincts are totally out of sync with with British people’s.
Spot on. But is it just bad judgement or forced on a weak leader in behind the scene compromises?
Hunt briefs we should rejoin EU - Sunak position too weak to sack him - Leaky Sue calls asylum seekers invading force, Sunak’s position too weak to sack her.
He is balancing a fractious party at the end of the day, we need to keep remembering this.
Did Hunt say or hint he wanted to rejoin the EU?
He was explicit - said UK needs unfettered’ trade with EU. That can only be one thing, can’t it?
No. We could have unfettered trade with the EU by a number of routes. The most obvious is joining the EEA via EFTA. There is absolutely no need to rejoin the EU for that.
Oh and Robert is right, you are not using 'explicit' in its proper meaning. I believe what you should have said was 'implicit'.
“We could have unfettered trade with the EU by a number of routes. The most obvious is joining the EEA via EFTA.”
Why don’t we then?
Because we have politicians who lack both conviction and ability. Because both our politicians and our chattering classes (including on PB) are still fighting yesterdays wars. Because our politics is still too divided for people be able to look sensibly at compromises.
There are myriad reasons. These are just three of them.
"You can get a certificate on the basis of self-ID... of course men are going to use that, it has happened," says Guardian's Sonia Sodha on Scottish gender reforms
"You don't make law based on single instances," says barrister Robin White
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
If you don't find Meghan extraordinarily beautiful then I assume in the most non judgemental sense in the world that you are gay. Then again if you can't pick the looker out of Haz and pudding head, you can't be. So I conclude this is really about something else.
She is alright, if I was single I definitely would be interested. However, she's not in the top 1%. I was in Paris this weekend and more than a few women who were more beautiful than her
I'd rather go to bed with one of the failed Sigourney Weaver clones in Alien: Resurrected.
Can we choose for you?
Not thinking specifically of CR here: but the chatter today has made me reflect that it's curious how many PB royalists feel that they can pick and choose from amongst the RF. Completely misses the logic, indeed USP, of having a royal family.
The fundamental difference between a constitutional monarchy and an absolute monarchy is that in a constitutional monarchy the country chooses its monarch and in an absolute monarchy the royal family fight over the inheritance between themselves.
Britain has replaced a number of unsuitable monarchs since becoming a constitutional monarchy. The idea that there's a risk of the country being stuck with an Andrew as King is false. If necessary Parliament can act if the monarch doesn't keep to their side of the constitutional bargain.
I'm instinctively a Republican, but I'm also amused at how Royalists and Republicans conspire to elevate the monarchy to a more powerful role than it possesses.
Indeed, otherwise Charles Ist, James IInd and Edward VIIIth would never have been removed
The first one was only removed via a bloody civil war. While the second ran away when foreign troops landed in the UK.
So I'm not sure that's the killer point you think it is.
The Queen passing was as good a reason as any is ever going to exist to properly consider whether we really need or want a monarchy or not.
I think many folk were quite happy not to think about it too much or ask probing niggly questions about it when the Queen was in charge. Her stability, longevity and general keep-your-head-down-and-get-on-with-it approach singlehandedly lent the whole institution a credibility it doesn't really have any longer. She did a sort of weird Hari Seldon Foundation type thing by being largely invisible except for popping up at the key moments in history to reassure everyone it'd all be ok in a bit, then disappearing again.
If everyone shut up now and Charles could do a similar strong-n-stable-but-you-don't-need-to-hear-from-me-much maybe they'd get away with it, but it feels like the whole thing now has a bit of a death spiral feel to it.
No it doesn't.
The Queen was an exceptional monarch, a once in centuries head if state. However the monarchy has survived terrible monarchs, eg George IVth or Edward VIII and James IInd and Charles so far has been at least average with the popular William to come.
In any case Republicans had a once in a generation chance to elect a republican PM in 2017 and 2019 with the republican Corbyn. They failed and now both Starmer and Sunak want to keep the monarchy and back the King
The issue isn't surviving terrible monarchs. It's about surviving terrible all-of-them-at-the-moment after the only one demonstrably not terrible is no longer around to keep it all together. Now it's just sub-par horsey Kardashian shite, I think the phrase was.
Your reason for keeping them basically boils down to "we've had them for a long time even when they've been shit". It's not exactly a hugely enticing proposition.
The Prince and Princess of Wales clearly aren't terrible though.
The Queen passing was as good a reason as any is ever going to exist to properly consider whether we really need or want a monarchy or not.
I think many folk were quite happy not to think about it too much or ask probing niggly questions about it when the Queen was in charge. Her stability, longevity and general keep-your-head-down-and-get-on-with-it approach singlehandedly lent the whole institution a credibility it doesn't really have any longer. She did a sort of weird Hari Seldon Foundation type thing by being largely invisible except for popping up at the key moments in history to reassure everyone it'd all be ok in a bit, then disappearing again.
If everyone shut up now and Charles could do a similar strong-n-stable-but-you-don't-need-to-hear-from-me-much maybe they'd get away with it, but it feels like the whole thing now has a bit of a death spiral feel to it.
No it doesn't.
The Queen was an exceptional monarch, a once in centuries head if state. However the monarchy has survived terrible monarchs, eg George IVth or Edward VIII and James IInd and Charles so far has been at least average with the popular William to come.
In any case Republicans had a once in a generation chance to elect a republican PM in 2017 and 2019 with the republican Corbyn. They failed and now both Starmer and Sunak want to keep the monarchy and back the King
The issue isn't surviving terrible monarchs. It's about surviving terrible all-of-them-at-the-moment after the only one demonstrably not terrible is no longer around to keep it all together. Now it's just sub-par horsey Kardashian shite, I think the phrase was.
Your reason for keeping them basically boils down to "we've had them for a long time even when they've been shit". It's not exactly a hugely enticing proposition.
No, the reason for keeping them is it is a better way to run the country than the alternative. No system is perfect but the constitutional monarchy system run in many European countries including the UK is far better than a republic.
Other than the ceremonial stuff, they're only doing a good job when they're not involved in actually running stuff, like a good referee.
I'm sure we can find literally anyone else to do the same mostly invisible, supposedly thankless role without fundamentally altering the rest of the structure and instantly removing the need for all the other elements of the Royal family.
Not so. They embody the nation separated from politics. Any elected head of state is inevitably an overtly political figure and as such is a source of division rather than unity. This is a powerful function both internally and externally. Something the Queen understood well and I hope the King will also understand.
The Queen passing was as good a reason as any is ever going to exist to properly consider whether we really need or want a monarchy or not.
I think many folk were quite happy not to think about it too much or ask probing niggly questions about it when the Queen was in charge. Her stability, longevity and general keep-your-head-down-and-get-on-with-it approach singlehandedly lent the whole institution a credibility it doesn't really have any longer. She did a sort of weird Hari Seldon Foundation type thing by being largely invisible except for popping up at the key moments in history to reassure everyone it'd all be ok in a bit, then disappearing again.
If everyone shut up now and Charles could do a similar strong-n-stable-but-you-don't-need-to-hear-from-me-much maybe they'd get away with it, but it feels like the whole thing now has a bit of a death spiral feel to it.
No it doesn't.
The Queen was an exceptional monarch, a once in centuries head if state. However the monarchy has survived terrible monarchs, eg George IVth or Edward VIII and James IInd and Charles so far has been at least average with the popular William to come.
In any case Republicans had a once in a generation chance to elect a republican PM in 2017 and 2019 with the republican Corbyn. They failed and now both Starmer and Sunak want to keep the monarchy and back the King
The issue isn't surviving terrible monarchs. It's about surviving terrible all-of-them-at-the-moment after the only one demonstrably not terrible is no longer around to keep it all together. Now it's just sub-par horsey Kardashian shite, I think the phrase was.
Your reason for keeping them basically boils down to "we've had them for a long time even when they've been shit". It's not exactly a hugely enticing proposition.
No, the reason for keeping them is it is a better way to run the country than the alternative. No system is perfect but the constitutional monarchy system run in many European countries including the UK is far better than a republic.
Other than the ceremonial stuff, they're only doing a good job when they're not involved in actually running stuff, like a good referee.
I'm sure we can find literally anyone else to do the same mostly invisible, supposedly thankless role without fundamentally altering the rest of the structure and instantly removing the need for all the other elements of the Royal family.
Not so. They embody the nation separated from politics. Any elected head of state is inevitably an overtly political figure and as such is a source of division rather than unity. This is a powerful function both internally and externally. Something the Queen understood well and I hope the King will also understand.
It only works if the monarch also embodies the values that the country identifies with though. In the British case, that is hard work, stoicism, unfailing good manners, mixing with the common folk.
Question the algorithm, when on YouTube am shown following ads in sequence:
1. Advertisement touting the convenience and "you're always at home" feeling of a private jet.
2. Ad for Fabreeze, a plastic pod filled with room deodorizer, in variety of scents, you stick to a wall.
Are these truly cross-over products, appealing to similar consumers?
AND what makes anyone think, that I personally am a likely - albeit targeted - consumer of either?
I think you're rather overestimating the power of AI (you're not alone on this site). There isn't a homunculus in there making a considered assessment of your life style, loves and needs. It's a program with lots of curly brackets chucking stuff to you based on a log of your previous searches and selections.
The Queen passing was as good a reason as any is ever going to exist to properly consider whether we really need or want a monarchy or not.
I think many folk were quite happy not to think about it too much or ask probing niggly questions about it when the Queen was in charge. Her stability, longevity and general keep-your-head-down-and-get-on-with-it approach singlehandedly lent the whole institution a credibility it doesn't really have any longer. She did a sort of weird Hari Seldon Foundation type thing by being largely invisible except for popping up at the key moments in history to reassure everyone it'd all be ok in a bit, then disappearing again.
If everyone shut up now and Charles could do a similar strong-n-stable-but-you-don't-need-to-hear-from-me-much maybe they'd get away with it, but it feels like the whole thing now has a bit of a death spiral feel to it.
No it doesn't.
The Queen was an exceptional monarch, a once in centuries head if state. However the monarchy has survived terrible monarchs, eg George IVth or Edward VIII and James IInd and Charles so far has been at least average with the popular William to come.
In any case Republicans had a once in a generation chance to elect a republican PM in 2017 and 2019 with the republican Corbyn. They failed and now both Starmer and Sunak want to keep the monarchy and back the King
The issue isn't surviving terrible monarchs. It's about surviving terrible all-of-them-at-the-moment after the only one demonstrably not terrible is no longer around to keep it all together. Now it's just sub-par horsey Kardashian shite, I think the phrase was.
Your reason for keeping them basically boils down to "we've had them for a long time even when they've been shit". It's not exactly a hugely enticing proposition.
No, the reason for keeping them is it is a better way to run the country than the alternative. No system is perfect but the constitutional monarchy system run in many European countries including the UK is far better than a republic.
Other than the ceremonial stuff, they're only doing a good job when they're not involved in actually running stuff, like a good referee.
I'm sure we can find literally anyone else to do the same mostly invisible, supposedly thankless role without fundamentally altering the rest of the structure and instantly removing the need for all the other elements of the Royal family.
Not so. They embody the nation separated from politics. Any elected head of state is inevitably an overtly political figure and as such is a source of division rather than unity. This is a powerful function both internally and externally. Something the Queen understood well and I hope the King will also understand.
It only works if the monarch also embodies the values that the country identifies with though. In the British case, that is hard work, stoicism, unfailing good manners, mixing with the common folk.
Oh I agree it is by no means a given. Each new Monarch has to work to reaffirm their position. We were very lucky with the last two Monarchs and only time will tell how things work out for Charles and them William. But they still serve a massively important function within the nation.
The Queen passing was as good a reason as any is ever going to exist to properly consider whether we really need or want a monarchy or not.
I think many folk were quite happy not to think about it too much or ask probing niggly questions about it when the Queen was in charge. Her stability, longevity and general keep-your-head-down-and-get-on-with-it approach singlehandedly lent the whole institution a credibility it doesn't really have any longer. She did a sort of weird Hari Seldon Foundation type thing by being largely invisible except for popping up at the key moments in history to reassure everyone it'd all be ok in a bit, then disappearing again.
If everyone shut up now and Charles could do a similar strong-n-stable-but-you-don't-need-to-hear-from-me-much maybe they'd get away with it, but it feels like the whole thing now has a bit of a death spiral feel to it.
No it doesn't.
The Queen was an exceptional monarch, a once in centuries head if state. However the monarchy has survived terrible monarchs, eg George IVth or Edward VIII and James IInd and Charles so far has been at least average with the popular William to come.
In any case Republicans had a once in a generation chance to elect a republican PM in 2017 and 2019 with the republican Corbyn. They failed and now both Starmer and Sunak want to keep the monarchy and back the King
The issue isn't surviving terrible monarchs. It's about surviving terrible all-of-them-at-the-moment after the only one demonstrably not terrible is no longer around to keep it all together. Now it's just sub-par horsey Kardashian shite, I think the phrase was.
Your reason for keeping them basically boils down to "we've had them for a long time even when they've been shit". It's not exactly a hugely enticing proposition.
No, the reason for keeping them is it is a better way to run the country than the alternative. No system is perfect but the constitutional monarchy system run in many European countries including the UK is far better than a republic.
Other than the ceremonial stuff, they're only doing a good job when they're not involved in actually running stuff, like a good referee.
I'm sure we can find literally anyone else to do the same mostly invisible, supposedly thankless role without fundamentally altering the rest of the structure and instantly removing the need for all the other elements of the Royal family.
Not so. They embody the nation separated from politics. Any elected head of state is inevitably an overtly political figure and as such is a source of division rather than unity. This is a powerful function both internally and externally. Something the Queen understood well and I hope the King will also understand.
That's fair enough - you make a reasonable and fair argument.
I can't help but feel it comes back to the "it's good to have them precisely because they're so studiously blandly neutral" thing, but I can accept the point that an elected head of state is potentially going to have a political element to it. Although I don't feel like that needs to be an absolute given if you set it up the right way.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
If you don't find Meghan extraordinarily beautiful then I assume in the most non judgemental sense in the world that you are gay. Then again if you can't pick the looker out of Haz and pudding head, you can't be. So I conclude this is really about something else.
She is alright, if I was single I definitely would be interested. However, she's not in the top 1%. I was in Paris this weekend and more than a few women who were more beautiful than her
I'd rather go to bed with one of the failed Sigourney Weaver clones in Alien: Resurrected.
But if the pegsters and their three wains died tomorrow in a freak gardening accident you would be doctrinally obliged to have a stiffy like the Eiffel tower for her. Nowt so queer as monarchists.
The one thing we can say is that Harry, Meghan, William, Kate... hell, even Charles and Camilla... all are better lookers than the stunted, flabby-pecked gollum in charge of Russia.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
Harry is easily the most intelligent out of himself, his brother, his moronic father, and his uncle Andrew. But that isn't saying much.
Have you been drinking?
No. I'm teetotal like Trump and Biden. I get it that monarchists don't like Harry, but why do people think he is a moron? He seems to have made a lot of effort to piece stuff together, and to be in possession of a backbone too.
There's been little scope for disagreement about Andrew's foolishness since his Woking interview. His brother the monarch? See the Harmony book - not the writing style, but what he says and how he thinks. For William, see his joking about SARSCoV2. Harry was an idiot in the past, but he seems to have done a commendable job of pulling his socks up, with that presumably being the alternative to succumbing, just as he says. I reckon there's a lot of honesty in his book, such as his account of fantasising after his mother's death that she had faked her demise. Seems highly unlikely that that was made up to sell books. He is courageous.
More when I've finished reading it. I'll be annoyed if he doesn't mention carboxyhaemoglobin.
The Queen passing was as good a reason as any is ever going to exist to properly consider whether we really need or want a monarchy or not.
I think many folk were quite happy not to think about it too much or ask probing niggly questions about it when the Queen was in charge. Her stability, longevity and general keep-your-head-down-and-get-on-with-it approach singlehandedly lent the whole institution a credibility it doesn't really have any longer. She did a sort of weird Hari Seldon Foundation type thing by being largely invisible except for popping up at the key moments in history to reassure everyone it'd all be ok in a bit, then disappearing again.
If everyone shut up now and Charles could do a similar strong-n-stable-but-you-don't-need-to-hear-from-me-much maybe they'd get away with it, but it feels like the whole thing now has a bit of a death spiral feel to it.
No it doesn't.
The Queen was an exceptional monarch, a once in centuries head if state. However the monarchy has survived terrible monarchs, eg George IVth or Edward VIII and James IInd and Charles so far has been at least average with the popular William to come.
In any case Republicans had a once in a generation chance to elect a republican PM in 2017 and 2019 with the republican Corbyn. They failed and now both Starmer and Sunak want to keep the monarchy and back the King
The issue isn't surviving terrible monarchs. It's about surviving terrible all-of-them-at-the-moment after the only one demonstrably not terrible is no longer around to keep it all together. Now it's just sub-par horsey Kardashian shite, I think the phrase was.
Your reason for keeping them basically boils down to "we've had them for a long time even when they've been shit". It's not exactly a hugely enticing proposition.
No, the reason for keeping them is it is a better way to run the country than the alternative. No system is perfect but the constitutional monarchy system run in many European countries including the UK is far better than a republic.
Other than the ceremonial stuff, they're only doing a good job when they're not involved in actually running stuff, like a good referee.
I'm sure we can find literally anyone else to do the same mostly invisible, supposedly thankless role without fundamentally altering the rest of the structure and instantly removing the need for all the other elements of the Royal family.
Not so. They embody the nation separated from politics. Any elected head of state is inevitably an overtly political figure and as such is a source of division rather than unity. This is a powerful function both internally and externally. Something the Queen understood well and I hope the King will also understand.
That's fair enough - you make a reasonable and fair argument.
I can't help but feel it comes back to the "it's good to have them precisely because they're so studiously blandly neutral" thing, but I can accept the point that an elected head of state is potentially going to have a political element to it. Although I don't feel like that needs to be an absolute given if you set it up the right way.
I suppose the trouble is that no one has ever tried - or rather ever succeeded. Some countries have had individual presidents who have manged to remain apolitical but that has only been because that individual has been of such a stature prior to becoming President that politics played no real part in getting them elected. And also that they had no interest in confrontational politics after they were elected. I am thinking particularly of Vaclav Havel in Czechoslovakia. But those were pretty unique circumstances.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
If you don't find Meghan extraordinarily beautiful then I assume in the most non judgemental sense in the world that you are gay. Then again if you can't pick the looker out of Haz and pudding head, you can't be. So I conclude this is really about something else.
She is alright, if I was single I definitely would be interested. However, she's not in the top 1%. I was in Paris this weekend and more than a few women who were more beautiful than her
I'd rather go to bed with one of the failed Sigourney Weaver clones in Alien: Resurrected.
Can we choose for you?
Not thinking specifically of CR here: but the chatter today has made me reflect that it's curious how many PB royalists feel that they can pick and choose from amongst the RF. Completely misses the logic, indeed USP, of having a royal family.
The fundamental difference between a constitutional monarchy and an absolute monarchy is that in a constitutional monarchy the country chooses its monarch and in an absolute monarchy the royal family fight over the inheritance between themselves.
Britain has replaced a number of unsuitable monarchs since becoming a constitutional monarchy. The idea that there's a risk of the country being stuck with an Andrew as King is false. If necessary Parliament can act if the monarch doesn't keep to their side of the constitutional bargain.
I'm instinctively a Republican, but I'm also amused at how Royalists and Republicans conspire to elevate the monarchy to a more powerful role than it possesses.
Indeed, otherwise Charles Ist, James IInd and Edward VIIIth would never have been removed
The first one was only removed via a bloody civil war. While the second ran away when foreign troops landed in the UK.
In England anyway. The Union was only personal then.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
If you don't find Meghan extraordinarily beautiful then I assume in the most non judgemental sense in the world that you are gay. Then again if you can't pick the looker out of Haz and pudding head, you can't be. So I conclude this is really about something else.
She is alright, if I was single I definitely would be interested. However, she's not in the top 1%. I was in Paris this weekend and more than a few women who were more beautiful than her
I'd rather go to bed with one of the failed Sigourney Weaver clones in Alien: Resurrected.
Can we choose for you?
Not thinking specifically of CR here: but the chatter today has made me reflect that it's curious how many PB royalists feel that they can pick and choose from amongst the RF. Completely misses the logic, indeed USP, of having a royal family.
The fundamental difference between a constitutional monarchy and an absolute monarchy is that in a constitutional monarchy the country chooses its monarch and in an absolute monarchy the royal family fight over the inheritance between themselves.
Britain has replaced a number of unsuitable monarchs since becoming a constitutional monarchy. The idea that there's a risk of the country being stuck with an Andrew as King is false. If necessary Parliament can act if the monarch doesn't keep to their side of the constitutional bargain.
I'm instinctively a Republican, but I'm also amused at how Royalists and Republicans conspire to elevate the monarchy to a more powerful role than it possesses.
Indeed, otherwise Charles Ist, James IInd and Edward VIIIth would never have been removed
The first one was only removed via a bloody civil war. While the second ran away when foreign troops landed in the UK.
So I'm not sure that's the killer point you think it is.
We were effectively an absolute monarchy until that civil war. James II was removed and replaced by William III by Parliament, Edward VIII was removed and replaced by George VI by Parliament is the point
The Queen passing was as good a reason as any is ever going to exist to properly consider whether we really need or want a monarchy or not.
I think many folk were quite happy not to think about it too much or ask probing niggly questions about it when the Queen was in charge. Her stability, longevity and general keep-your-head-down-and-get-on-with-it approach singlehandedly lent the whole institution a credibility it doesn't really have any longer. She did a sort of weird Hari Seldon Foundation type thing by being largely invisible except for popping up at the key moments in history to reassure everyone it'd all be ok in a bit, then disappearing again.
If everyone shut up now and Charles could do a similar strong-n-stable-but-you-don't-need-to-hear-from-me-much maybe they'd get away with it, but it feels like the whole thing now has a bit of a death spiral feel to it.
No it doesn't.
The Queen was an exceptional monarch, a once in centuries head if state. However the monarchy has survived terrible monarchs, eg George IVth or Edward VIII and James IInd and Charles so far has been at least average with the popular William to come.
In any case Republicans had a once in a generation chance to elect a republican PM in 2017 and 2019 with the republican Corbyn. They failed and now both Starmer and Sunak want to keep the monarchy and back the King
The issue isn't surviving terrible monarchs. It's about surviving terrible all-of-them-at-the-moment after the only one demonstrably not terrible is no longer around to keep it all together. Now it's just sub-par horsey Kardashian shite, I think the phrase was.
Your reason for keeping them basically boils down to "we've had them for a long time even when they've been shit". It's not exactly a hugely enticing proposition.
No, the reason for keeping them is it is a better way to run the country than the alternative. No system is perfect but the constitutional monarchy system run in many European countries including the UK is far better than a republic.
Other than the ceremonial stuff, they're only doing a good job when they're not involved in actually running stuff, like a good referee.
I'm sure we can find literally anyone else to do the same mostly invisible, supposedly thankless role without fundamentally altering the rest of the structure and instantly removing the need for all the other elements of the Royal family.
Not so. They embody the nation separated from politics. Any elected head of state is inevitably an overtly political figure and as such is a source of division rather than unity. This is a powerful function both internally and externally. Something the Queen understood well and I hope the King will also understand.
That's fair enough - you make a reasonable and fair argument.
I can't help but feel it comes back to the "it's good to have them precisely because they're so studiously blandly neutral" thing, but I can accept the point that an elected head of state is potentially going to have a political element to it. Although I don't feel like that needs to be an absolute given if you set it up the right way.
One other point I like is that the British military swear allegiance to the monarch (and through them to the people) not the Government of the day.
Being a constitutional monarchy also helped ensure the UK was the only major European nation that avoided having a Fascist or Communist leader by 1940 (a few other smaller constitutional monarchies like Sweden followed suit).
Now too, in the US republic the far right Trump has been President and may return and in the French republic the right is led by the far right Le Pen who may yet become President in 2027.
Yeah but this is a lesson in being a parliamentary system, rather than being a monarchy.
No it is a lesson in being a constitutional monarchy
Being a constitutional monarchy also helped ensure the UK was the only major European nation that avoided having a Fascist or Communist leader by 1940 (a few other smaller constitutional monarchies like Sweden followed suit).
Now too, in the US republic the far right Trump has been President and may return and in the French republic the right is led by the far right Le Pen who may yet become President in 2027.
Yeah but this is a lesson in being a parliamentary system, rather than being a monarchy.
No it is a lesson in being a constitutional monarchy
A constitution is a written body of higher law, "higher" such that new laws passed by ordinary procedure must comply with it and can be struck down if they don't, usually with there being a more stringent procedure for changing the constitution itself. (I say "usually" bearing in mind the last sentence of Article 89 of the French constitution and the Saudi despotism's position that "the Koran is our constitution".)
Goodness knows what you think a constitution is. The absence of a dictator or group of rulers who can change the law on a whim, maybe?
Firstly, as what you call a good poll has declining Tory share it continues the theme of twenty-three, Tories going backwards and the gap to Labour growing. Secondly, set amongst the 2023 polls this is one of two outliers from herding pointing to a new declining average of just 26 for where Tories now are. Delta 31, Redfield 27 then 26, Omnisis 27, yougov 25, Techne 25, people polling 22.
Any argument that average of polls points to Tories currently on 26?
Is there any hope Sunak can survive this year without being replaced by Wallace or Mourdant? Or even Boris?
Being a constitutional monarchy also helped ensure the UK was the only major European nation that avoided having a Fascist or Communist leader by 1940 (a few other smaller constitutional monarchies like Sweden followed suit).
Now too, in the US republic the far right Trump has been President and may return and in the French republic the right is led by the far right Le Pen who may yet become President in 2027.
Yeah but this is a lesson in being a parliamentary system, rather than being a monarchy.
No it is a lesson in being a constitutional monarchy
A constitution is a written body of higher law, "higher" such that new laws passed by ordinary procedure must comply with it and can be struck down if they don't, usually with there being a more stringent procedure for changing the constitution itself. (I say "usually" bearing in mind the last sentence of Article 89 of the French constitution and the Saudi despotism's position that "the Koran is our constitution".)
Goodness knows what you think a constitution is. The absence of a dictator or group of rulers who can change the law on a whim, maybe?
We have an unwritten constitution based on Crown in Parliament which works well.
The Weimar Republic had a written constitution, it did sod all to stop Hitler and the Nazis
Firstly, as what you call a good poll has declining Tory share it continues the theme of twenty-three, Tories going backwards and the gap to Labour growing. Secondly, set amongst the 2023 polls this is one of two outliers from herding pointing to a new declining average of just 26 for where Tories now are. Delta 31, Redfield 27 then 26, Omnisis 27, yougov 25, Techne 25, people polling 22.
Any argument that average of polls points to Tories currently on 26?
Is there any hope Sunak can survive this year without being replaced by Wallace or Mourdant? Or even Boris?
Sunak will survive this year. Next year when the election nears is less certain, his only viable replacement now would be Boris again
Firstly, as what you call a good poll has declining Tory share it continues the theme of twenty-three, Tories going backwards and the gap to Labour growing. Secondly, set amongst the 2023 polls this is one of two outliers from herding pointing to a new declining average of just 26 for where Tories now are. Delta 31, Redfield 27 then 26, Omnisis 27, yougov 25, Techne 25, people polling 22.
Any argument that average of polls points to Tories currently on 26?
Is there any hope Sunak can survive this year without being replaced by Wallace or Mourdant? Or even Boris?
Sunak will survive this year. Next year when the election nears is less certain, his only viable replacement now would be Boris again
You are just guessing now. but to be fair, you wanted Boris to stay and fight the election. His hideous crimes don’t seem so bad now time has passed, except when told by his Labour opponents who of course wanted him out the way. Boris yet to be found to have deliberately misled parliament. Will he? there is no clear evidence any of us have seen yet to prove that, so why are we expecting it? And when they fail to prove that, like a court calling him not guilty, that’s one half the comeback, the other half Sunak continuing to flounder around on 26%.
PMQs later today easily predictable. Sunak and the Tory’s will make a play with exactly what is on the front of The Mail - Labour opposes LIFE SAVING Laws. Starmer will respond with “how a about new life saving laws on the government, to guarantee minimum safety levels so NHS isn’t buckling, whenever the strikers are not striking.”
The press are not helping the Tories at all today. It’s noticeable the Tories and the Mail are completely alone now in pushing this attack dog approach as the vote winner. The Express has been on side of nurses for weeks, and splash, Rishi! Do a deal for Britain. The tele use headline Tory’s want, but as small secondary headline, FT say the Tories stoking anger with this approach, Independent have record 50,000 patients waiting 12 hours in A&E each week, and Times says 1,000 excess deaths every week, fifty thousand more deaths in last year than normal is proof enough NHS is buckling.
The memoir is arguably the most insightful royal book in a generation, yet still leaves readers with many questions about the monarchy unanswered Henry Mance" (via G search)
Notable that having a Constitutional Monarchy didn't protect Greece from a fascist government. Neither did it in Italy, Spain or Romania at other times in the 20th Century.
Notable that having a Constitutional Monarchy didn't protect Greece from a fascist government. Neither did it in Italy, Spain or Romania at other times in the 20th Century.
I skimmed the first 3-4 pages. So badly written I gave up.
What a stream of shite.
H8az gonna h8
This is the problem with hereditary primogeniture monarchy. On the one hand, a film star looking prince with a wife of extraordinary beauty, on the other a balding pudding married to a Hyacinth Bucket character with a permanent smirk which suggests she has just dined on her husband's testicles.. and you are duty bound to go with option b.
I’ve no idea who the “film star looking prince” and “extraordinary beauty” are.
First with Andrew, then with Harry, we dodged a bullet with the spares. Each of them is a moron.
If you don't find Meghan extraordinarily beautiful then I assume in the most non judgemental sense in the world that you are gay. Then again if you can't pick the looker out of Haz and pudding head, you can't be. So I conclude this is really about something else.
MM is very attractive. Harry is better looking than his brother.
But “extraordinary beauty” is reserved for people like Freya Allan or Natalie Dormer.
I had to Google Freya Allen. She's very pretty. Wouldn't call Natalie Dormer extraordinarily beautiful, but that's the joy of the human condition - we're all different.
I'm not.
Both OK but far from extraordinarily beautiful for sure. Someone is easily pleased.
The Queen passing was as good a reason as any is ever going to exist to properly consider whether we really need or want a monarchy or not.
I think many folk were quite happy not to think about it too much or ask probing niggly questions about it when the Queen was in charge. Her stability, longevity and general keep-your-head-down-and-get-on-with-it approach singlehandedly lent the whole institution a credibility it doesn't really have any longer. She did a sort of weird Hari Seldon Foundation type thing by being largely invisible except for popping up at the key moments in history to reassure everyone it'd all be ok in a bit, then disappearing again.
If everyone shut up now and Charles could do a similar strong-n-stable-but-you-don't-need-to-hear-from-me-much maybe they'd get away with it, but it feels like the whole thing now has a bit of a death spiral feel to it.
No it doesn't.
The Queen was an exceptional monarch, a once in centuries head if state. However the monarchy has survived terrible monarchs, eg George IVth or Edward VIII and James IInd and Charles so far has been at least average with the popular William to come.
In any case Republicans had a once in a generation chance to elect a republican PM in 2017 and 2019 with the republican Corbyn. They failed and now both Starmer and Sunak want to keep the monarchy and back the King
The issue isn't surviving terrible monarchs. It's about surviving terrible all-of-them-at-the-moment after the only one demonstrably not terrible is no longer around to keep it all together. Now it's just sub-par horsey Kardashian shite, I think the phrase was.
Your reason for keeping them basically boils down to "we've had them for a long time even when they've been shit". It's not exactly a hugely enticing proposition.
No, the reason for keeping them is it is a better way to run the country than the alternative. No system is perfect but the constitutional monarchy system run in many European countries including the UK is far better than a republic.
They do not run anything , just a bunch of bloodsucking parasites.
Notable that having a Constitutional Monarchy didn't protect Greece from a fascist government. Neither did it in Italy, Spain or Romania at other times in the 20th Century.
Notable that having a Constitutional Monarchy didn't protect Greece from a fascist government. Neither did it in Italy, Spain or Romania at other times in the 20th Century.
Or indeed Yugoslavia, Egypt, Morocco.
And Japan...
Egypt has no monarchy and is in effect a military dictatorship now. Yugoslavia's monarch led the government in exile to the Nazis. As did Greece's monarch
I have discovered another gem in my wanderings in the undergrowth of 19th century classical music, Piano Concerto in E minor by Mihaly Mosonyi. That was his stage name - he was born Michael Brand ( but still Hungarian). His symphony No. 1 is also good. Now looking at Ludwig Spohr ( sometimes called Louis). He wrote 18 violin concertos and was said to rival Beethoven.
Comments
In Brazil and the US mobs are even storming their Parliaments their Presidential elections are so divisive. Our constitutional monarchy works
Britain has replaced a number of unsuitable monarchs since becoming a constitutional monarchy. The idea that there's a risk of the country being stuck with an Andrew as King is false. If necessary Parliament can act if the monarch doesn't keep to their side of the constitutional bargain.
I'm instinctively a Republican, but I'm also amused at how Royalists and Republicans conspire to elevate the monarchy to a more powerful role than it possesses.
Why don’t we then?
I might stay here in Yorkshire looking after sheep, guiding them around and writing poetry on my phone, whilst they graze or watch their lambs play around.
What is my life if, full of care,
it has no time to sit and stare.
To watch them wander around,
like little clouds,
Floating o'er the hills and dales.
How sweet is this shepherds lot,
From early morn to evening strays;
She shall follow her flock all the day,
And all her poems shall be filled with praise.
It's globally visible, fine. I'll give you that. Is it sufficient on its own?
You'll notice, by the way, that I stick to the substance of the topic in question without resorting to getting snippy and personal attacks, unlike yourself.
Now too, in the US republic the far right Trump has been President and may return and in the French republic the right is led by the far right Le Pen who may yet become President in 2027.
You pick a side. That side is more beautiful, intelligent…. The other side are evil subhumans.
"You don't make law based on single instances," says barrister Robin White
https://bbc.in/3IGE21Z #PoliticsLive
https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1612806209953992711
Worth watching the video.
France admittedly only fell to Fascism due to Nazi invasion but given over 40% of the French voted for the far right Le Pen for President last year they may make up for that and finally elect a far right President in 2027.
Our constitution based on Crown in Parliament works. Note too that none of the Commonwealth realms such as Australia, Canada and NZ have fallen to Fascism or Communism either
Because both our politicians and our chattering classes (including on PB) are still fighting yesterdays wars.
Because our politics is still too divided for people be able to look sensibly at compromises.
There are myriad reasons. These are just three of them.
So I'm not sure that's the killer point you think it is.
1. Advertisement touting the convenience and "you're always at home" feeling of a private jet.
2. Ad for Fabreeze, a plastic pod filled with room deodorizer, in variety of scents, you stick to a wall.
Are these truly cross-over products, appealing to similar consumers?
AND what makes anyone think, that I personally am a likely - albeit targeted - consumer of either?
I can't help but feel it comes back to the "it's good to have them precisely because they're so studiously blandly neutral" thing, but I can accept the point that an elected head of state is potentially going to have a political element to it. Although I don't feel like that needs to be an absolute given if you set it up the right way.
There's been little scope for disagreement about Andrew's foolishness since his Woking interview. His brother the monarch? See the Harmony book - not the writing style, but what he says and how he thinks. For William, see his joking about SARSCoV2. Harry was an idiot in the past, but he seems to have done a commendable job of pulling his socks up, with that presumably being the alternative to succumbing, just as he says. I reckon there's a lot of honesty in his book, such as his account of fantasising after his mother's death that she had faked her demise. Seems highly unlikely that that was made up to sell books. He is courageous.
More when I've finished reading it. I'll be annoyed if he doesn't mention carboxyhaemoglobin.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-64231261
https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/constantine-former-king-greece-dies-82-96346462
Lab 45%
Con 31%
LD 9%
Green 5%
SNP 3%
Reform 3%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
Goodness knows what you think a constitution is. The absence of a dictator or group of rulers who can change the law on a whim, maybe?
Delta 31, Redfield 27 then 26, Omnisis 27, yougov 25, Techne 25, people polling 22.
Any argument that average of polls points to Tories currently on 26?
Is there any hope Sunak can survive this year without being replaced by Wallace or Mourdant? Or even Boris?
The Weimar Republic had a written constitution, it did sod all to stop Hitler and the Nazis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Constitution#:~:text=The Constitution of the German,era (1919–1933).
PMQs later today easily predictable.
Sunak and the Tory’s will make a play with exactly what is on the front of The Mail - Labour opposes LIFE SAVING Laws.
Starmer will respond with “how a about new life saving laws on the government, to guarantee minimum safety levels so NHS isn’t buckling, whenever the strikers are not striking.”
The press are not helping the Tories at all today. It’s noticeable the Tories and the Mail are completely alone now in pushing this attack dog approach as the vote winner. The Express has been on side of nurses for weeks, and splash, Rishi! Do a deal for Britain. The tele use headline Tory’s want, but as small secondary headline, FT say the Tories stoking anger with this approach, Independent have record 50,000 patients waiting 12 hours in A&E each week, and Times says 1,000 excess deaths every week, fifty thousand more deaths in last year than normal is proof enough NHS is buckling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic
The memoir is arguably the most insightful royal book in a generation, yet still leaves readers with many questions about the monarchy unanswered
Henry Mance" (via G search)
https://www.ft.com/content/d805d715-6138-4336-b806-145e9a03c9f0
And Japan...