I believe it's also considered treason to stick stamps on with the Queen's head pointing down. I used to always stick the stamps on upside down.
Fk the acts......abolish the parasites......same can be said for calling your kid Jesus......must be pronounced jezuse....or it's blasphemy.....fk off init fking illusionist keep your illusion 2 yourselves and stop pushing it on John doe
I wish I was.....these fk wits of religion and royal illusions are oppressing us from birth.......i play no part apart point my finger in the asylums direction.
I don't think the UK is perfect; politically, it's hanging by the skin of its teeth. Look at the NHS. God only knows how long that's going to last! I'm amazed it's gone on this long! What I am saying is, monarchy v republic: just what is the difference, except hereditary? UK, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium, Monarco in Europe are all monarchies and they thrive for one purpose: because the majority want them and are used to them. No more, no less. They are paid representatives and no more. BUT they are not absolute, meaning they hold no power now. Click our fingers and they'll be facing Sue Townsend land. In the past, in the UK, with your Richard III, for example. they were the absolutes. They were soon sorted out. There was a spell of republicanism with Cromwell. That didn't last long. Look back at UK royal history and see how bloody complicated it is. Our present royal family descends from bloody Germans FFS. There has been British brutality, the example of India being a prime example on a par with Naziism IMO; since then, no. The empire has dissolved and quite rightly. Those in the royal family are born into it and it's not their fault. I saw a short programme on BBC News yesterday called Witness. They interviewed the ex-King of Bulgaria who was exiled and became their Prime Minister ten years later. It was a shame what happened to him and his family and it was all down to Bulgaria being annexed by Russia after WWII, then the wall came down, so he was able to return, form a political party and call himself Prime Minister when he was democratically elected (but not king). In the same programme Princess Olga Romanov of Russia was interviewed after her uncle the Tsar Nicholas' and his family's remains were found and reburied in 1998 and she attended the funeral; although Russia is a republic she has the right to retain her status as a princess, although I believe she cannot claim to be a royal, though judging by Wiki she lives comfortably. She was absolutely distraught and why, because she knew no other way of life. You are what you are and born into what you are born into. Them's the breaks.
Britain has a number of problems, and whereas I am obviously against the Royal Family myself, to be honest I do think there are more pressing concerns. 1) the house of lords. 2) creeping nanny and surveillance state. I can't comment on the NHS current status. had no problems with it 20+ years ago... I've not had to rely on it in forever though. I guarantee it's still better than the US and 90% of other countries. House of Lords bugs me more than royal family because they DO have powers. I think a second house is a good idea, but there shouldn't be any "Lord's" in it. That's related to the royalty to me... But a step worse.
Foucault said it isn't a good thing for democracies when the same person serves as both a symbolic head of state and the chief executive of a nation. Just look at Trump to see why.
People seem to believe the Monarch has no power. This is not true. The UK parliament has three parts: 650 MPs in the House of Commons; over 750 Members of the House of Lords; and the Monarch. The Monarch signs their name to every Act of Parliament before it can become law. No Monarch has refused for over 300 years. But that doesn't mean they can't. The Monarch opens Parliament and appoints the leader of the winning party in an election as Prime Minister. If they haven't needed this power in over 300 years, why hang onto it? It all became clear to me when my dad explained that the armed forces, of which he was a part, pledge allegiance to the Monarch. Not the people, not the state, not parliament and not the government of the day. And that power people think the Monarch doesn't have will continue to be given to Parliament provided we plebs continue to behave and stay fairly central politically. But as soon the Secret Services, who also swear allegiance to the Monarch, notice that the sale of Kalashnikovs is rising, you'll find a tank on your lawn. You don't get to keep that kind of wealth and power without being ruthless. Monarchists say the royals bring in money: estimates seem to vary between £500m and £1.8bn. In 2016-17 the Sovereign Grant was £42.8m. Republicans say that total is calculated including tourist attractions which aren't really part of their role and are more historic elements which would continue to attract tourists even without them: the Tower of London, Buckingham Palace, Westminster Abbey, etc. When these are stripped out, the figure goes into the red and they're costing us £333.9m a year. Indeed, without the royals, revenue from tourism would possibly be increased if tourists could wander around Buckingham Palace and Balmoral, while losses from the duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall could be eliminated.
Technically they have those powers. The moment they try to exercise any of those official powers though is the moment that their popularity fades from 60 something % pro monarchy to 6%. It would be interesting to see what happened if the royals refused to sign a law or contradicted parliament. I don't think things would go the royals way.
There's a reason it hasn't happened since Anne... it would trigger a constitutional crisis. Same goes for the Military. It's known that Elizabeth privately thought our actions over Suez and later Iraq were dubious to say the least but gave unconditional support to the PM of the day as the role of the Monarch is clear. I said it earlier... the Monarchs neutrality and diplomacy is assured as it is the only way the Monarch will continue to exist. Even Charles realises this. Yes, while the constitutional "norms" are as they stand the possibility is there I suppose. But hey....countries with no royalty have had military coup...Rule of law only exists when everyone buys into the compact. Even formal separation of powers and checks and balances relies on the separate bodies actually doing the checking... The US hasn't officially been at war since 1945.....
