The King

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
dansafcman said:
I'm no way a monarchist, and it's a bit strange having French people coming up to me giving me their condolences, but I've got a few mates who are all about getting rid of the monarchy and I really don't understand it.

Cost for the tax payers? I reckon more than enough comes back in from tourism,and as some one said above, the crown estates.

They basically have no power,or will never wield it.

And it's crazy how the monarchy is held in such high regard outside of the UK (with some exceptions of course). I really don't think a president as head of state would work for the UK.
Click to expand...

When I hear this I tend to ask what alternative they propose.
The usual responses are along the lines of --

1 Elected President who is merely a figurehead with The Government having the Power.
The Irish Republic is an example,

2 An elected President who rules, hopefully for a specified time.
The USofA is an example of this.

For Example, 1 I see little difference to the existing system except that the incumbent will almost certainly represent one of the Political Party's and will be biased.

For Example 2, think Trump. But sometimes a Jimmy Carter comes along.

Also it's hard to see much in the way of cost savings, whichever system might be preferred.
They will need a large establishment for State occasions. Their Families will need State Protection and of course they will need a salary.
Basicly, THEY will need all the trappings of State currently enjoyed by The King.
Unless it is intended to confiscate The Crown Estates, they will bring in no external income.
There are numerous examples of Presidents who have bled their country dry, in cash terms,
Presidents who get the Military behind them and refuse to move.
Presidents who's moral conduct makes The Duke of York look quite normal.

But, most of all my argument is that practical response, IF IT AINT BROKE, DON'T MEND IT.
 
  • Like
Reactions: C Montgomery Burns, gelders pie, OldArgus and 7 others
polyphemus said:
When I hear this I tend to ask what alternative they propose.
The usual responses are along the lines of --

1 Elected President who is merely a figurehead with The Government having the Power.
The Irish Republic is an example,

2 An elected President who rules, hopefully for a specified time.
The USofA is an example of this.

For Example, 1 I see little difference to the existing system except that the incumbent will almost certainly represent one of the Political Party's and will be biased.

For Example 2, think Trump. But sometimes a Jimmy Carter comes along.

Also it's hard to see much in the way of cost savings, whichever system might be preferred.
They will need a large establishment for State occasions. Their Families will need State Protection and of course they will need a salary.
Basicly, THEY will need all the trappings of State currently enjoyed by The King.
Unless it is intended to confiscate The Crown Estates, they will bring in no external income.
There are numerous examples of Presidents who have bled their country dry, in cash terms,
Presidents who get the Military behind them and refuse to move.
Presidents who's moral conduct makes The Duke of York look quite normal.

But, most of all my argument is that practical response, IF IT AINT BROKE, DON'T MEND IT.
Click to expand...
Sensible post and not disagreeing at all. Can I also add -

If we did take back the crown estates, would they be kept as national parks and houses? Run by the national trust? Parts sold off to fund the upkeep of them? Would they have the attraction of tourists without the royal family?

The existing royal family would still need protection or do those that oppose them say tough, sort your own security out?
 
Chunksafc said:
Sensible post and not disagreeing at all. Can I also add -

If we did take back the crown estates, would they be kept as national parks and houses? Run by the national trust? Parts sold off to fund the upkeep of them? Would they have the attraction of tourists without the royal family?

The existing royal family would still need protection or do those that oppose them say tough, sort your own security out?
Click to expand...
My wife was saying yesterday that she'd read something which suggested that the King is insisting that many of the palaces, including Balmoral, will have to be opened up to visitors for longer, or completely, as they have to pay for themselves. Don't know how much truth there is in that but its certainly interesting.
 
The Norton Cat said:
My wife was saying yesterday that she'd read something which suggested that the King is insisting that many of the palaces, including Balmoral, will have to be opened up to visitors for longer, or completely, as they have to pay for themselves. Don't know how much truth there is in that but its certainly interesting.
Click to expand...
I saw a headline that said the King was considering giving up Balmoral. Will be interesting to see what actually happens these next few weeks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Norton Cat
Chunksafc said:
I saw a headline that said the King was considering giving up Balmoral. Will be interesting to see what actually happens these next few weeks.
Click to expand...
They keep suggesting things on the TV coverage about him reducing costs and things like that. Sounds like he listens to what's being said in the wider world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chunksafc
Just watched the King's address, and the speeches of the speakers, in Westminster Hall. I find all of this ceremonial stuff fascinating. This kind of stuff doesn't happen everyday but it's links to the history of this country root it in everything that makes Britain what it is.
Gyles Brandreth talking about the relationships between MPs and between Parliament and the monarch is also really interesting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: C Montgomery Burns and Blond Bombshell
Chunksafc said:
Sensible post and not disagreeing at all. Can I also add -

If we did take back the crown estates, would they be kept as national parks and houses? Run by the national trust? Parts sold off to fund the upkeep of them? Would they have the attraction of tourists without the royal family?

The existing royal family would still need protection or do those that oppose them say tough, sort your own security out?
Click to expand...

:emoticon-0102-bigsm
The King would be off to Romania, where he has a holiday home and apparently loves the place.

York to Thailand where he could indulge his hobby.

Anne to Scotland where she could annoy the midges. (I suspect that she would carry on with her charities work as if there had been no change.)

Edward is so low profile that he could remain in London without causing a stir.

William could get a job flying rescue/medical helicopters in Wales.

Harry could stay in The USofA, giving TV Interviews till kingdom come.
 
The Norton Cat said:
Did you watch it? You could see the emotion in his face. I expect he knew all this would happen but it must make the grieving harder.
Click to expand...
Yeah, held it together well, top bloke. After the speaches with the MPs, thought the Speaker of the House wouldn't stop talking to The King, Charles almost turned away from him and headed off to the car, nudging The Queen as if to get away fast from the jibbering fool.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chunksafc and The Norton Cat
Blond Bombshell said:
Yeah, held it together well, top bloke. After the speaches with the MPs, thought the Speaker of the House wouldn't stop talking to The King, Charles almost turned away from him and headed off to the car, nudging The Queen as if to get away fast from the jibbering fool.
Click to expand...

Not called Mr Speaker for nothing then.:emoticon-0102-bigsm
 
When you read through the schedule for this week, it looks there is only 1 day where the family don't have engagements or protocol to follow.

Add to that today, they walk behind the coffin, then again in London and then again on Monday.

I don't care who you are that's a massive emotional strain on any person
 
  • Like
Reactions: C Montgomery Burns, Snaggey, gelders pie and 4 others
Chunksafc said:
When you read through the schedule for this week, it looks there is only 1 day where the family don't have engagements or protocol to follow.

Add to that today, they walk behind the coffin, then again in London and then again on Monday.

I don't care who you are that's a massive emotional strain on any person
Click to expand...
Agree, but like his mum, its part of The Kings oath of service to us. If he didn't they'd be many on here posting their upset... bit like this thread in places. Embarrassing
 
  • Like
Reactions: C Montgomery Burns and Chunksafc
This is like a walk of shame for randy Andy. All dressed in their military uniforms. Andy in a lounge suit because he was a very naughty boy
 
  • Like
Reactions: Snaggey
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back