If there was a vote would you keep them or send Lizzy and her clan packing? Whilst the term President Cameron makes me almost vomit in my mouth I'd personally vote to get rid. Outdated, powerless, pointless. The only argument for seems to be money from tourism.... How much do they cost us though? How would you vote?
Do it for him then all the others would be entitled. A whole parade would then be held up leaving a free for all - something the military will not welcome as timing is everything.
Keep them at all cost. The agreement forged by General Monck and Charles 11 in 1659/1660 to restore the monarchy was perfect. The ones with all the political power (parliament) had no guns to enforce it with. The one with all the guns (the monarch and commander-in-chief of the armed forces) has no political need to use them because their authority is guaranteed by heredity. It is the perfect system to prevent tyranny ever happening. Forget tourism. We have one brilliant constitution here and it doesn't want tampering with.
I much prefer the idea of having them than not. They are respected figureheads in the way other world leaders simply aren't. I'm not sure if I like the royal family but I really like the queen and think she is a positive role in the constitution and represents the country well. After the queen I'm not convinced I will feel the same way about the monarchy overall but it is hard for me to separate the two at the moment. Genuinely think it is one of the few things which set us apart from other countries and if we lose them we lose some of our national identity.
they're ww2 war veterans so there cannot be that many of them left alive - if he shook hands with them (and deservedly so) all it would not take up that much time! it's the same energy as he is removing his hand out of the way - all right to fight die for king and country but not be acknowledged - just wrong in my view
Diddles, if one Prince of Wales did one thing that upset you, that's fair enough. Nobody's criticizing you for that. But to condemn a constitutional principle that has safeguarded our freedom from tyranny 1660 - 2015 for that one incident is a different matter. Criticize Charles if you want, but keep the monarchy. That's very important. You and I are free men and will remain free men for as long as the bugger with the guns insists on it. The monarchy is on our side.
Charlie's a bit of a ****ing weirdo like, chatting away to his plants. I like his dad Phil. Pompous owld **** but he comes out with some corkers.
I think Khaleesi daenerys targaryen should take over the royal family. Wouldn't **** with her dragons.... Now her on the other hand....
"The bugger with the guns" IS the reigning monarch. That's why every military officer in this country swears allegiance to "Queen and country", specifically not to parliament. If a colonel in this country was ordered even by the Prime Minister personally to move more than a platoon more than five miles he is sworn to first request "the proper authorization", i.e. a document signed by "Elizabeth R." Without that authorization, he doesn't do it. The politicians are helpless to control the military without the monarchs prior agreement. And that's why you never see a gun at a polling station. We select the government we want, and there's bugger all politicians can do about it. The reigning monarch has no "own gain" to consider. She's already constitutional head of state, and her family will continue to be so, guaranteed by heredity. It's the perfect 'division of labour' (if you like). Those with political ambition can't force it on us, and those who could force it on us don't take part in politics anyway. Brilliant.
Difficult one for me as I'm not fussed either way..They have no real influence, either political or military, but they do create a lot of global public interest which may just help to pay their way regarding the business generated....
