There are other countries than the US. For instance France has one of the best healthcare in the world - in fact the top 5 countries were not monarchies. Singapore has the toughest gun laws globally and they don’t have a monarchy.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Just because she isn't those things to you doesn't mean she isn't to a lot of people throughout the world and you can't deny that.
You don't have to be an obsessive Royalist (I'm by no means a Royalist!) to recognise the role The Queen has played during her 70 year reign. 70 years. It annoys me when people belittle it and say 'yeah but what has she done?' or 'She's never worked a day in her life!' Just because she hasn't been down the coal mine everyday of her life doesn't mean she hasn't worked. She has served as the figurehead for this country for the lifetime of many, including my parents and has been a constant in our lives through so much change but also so many challenging times.
Simply because someone's life might be 'world's apart' from your own doesn't mean you can't relate or draw inspiration from them. She didn't have to sit on her own at the funeral of her Husband of 70 years, but she chose to. She doesn't have to give a speech to the nation every Christmas, but she chose to carry on the tradition that her Father started. She could probably have scaled back her public duties long before now too, but she chose to continue. It's this sense of duty and dedication to her country and its people since she was a young girl that I think, personally, is so admirable.
I for one found it moving when she gave that speech in April 2020. As someone who lives alone, that first lockdown was an incredibly tough time and to hear The Queen say what she said gave me hope for the future. She may live a very different, privileged life compared to most, but it is her empathy, ability to read the room and do and say what is appropriate in the moment that I think is her greatest skill.
I really do think that we can't underestimate what a loss it will be when the inevitable happens. It will be a huge moment of change and not for the better I fear.
She doesn't write her own speeches.
Others tell her what to say.
She is but a figurehead, a puppet.
This on the Mail's website
www.dailymail.co.uk
The Queen, 95, gets back to work at Windsor Castle
Her Majesty, 95, told incoming Defence Services Secretary Major General Eldon Millar and his predecessor Rear Admiral James Macleod 'I can't move' as she greeted them at Windsor.
Has it been reported before that she’s hurt her leg recently?This on the Mail's website
The Queen, 95, gets back to work at Windsor Castle
Her Majesty, 95, told incoming Defence Services Secretary Major General Eldon Millar and his predecessor Rear Admiral James Macleod 'I can't move' as she greeted them at Windsor.
The top country for healthcare in Europe this year is Denmark, not France. Denmark has a constitutional monarchy like ours.
Singapore executes drug dealers, they have tough laws all round
World Healthcare Organisation says it’s France. You didn’t mention how they treat criminals, just that the US had no healthcare and rubbish gun laws. So I found articles that showed having a monarchy doesn’t mean that you have great healthcare and gun control.
Regardless, having a monarchy doesn’t mean that a country is good.
Getting rid of a monarchy doesn’t mean that you automatically turn into America.
It's quite something that we have been alive during the reign of the longest serving monarch in history.
Given the WHO's record over Covid I will take the Health Index ranking thanks. Getting rid of the monarchy makes it more likely we turn into America with deeply divisive culture wars stretching all the way to the head of state, with it near impossible to get major legislation through as a President vetoes it or Parliament refuses to pass it.
You only have to see how the South of the US despises President Biden as much as the coasts despised President Trump to see the US Republic is now near a second civil war.
Even France is getting more like this with industrial and rural areas voting for Le Pen for President and despising Macron while wealthy urban and suburban areas back Macron and despise Le Pen
I'm a natural republican. I resent the fact that the sovereign sits at the pinnacle of much of our society. It seems a little immature that we can't wean ourselves off this old tradition. No-one can argue that HM QE2 has done anything but a stellar job. However when one considers Prince Charles as King, one can see how hereditary monarchy has problems. If you get a good monarch - happy days. A "bad" monarch and we have a constitutional crisis.
The British constitution is such a complex, unpredictable thing. House of Lords reform, devolution, creation of a supreme court. All those things have changed our constitutional arrangements. Replacing the monarch with a president would have wide implications.
Germany, Ireland have presidents elected by popular vote. The powers of the president are similar to the powers of the Sovereign in the UK. Advice, consult, be informed, Assent to legislation. In political terms the president's role is that of a neutered politician. Today most politicians like that accept a peerage when they realise their political career is over.
We could have someone like Lord Winston the doctor. Former Speaker Betty Boothroyd. Tory grandee Chris Patten. The bloke who founded Cobra Beer, Benjamin Zephaniah. Sandi Toksvig
Any of these people could perform the role of the sovereign with dignity.
However there's the problem of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Jamaica etc. They would then have to find their own local heads of state.
So long story short
God save the Queen !
Long to Reign over us
And one hopes that the eventual reign of Prince Charles works well
The British constitution is such a complex, unpredictable thing. House of Lords reform, devolution, creation of a supreme court. All those things have changed our constitutional arrangements. Replacing the monarch with a president would have wide implications.
Germany, Ireland have presidents elected by popular vote. The powers of the president are similar to the powers of the Sovereign in the UK. Advice, consult, be informed, Assent to legislation. In political terms the president's role is that of a neutered politician. Today most politicians like that accept a peerage when they realise their political career is over.
We could have someone like Lord Winston the doctor. Former Speaker Betty Boothroyd. Tory grandee Chris Patten. The bloke who founded Cobra Beer, Benjamin Zephaniah. Sandi Toksvig
Any of these people could perform the role of the sovereign with dignity.
However there's the problem of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Jamaica etc. They would then have to find their own local heads of state.
So long story short
God save the Queen !
Long to Reign over us
And one hopes that the eventual reign of Prince Charles works well
Last edited:
Why are people bringing up the NHS? Did Liz Windsor start it herself?
For the umpteenth time, if the Monarch was replaced by a President - and I say this from a place of fact and not based on my own personal feelings about the momarchy - they would be replaced by a SOFT presidency. It would be NOTHING like France or the US. The President would hold no power and would not be aligned to any political party. They would not have the ability to divide or rule as their role is purely ceremonial and their previous career almost exclusively non-political.
Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia on one such Presidency:
"Under the 1976 constitution, the president is the nominal source of executive power. Like the British sovereign (and heads of state in other Westminster systems), he or she "reigns but does not rule". In practice, executive authority is exercised by the prime minister and his or her cabinet, on behalf of the president. The president appoints as prime minister the leader of the largest party in the House of Representatives, and also appoints members of the Senate on the recommendation of the prime minister and the leader of the Opposition."
Again, the above is irrespective of my feelings re: monarchy and more specifically directed to the complete disregard of political systems in the mistaken belief that there are only 2 possible political outcomes - politically-divided America or idyllic royal-led Britian.
Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia on one such Presidency:
"Under the 1976 constitution, the president is the nominal source of executive power. Like the British sovereign (and heads of state in other Westminster systems), he or she "reigns but does not rule". In practice, executive authority is exercised by the prime minister and his or her cabinet, on behalf of the president. The president appoints as prime minister the leader of the largest party in the House of Representatives, and also appoints members of the Senate on the recommendation of the prime minister and the leader of the Opposition."
Again, the above is irrespective of my feelings re: monarchy and more specifically directed to the complete disregard of political systems in the mistaken belief that there are only 2 possible political outcomes - politically-divided America or idyllic royal-led Britian.
It doesn't matter that she has professional help for her personal messages (EG Christmas Address to the nation and Commonwealth)
She is a figurehead (for the raw exercise of power by her 14 PM's) but she's not a puppet. If you read the memoirs of PMs you'll find they always say how much they value their audiences with the Queen. She's the one person they can talk to and will not leak. They also are usually quite effusive about her input, whether it's politeness or not I can't say.
She's no slouch at exercising the "soft power" of the monarchy to protect her interests. -- https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-for-change-in-law-to-hide-her-private-wealth That's the kind of thing that offends my republican sensibilities most about the Royal Family.
I was raised by very republican parents in Australia and this was an issue for them too!
I like and respect the Queen and some other members of the RF while also understanding why many have a problem with the institution. I would also like one day for Australia to become a Republic - as it seems bizarre to have a Head of State who is not a citizen of our country.
Personally I think Charles will be a bit of gate keeper King and William will be just like his granny.
Charles is trying to reform the monarchy and trying to downsize. He is working closely with William. They seem to be doing a lot of work behind the scenes. Charles is the one who had told Andrew to basically disappear from public life.
Charles is trying to reform the monarchy and trying to downsize. He is working closely with William. They seem to be doing a lot of work behind the scenes. Charles is the one who had told Andrew to basically disappear from public life.
@President_Butthead Germany does not have a popular vote for the HoS. The elected parliament puts in suggestions and then they alone vote on it. Same for the chancellor (second highest role). It’s party politics and the party with the most votes gives you the chancellor their members decided on earlier. Most people don’t have a party membership and voting patterns are still a lot driven by party agenda and not the figureheads so being chancellor says very little about how people perceive you.
The thing is, a country can be run well with a monarch or an elected HoS (figurehead only or not). Most monarchies nowadays are not some absolute tyrannies so the ruling power is indeed the parliament. Anyone who thinks swapping on of this models for another world change anything in society is pretty naive. You won’t get better or worse health care, better housing situations or more money and jobs in your purse. And anyone who thinks that those very tight, high up in politics circles are any better off in morals and actions than HMTQ just need to stop reading tabloids but real newspapers (Fox news doesn’t cut it). Getting some idea what countries discuss on their national level pretty quickly reveals that there are massive scandals and problems in every system. Boris Johnson, Donald Trump are just the easiest and most convenient examples. But make no mistake. Angela Merkel was cut throat to get into her position as well and she made some extremely questionable if not grey zone of the law decisions. All politicians have some questionable ideas about how transparent they should be about additional money they make, some have privately profited a lot of the pandemic (quickly partnering with mask providers for example), they all are quick to make their beds with companies to join after their political career - high level jobs on boards. Non of them would “piss on you if you were on fire” (to quote the last thread),
All ceremonial HoS cost a tit ton of money for basically being paraded around and putting their signature under laws. I think I haven’t seen or heard anything from my president for over three years now. That’s not exactly the representation and moral uplift I am looking for. Because if you only have to sign something in a dark corner- almost anyone can do the job for a year for way less money. I do wonder why we still have the position if it’s filled like this (I mean I know. It’s about the distribution of power as the HoS in theory can choose to not ratify laws to protect us, but obviously that’s not happening at all. But the principle of this fail save is obviously worth keeping.)
As I said before, there are many very good arguments against a monarchy. But they are more a principle thing but have no root in a real chance of our actual reality of living. It’s pretty similar to the whole Brexit situation. Though I will say, even if I thought the decision was bonkers, jury is still out if it will be a success (I hope it for the UK which is close to my heart for many reasons). If you are not in support of a monarchy you are basically living in a state of always having supported the loosing party. It suck’s. But it’s actually not that uncommon. Many states have a surprising long cycle of always voting for the same party. And even just 8-10 years can be an excruciating long time to have a complete idiot ruling the country (and always having to wonder why your fellow citizens voted this person into office and what that says about their character).
The UK is also a fascinating conundrum in many ways with their political set up (even though that’s true for many countries actually because it’s always build over centuries and the history behind things is fascinating). You simply cannot just swap the monarchy out over the course of a year. It would be a pretty expensive and lengthy process. I doubt it’s worth the money (and the UK would still have to pay for the massive reno of BP as headquarters for the next HoS). Demanding some changes of the RF is all fair and well. They do need to adapt and I think they will (as they have been doing for centuries now to ensure the monarchy stays no matter what dynasty is reigning).
In the end, the UK is really not doing too bad. At least from a European perspective outside looking in. You are no bit more racist, right wing or whatever then the rest of us. And on a personal level at least not worse compared in the private living situation of the citizens.
I would take the RF with pleasure of our set up. At least you get to see them. I know so much more about UK charities just by chance of them visiting them. They had some great projects during the pandemic. At least you get some pomp and glitz with all the drab and shady stuff.
The thing is, a country can be run well with a monarch or an elected HoS (figurehead only or not). Most monarchies nowadays are not some absolute tyrannies so the ruling power is indeed the parliament. Anyone who thinks swapping on of this models for another world change anything in society is pretty naive. You won’t get better or worse health care, better housing situations or more money and jobs in your purse. And anyone who thinks that those very tight, high up in politics circles are any better off in morals and actions than HMTQ just need to stop reading tabloids but real newspapers (Fox news doesn’t cut it). Getting some idea what countries discuss on their national level pretty quickly reveals that there are massive scandals and problems in every system. Boris Johnson, Donald Trump are just the easiest and most convenient examples. But make no mistake. Angela Merkel was cut throat to get into her position as well and she made some extremely questionable if not grey zone of the law decisions. All politicians have some questionable ideas about how transparent they should be about additional money they make, some have privately profited a lot of the pandemic (quickly partnering with mask providers for example), they all are quick to make their beds with companies to join after their political career - high level jobs on boards. Non of them would “piss on you if you were on fire” (to quote the last thread),
All ceremonial HoS cost a tit ton of money for basically being paraded around and putting their signature under laws. I think I haven’t seen or heard anything from my president for over three years now. That’s not exactly the representation and moral uplift I am looking for. Because if you only have to sign something in a dark corner- almost anyone can do the job for a year for way less money. I do wonder why we still have the position if it’s filled like this (I mean I know. It’s about the distribution of power as the HoS in theory can choose to not ratify laws to protect us, but obviously that’s not happening at all. But the principle of this fail save is obviously worth keeping.)
As I said before, there are many very good arguments against a monarchy. But they are more a principle thing but have no root in a real chance of our actual reality of living. It’s pretty similar to the whole Brexit situation. Though I will say, even if I thought the decision was bonkers, jury is still out if it will be a success (I hope it for the UK which is close to my heart for many reasons). If you are not in support of a monarchy you are basically living in a state of always having supported the loosing party. It suck’s. But it’s actually not that uncommon. Many states have a surprising long cycle of always voting for the same party. And even just 8-10 years can be an excruciating long time to have a complete idiot ruling the country (and always having to wonder why your fellow citizens voted this person into office and what that says about their character).
The UK is also a fascinating conundrum in many ways with their political set up (even though that’s true for many countries actually because it’s always build over centuries and the history behind things is fascinating). You simply cannot just swap the monarchy out over the course of a year. It would be a pretty expensive and lengthy process. I doubt it’s worth the money (and the UK would still have to pay for the massive reno of BP as headquarters for the next HoS). Demanding some changes of the RF is all fair and well. They do need to adapt and I think they will (as they have been doing for centuries now to ensure the monarchy stays no matter what dynasty is reigning).
In the end, the UK is really not doing too bad. At least from a European perspective outside looking in. You are no bit more racist, right wing or whatever then the rest of us. And on a personal level at least not worse compared in the private living situation of the citizens.
I would take the RF with pleasure of our set up. At least you get to see them. I know so much more about UK charities just by chance of them visiting them. They had some great projects during the pandemic. At least you get some pomp and glitz with all the drab and shady stuff.
I've said in a few places that if the UK were to get rid of the monarchy¹ then my preference is something like Ireland's presidency. So they have an amount of power in that they can ask the supreme court to review laws etc, but for the most part they don't have that much say and it tends to go to a semi-retired elderstatesperson. So in the UK it would end up being someone like John Major or Ken Clarke or Gordon Brown.
¹Which is unlikely, because, aside from anything else, it would be *horrifically* complicated to untangle all of the laws etc. Even identifying what needed to be changed would be a years long exercise.
¹Which is unlikely, because, aside from anything else, it would be *horrifically* complicated to untangle all of the laws etc. Even identifying what needed to be changed would be a years long exercise.
It's often said here that the Queen is good at reading the room, when Diana was killed she didn't read the room at all. It was probably pointed out to her that there was mounting anger among her people at how she was mishandling the situation by staying up in Scotland and refusing to lower the flag to half mast. She literally spun on a sixpence and came back to London and very quickly addressed the nation about "this remarkable young woman". I don't think she thought for a second that her people would start to turn against her. But she didn't learn from it by attending church and giggling cosily with her nonce son. And I bet that gradually he will be welcomed back by Mummy dearest.
The NHS only passed as there was a Labour government under Attlee as PM with a majority in the Commons in 1945 and the King signed it into law. If we had a Presidential system Churchill could still have been President even if Attlee was PM and vetoed it in favour of a more insurance based system.
Wrong. The UK is a permanent member of the UN Security Council as France, the USA, Russia and China are. All of those have powerful, imperial Presidents as we would too as befits our status if we were ever a republic
Australians themselves voted 55% to keep the monarchy in the 1999 referendum
The Queen has only a few years left anyway.
Charles is already over 70. The future of the monarchy lies with Diana's son William and her grandson George. The Queen has given a lifetime of service but she will soon be the monarchy's past and Andrew is only 9th in line of succession now so will not be the monarchy's future
Last edited:
That isn’t true:
The 1945 Conservative Party Manifesto committed to setting up a national health service:
'We propose to create a comprehensive health service covering the whole range of medical treatment from the general practitioner to the specialist, and from the hospital to convalescence and rehabilitation; and to introduce legislation for this purpose in the new Parliament' (Conservative Party General Election Manifesto 1945).
'The health services of the country will be made available to all citizens. Everyone will contribute to the cost, and no one will be denied the attention, the treatment or the appliances he requires because he cannot afford them' (Conservative Party General Election Manifesto 1945).
- Status