if Charles lives as long as his parents and grandmum he could quite easily celebrate a silver jubilee.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
If his mother died tomorrow he might do.
Churchill's Tories voted against the NHS 21 times in the Commons as they opposed hospitals being taken over by the state and GPs no longer being private practitioners. They supported universal health coverage but not the NHS model of Bevan
Had we been a republic in 1945 Churchill could still have won a Presidential election as he was still personally popular even if the Tories were not and Labour had still won a majority in the Commons. As President Churchill would then have vetoed the NHS model PM Attlee and Health Secretary Bevan proposed
Can we steer away from the NHS debate? It's nothing to do with the RF.
It is, as a President Churchill would have vetoed the NHS model for healthcare the Labour government passed through Parliament and King George VIth signed into law via the NHS Act 1946
People keep writing that monarchy will no longer be popular after the Queen passes. But wait a second...if Elizabeth has been such a great monarch, shouldn't the monarchy be more stable and stronger? Apparently her legacy is bespoken, yet monarchists fear for the future. It doesn't make sense.
Well, the Queen's heirs are not as respected, or the future would look secure for them.
Not necessarily true. Charles is not as popular as the Queen but he still has a 60% favourability rating in the latest Yougov poll. William has a very high 80% favourable rating, almost the same as the Queen's 83% favourable rating
Public opinion of Prince Charles improves in latest royal favourability poll | YouGov
The percentage of the public thinking positively of Charles, Prince of Wales, is up six points since August.
yougov.co.uk
She's better than most, probably just due to experience, but she does sometimes get it wrong. Crucially though, she does seem to learn from those cases, for the most part.
I will say, that in retrospect it was a massive mistake to drag those grieving children back to London to appease a hysteric mass. People were really crazy and definitely overstepped a line here with those demands. It should have been enough if she went back alone. In general they deserved privacy and time. Not just the coming back to London but also how they handled it afterwards. It was good for the Firm, but it definitely affected the children in a negative way that plays out till today. So she was actually doing the right thing initially. The ones that should have read the room were the people that acted as if their grieve over her was as important than her actual family. I wish HMTQ would have come back and made a televised speech acknowledging the effect Diana’s death had on the nation but also emphasised that her children are to be left alone.
the same with the whole flag at half mast thing. It changed after Diana, but before that, the only flag to fly over Buckingham Palace was the Royal Standard, and then only when the Monarch was in residence, so the flag at Buckingham Palace never flew at half mast (and this one won’t even when The Queen dies). Now, since Diana. the Union Flag flies at the times when the Queen is not in residence and is lowered for mourning/to pay respects routinely (I think for Diana it was lowered for her funeral when technically the Queen wasn’t in residence and was off the premise).
True. I was only expressing my own sentiments as an Australian. I wonder sometimes if after the Queen dies the nation might vote differently? The Referendum was over 20 years ago now as it is. We shall see!
No, you are not saying it from a place of fact, because the real fact is that until Britain actually votes (or otherwise decides) to abolish the monarchy and replace it with a President/Republic, no-one can know exactly what that Republic will look like and what powers the President would end up having.
We might all “think” we know but there will be a lot of discussion (and back room dealing) that will go on at that point, and how it would eventually play out nobody knows. It would be dependent on a great many things at that point in time. There would be some factions pushing for a soft-power President and some factions pushing for a hard-power President. Which would triumph would depend on various things that we may not even consider today. We probably could make a reasonably educated guess about which faction would “win” if it was to happen in the next 12 months, but if it didn’t happen until 10, 50 or 100 years time, who knows what the political and cultural landscape could look like then.
Take into account the requirements of the Scottish Parliament and the NI Assembly and their pushes for independence, who knows what deals might be cut to keep them as part of UK (or not). Factor in all the Commonwealth countries and the various factions in each of those and what deals might be struck and you are adding even more complexity into trying to predict what model of Presidential powers would eventually be agreed and how long each Presidential term might be.
And if as you say it does turn out that the President is a purely ceremonial role, what would be the bloody point of going to all that expense of changing it from the current system of constitutional monarchy? Other than a few people might stop bleating about “having no say”
But then there would most likely be people bleating about the fact that the wrong person “won”. Also what if it turned out that the “people” actually really did have no say and the President was appointed by the PM or the HoC/HoL rather than being voted for by the people?There is so much involved in changing a Parliamentary system - it’s not a simple thing and without a revolution/overthrow of government a‘la France, it would take years to actually put in place. Meanwhile a lot of people would be getting very rich from all the back room dealing and lawyers would be having a field day.
And you think whoever is President wouldn’t at some point do that? #Naive
Last edited:
I have never in my life heard anybody explain why selecting the head of state purely because they popped out of the correct vagina at birth is in anyway just or equitable.
Lots of abstract arguments in favour of a monarchy and about how much the Queen loves her dogs but not many arguments about why biological nepotism should favour democracy.
Lots of abstract arguments in favour of a monarchy and about how much the Queen loves her dogs but not many arguments about why biological nepotism should favour democracy.
I think that’s one of the only valid arguments to be honest. It’s not fair or in any way does it line up with our ideas that everyone should have the same chances. That’s the ideal. In theory everyone of us could become HoS in their country (if they are not a monarchy). I support this actually.
But sadly, there is also reality. And in reality, as much as we strive for the ideal, we will never reach a moment where we all have the same chance. There will always be people that have it easier. That get to where they are completely unrelated to their abilities but for money, networking, just because being born into the right family….
And that’s true on all levels in life. Example: Background matters in education. If you have rich parents it will work out well for you, even if you cannot unfold your potential. If you have rich and involved parents (in a good way not the hyper controlling) your chances are even better. If you have poor and involved parents they will do their best to help you unfold your potential but you still have no access to the same resources as parent example 1 or 2. And so on. You can be the exact same person and still chances are high that you would turn out very differently and your chances in life turn out very differently. Highly unjust! And that’s just one area and this was a highly simplified example of a complicated topic. I didn’t include the quality of teaching and other influencing factors at all.
Getting rid of the RF for a HoS that could, in theory, be filled by every British citizen is not a bad ideal. And it would be naive to not think it possible or even likely at one point (if we don’t get big swing back to people getting fed up with their democratic governments that bad they actively choose a monarchy or dictatorship). But it wouldn’t be more than a lip service to the reality of society. One could argue that it would have a big symbolic character to signal that the UK wants to go into the more equal and fair direction. And I can absolutely get behind this argument.
But I also think, that societies should rather have a good look at the things that actually better the lives and chances of the people. So to me, changing the realities around this single position would be much less important than solving the problems that impact the lives of everyone in a much directed way. If someone cares more about the HoS position then the real life of the children in their society, I really wonder if they have their priorities straight.
As I said, the argument is a 100% valid and aligns with my ideals. But I am also always choosing the more practical fight with impactful outcome instead of the secondary battlefield, just out of principle. Because winning this would not solve the real problems people are confronted with. It’s a distraction from reality. If it were different, the non monarchy societies would be so much better, their societies would be so much more equal. But instead, we all face pretty much the exact same problems. Are all equally unhappy how our countries are run.
That’s my main point why I find it moot to actually put any effort into it. But I do know, that there is a big discussion (hen & egg) what issue to tackle first. It depends on the individual if they think doing the symbolic step is important to support the other changes, or if they think it’s more important to change the practical stuff first before looking at the symbolic stuff. Both positions are equally valid and will bring you to very different outcomes- even if you generally agree that it’s unfair that your membership to one family makes you eligible for the HoS position or shuts that door forever.
*if anyone is interested in the theoretical thoughts about fair societies I highly recommend John Rawls, A Theory of Justice.
Democracy is not perfect either eg it produced President Trump when we still had the Queen as head of state. Remember too even Hitler was elected.
Democracy is the worst form of government apart from all the others as Churchill said. The people get to vote when they elect MPs and the PM, otherwise I prefer our constitutional monarchy and am not that keen on referendums either. The people get their say on the government once every 4 or 5 years at a general election and that should be it and we should keep our apolitical head of state
Last edited:
I agree.
She’s also not reading the room by helping to pay off a victim of sex trafficking for her disgusting son. Whatever she may think of his behaviour privately, giving him financial support reflects extremely badly on her in public.
Democracy is not perfect either eg it produced President Trump when we still had the Queen as head of state. Remember too even Hitler was elected.
Democracy is the worst form of government apart from all the others as Churchill said. The people get a say when they elect MPs and the PM, otherwise I prefer our constitutional monarchy and am not that keen on referendums either. The people get their say on the government once every 4 or 5 years and that should be it and we should keep our apolitical head of atm
She is entitled to do what she wants with her own private funds. She is 95 and as she only has a few years left anyway does not need to care so much what the public think of her now.
Charles and William do as they are the future of the monarchy but for the Queen that is their problem. She has done a near perfect job for 70 years. She knows Charles will throw Andrew under a bus when he becomes King (it was Charles and William who effectively stripped him of his titles), hence Eugenie went to see Harry in California as Charles is now the mutual enemy of the Yorks and Sussexes but Andrew is still her son.
Exactly right.
Except we don't know if she paid for it with them, do we? Or where Andrew is getting the rest of it from - we can assume that it's from the chalet sale, but he was selling it before the case, so who knows? Also (technically), didn't the royals take/steal the duchy funds hundreds of years ago? None of the royal family have a limited company registered, so by that point, yeah, it is our money. Also, if she wants Charles and William to continue the Royal family after she's dead, she kinda has to worry about what the public thinks of her paying off the debts of her (alleged) sex offender son. He may be her son, but there's a difference in supporting him privately and helping pay off the young woman he abused to me, and it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth that she has done this.
On that note, countless comments are saying, "The poor Queen, her heart must be broken and the stress..." etc. but nothing about Virginia, you know the victim in all this. I can only imagine having to re-live the most horrific time in your life while being called a liar, and she was asking for it, etc. Also, she can't be that heartbroken about it if she's willing to help pay it off?
- Status