|
Best Porn Sites | Live Sex | Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar |
Politics, Current Affairs, Religion Threads Post here for all Politics, Current Affairs, Religion Threads |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
June 27th, 2013, 05:28 PM | #371 |
Vintage Member
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,812
Thanks: 1,424
Thanked 24,130 Times in 2,726 Posts
|
As a constitutional monarch must reign within the constraints of the constitution then I would say that there couldn't be that much chance of them being bad at the job. Yes Edward VIII behaved like a spoilt brat, but no one has ever said that he didn't do his duty.
__________________
Richardoe To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. |
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to richardoe For This Useful Post: |
June 28th, 2013, 08:00 PM | #372 | ||
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 26,239
Thanks: 162,401
Thanked 278,503 Times in 26,184 Posts
|
Quote:
Quote:
Charles I, on the other hand, did not have the common sense God gave to an ant. It was not so much that he was a wicked man; he may have been a quite decent person, as hereditary monarchs go. Rather, he showed a fatal lack of Queen Elizabeth I's intuitive communication skills; her ability to understand and respond to the feelings of her subjects. Regardless of the Divne Right flannel of Tudor propaganda, Elizabeth and Henry Tudor realised that they could not ignore their subjects and everything would still be OK. Charles governed to suit himself, without a thought for what his people thought or wanted, and expected to get unswerving loyalty regardless of what he did. It didn't end well for him. Edward VIII committed a similar error. Instead of preparing for his future role as Britain's king, he lived the high life. Status and good looks (he was clearly a handsome chap) got him plenty of women, usually married women, for whom he showed a particular preference. But he didn't appreciate that he was not free to do as he pleased. The world is so different now that have to make a leap of the imagination to grasp how dreadful and sinful divorce was thought to be by millions of church-going British citizens. The New Testament has some very clear condemnations and prohibitions on divorce. Edward VIII was promoted by his father's death to become official head of the Church of England, which until 2002 did not permit divorced people to marry again in Church, though it would acknowledge the existence of their new marraiges. Even today, it is pretty difficult for divorced people to remarry in a Church service in a Church of England church. It was never going to fly for Edward VIII to marry Wallis Simpson unless he abdicated. George VI would not have done this, and neither would Elizabeth II; because it was letting the people down, and they had a sense of obligation. That is the offence of which Edward VIII was guilty; putting himself first and flouting his duty as a King.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. |
||
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to scoundrel For This Useful Post: |
June 28th, 2013, 08:19 PM | #373 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2
Thanks: 5
Thanked 7 Times in 2 Posts
|
better some poor sod born to the role than deal with the ego of someone who wants to be head of state... I would not want to be a Prince or King for all the money and women in the world
|
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to sausageman For This Useful Post: |
June 28th, 2013, 08:26 PM | #374 | |
Former Staff
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Blighty
Posts: 113,784
Thanks: 259,900
Thanked 1,139,339 Times in 113,906 Posts
|
Quote:
There are some for whom even Buckingham Palace isn't big enough to house their ego, yes that includes you Anthony If it's not broke leave it alone. |
|
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Wendigo For This Useful Post: |
April 26th, 2016, 11:47 AM | #375 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The North
Posts: 170
Thanks: 1,106
Thanked 1,950 Times in 160 Posts
|
Not really. Not only does she not have any real powers, she isn't even allowed to support any political party. Also it is worth noting that most countries have a head of state (usually a president and not a monarch) and a president and the dynamic is really the same as in England. The head of state, queen Elizabeth, is simply a symbol whereas the prime minister is the actual leader of the country. Absolving the monarchy wouldn't necessarily change anything, Cameron would probably still be prime minister, with all the same powers, and we would elect someone else as president.
__________________
“Get to fighting or get away.” |
The Following User Says Thank You to Attila The Hun For This Useful Post: |
April 27th, 2016, 12:44 AM | #377 | |
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 26,239
Thanks: 162,401
Thanked 278,503 Times in 26,184 Posts
|
Quote:
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. |
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to scoundrel For This Useful Post: |
April 27th, 2016, 02:15 AM | #378 |
Vintage Member
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: North Wales
Posts: 3,637
Thanks: 32,358
Thanked 31,826 Times in 3,566 Posts
|
When you think about it ~~~ having a Head-of-State, without a veto even, without any political or democratic strength...is a bloomin farce.
It is a figurehead in name only, a point to emphasise that the elected government is beholden to a greater power through respect only. Meanwhile...in the UK...the elected Government write the Monarch's annual "State of the Union" speech. The Prime Minister visits the Monarch once a week and brings them upto date..except when he is on Holiday or they are at Ascot. It's a Gilbert & Sullivan Fantasy of Ruritania, and people still think it's meaningful or has a purpose. And... I know there exists strange genealogy charts that link the UK Royal Family back to Jesus Christ ~~~ are they the only ones who believe that rubbish ? Even though there has been breaks in the generations, a cousin here or there, a foreign uncle etc, loose links don't defeat, they seem to seem to maintain that nonsense. Why should the Head-of-State, of a civilised and democratic nation, have their Children take over their role in perpetuity ~~~ An Obama or Putin Grandchild still as Head-of-State in 50 years time? Stupid, I know. But in the UK, the unelected and mostly nuetered but well fed, will assume their Future Roles with Dignity and Purpose. ~ what exams/degrees/ Education did they take for that task? ~ what did they give or do for the people/their "subjects" ? ~ armed services ! Check. ~ Medicine Sans Frontiers ? Nope ~ Peace Corps ? Nope ~ Voluntary Work (cos they can't endanger Trust Fund Taxes) ? Nope ~ Gymkhanas, Polo, Shooting, Skiing, Race Horses and Meetings ? Check ~ Doing 400-500 PR stints per year ? Easy ! Include Gymkhanas, Polo, Shooting, Fishing, Skiing..going to the Cinema, Rock Concerts, Footie matches etc etc... it all adds up to a hard life of doing 400-500 PR stints in a year.... in a 365 day year! Check ooops...they get paid for those PR stints. Comes out of the Civil list. Which is Why Princess Anne was the most Active, it ramped her income up, she far outled Charles {before Camilla} in terms of income from the taxpayers, because she attended a lot of Horse meetings, and opened Village Fetes at the same time. It's on record Proves they earn their taxpayer's money, don't it ? USA Robber Barons in the last 2 Centuries, Carnegie, Rockefellow etc, gave more, to their Society and took less ~~ than the UK Royal Family ~~ who gave nothing and took more forever. They only started paying taxes recently...jeez. Queen Victoria turned the Royal Family into a "BUSINESS"...probably by accident and self-protection, but in Elizabeth's Reign, it is now Corporate Finance at it's deadliest. AND the UK taxpayer maintains the Civil List...which is the Posh word for benefits / welfare....so the dozens and dozens of lesser Royals get the Posh education at Posh schools and Posh jobs...like working for Andrew LLoyd Webber I'm not a class-warrior... honest........just someone who laughs when I see them in their Gilbert & Sullivan Regalia, medals the size of frisbies, standing on their porch waving to the suckers, who think they are "special". They aren't, they just do a lot of PR for the UK ~ have to suffer First Class Travel and Top Class Hotels and Embassies and blimey...they've done more shifts in a year, than there are days in a year......some people will believe anything... Fastest answer to the Question..would have been.... NO.... but I needed a little rant, it's that time of the month.... Last edited by Meini Again; April 27th, 2016 at 02:59 AM.. |
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Meini Again For This Useful Post: |
April 28th, 2016, 12:20 AM | #380 |
Vintage Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: The United Kingdom of Oppressed Peoples.
Posts: 783
Thanks: 5,453
Thanked 11,405 Times in 770 Posts
|
If we didn't have Her Queenie as our head of state we'd have that Etonian Pig Shafter David 'Dodgy' Cameron the Corrupt.
I'd rather boil my head in a vat of my own p*ss. |
|
|