Purely political, Roundhead or Cavalier? ...royal bs wedding.

a reply to: fakedirt

What are you whining about?
I'm just having a conversation so of course I have views which can be fluid in nature.
I'm anti constitutional monarchy but if a monarch campaigned for the people against a tyrannical government then of course I'm open to changing my mind.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy
All that stuff about parliament being corrupt is partly why I am against a constitutional monarchy. Our Monarch, God bless her, is unwilling to use the power she has to curtail the worst excesses of Parliament. I think an elected head of state would not feel bound in the same way and perhaps would have stomped all over Tony Bliar's phony war.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

As an American, I was under the assumption your Royal Family was "just for show", and they dont have any "official" power (other than being wealthy and very well connected) but that they were merely "supported" financially by the commoners.

And every so often, they release a public statement about a news event important to everyone or something directly relating to the royal family, which is either quoted in print or repeated by some news media or one of the royal spokespersons or representatives but never spoken by a royal on camera. So they are useful in calming people down or providing reassurance or whatever.

I bet some people rely on them so much that they would have a meltdown if the royals were "taken away from them" in some official capacity. Picture Hillary losing the 2016 election and her supporters reaction, translated to Britian. You just need an obnoxious, rich, Trump guy, in parliament or whatever to be the one who champions the new laws that get rid of the royals.

But, you're telling me they actually run things officially? Not as a behind the scenes Illuminati type conspiracy, but, its in your constitution that they actually make decisions? They have the power to either approve or deny/veto new legislation?

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

I am an abolitionist , I dont think we need any royal family or any "divine rights" sociopaths who believe they are better than everyone from birth.

Roll oot the guillotines

a reply to: SprocketUK

Aye as our "head of state" she is a terrible Queen, a Queen should be kind hearted , compassionate and honorable

our queen just lets parliament take the piss , and force people into poverty, if she was any kind of human , she'd see to it that the government dont treat her subjects like slaves!

instead however Auld lizzie is quite happy to allow her people to suffer , as long as she is happy in her stately home !

a reply to: sapien82


That's the issue really. She knows full well that if she refuses to sign an act of parliament into law, that will be the end, so she just signs whatever is put in front of her.

a reply to: SprocketUK

must be quite a sad thing, to have your family being super powerful for hundreds of years, and now ye are nothing more than a glorified paper signing , hand waving ,wee old lady!

bet she is right fed up, any money she just wants to head doon the bingo and then watch the telly wae a cup ae tea

a reply to: 3n19m470

Yes, the monarch actually signs off acts of Parliament and has the power to refuse but never does because it would cause a 'constitutional crisis' and he/she would have to step down/resign.
It is why I'm passionately against our constitutional monarchy, what an utter pointless role, one where he/she just lamely signs off laws but never stands for the wishes of the people.
As another member said, Tony Blair took us into the gulf war with complete lies about WMD's threatening us, did the queen say anything? No, she just had a cup of tea and walked her dogs round the palace with a sly hipflask of gin I reckon.

I absolutely believe that the queen knew it was all bull# about the WMD's, she's the top dog, she knew full well and yet said nothing.
The roll of monarch in our constitution is pointless, undemocratic, and just a fudge from back in the day to keep the royal 'power' just be a good king and don't use it.

I hope when Charles becomes king he'll be as outspoken as he is right now. If he fights for the people then who knows, even I might switch sides and become a royalist, but if he just does as his mother agreeing with every #ty decision of government then he can go # himself as well, in my opinion.

a reply to: sapien82

I'm with you man
I don't even think we need a 'head of state' either, look at Canada & Australia, their Prime Ministers are effectively head of state, they have a 'Governor General' or whatever representing the queen but that's just the lame roll of waving and cutting ribbons.

No, I'd kick the Windsor family out of constitutional affairs in the UK, I'd let them keep whatever cash and houses they have right now, but the Crown Estate would be managed and retaken by Parliament. I'd abolish the house of Lords and replace it with an elected second chamber minus the ridiculous 26 Church of England Bishops who are 'Lords Spiritual' voting on affairs which affect my life.
I wouldn't even have a president, why bother, the PM is effectively ruler of the UK in any case, and can be kept in check by Parliament and the second chamber.

The monarch is absolutely pointless, just signing acts of Parliament and never ever standing up for the people or criticising #ty decisions by government.
The queen has plenty of blood on her hands because of her inaction over the years. "Yeah I'll sign that if it means I get to stay in my palace as top dog" #ing traitor to the people in my mind.

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

I am an abolitionist , I dont think we need any royal family or any "divine rights" sociopaths who believe they are better than everyone from birth.

Roll oot the guillotines

Why wish death?

Who is the sociopath/psychopath now ?

originally posted by: Lagomorphe
Why wish death?

Lol, yep I thought the same, but I assumed it was a tongue in cheek comment going back to revolutionary France.
Now Tony Blair on the other hand...


EDIT
To the men in black unmarked SUV's, that was clearly a joke, I would however slap Blair's face with a wet fish or something though.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: Lagomorphe
Why wish death?

Lol, yep I thought the same, but I assumed it was a tongue in cheek comment going back to revolutionary France.
Now Tony Blair on the other hand...

EDIT
To the men in black unmarked SUV's, that was clearly a joke, I would however slap Blair's face with a wet fish or something though.

A wet fish is not big enough.

Try a freshly clubbed cute baby seal...

a reply to: Lagomorphe

Nooo!!!
I love seals, we have friendly ones here, I've played with them while swimming in the sea many times.
A bash in the face with a road-kill badger would be good though, hopefully a load of it's guts would spill onto his smug face and into his lying bastard mouth.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Lagomorphe

Nooo!!!
I love seals, we have friendly ones here, I've played with them while swimming in the sea many times.
A bash in the face with a road-kill badger would be good though, hopefully a load of it's guts would spill onto his smug face and into his lying bastard mouth.

I do not want to know how you played with baby seals and it is against T and Cs to discusss.😂

However...I like badgers me...

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Lagomorphe

Nooo!!!
I love seals, we have friendly ones here, I've played with them while swimming in the sea many times.
A bash in the face with a road-kill badger would be good though, hopefully a load of it's guts would spill onto his smug face and into his lying bastard mouth.

I do not want to know how you played with baby seals and it is against T and Cs to discusss.😂

However...I like badgers me...

a reply to: Lagomorphe

The seals are quite compliant here, it's unspoken....
And you can keep your badgers, we have a saying here 'rough as a badgers chuff' and it is self explanatory

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Lagomorphe

The seals are quite compliant here, it's unspoken....
And you can keep your badgers, we have a saying here 'rough as a badgers chuff' and it is self explanatory

Is that phrase the same thingmyjig as « rough as an axe wound to the hairy beaver » up North?

Royals are all well and good as long as they don't get any funny ideas and do as they are told.

Who else will do all the waving and the fancy weddings? Who, pray, will look dignified and aloof at the big occasions? And listen to the endless drone of politicians as a new road is to be opened or a ship christened?

It's just important to keep them on a leash so they don't get too many improper airs..

Cheers,
BT

a reply to: Lagomorphe

Haha yes!
It can be used as "I'm feeling rough as a badgers chuff with this hangover" or "That bird you were with last night was rough as a badgers chuff" that kind of thing.
On-topic (ish) The queen would probably say "Eww, that Gin from Tesco's is rough as a badgers chuff"

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Lagomorphe

The seals are quite compliant here, it's unspoken....
And you can keep your badgers, we have a saying here 'rough as a badgers chuff' and it is self explanatory

Is that phrase the same thingmyjig as « rough as an axe wound to the hairy beaver » up North?