The State Funeral of HRH Queen Elizabeth II

a reply to: McGinty
You are missing the whole point of a Constitutional Monarchy.
However, if you do understand what that means, stop beating around the bush and declare yourself a Republican.
Can't be dithering and sitting on the fence, particularly now we have a King, surely? You've had your whole lifetime under a Queen to make your mind up, no?
Rainbows
Jane

a reply to: angelchemuel

I think having a counter balance to parliament is a good idea, so long as it effectively counter balances it. My problem is that the monarchy would appeal to be the ones sitting on the fence.

I'm not sure the definition of Constitutional Monarchy applies to my questions. I've not suggested that they act unilateral to the government, making decrees to change laws and such. I'm simply suggesting that they could use their grand stage to voice concerns - to open debate - in the interests of the people paying their bills. Does Constitutional Monarchy exclude the monarch voicing an opinion?

There's been a deafening silence on the 10 year travesty austerity and now the cost of living crises and the obvious injustice when that suffering enriches elites within their society. I'd call that 'closing ranks'.

a reply to: McGinty

depends what you mean by truth as it tends to be one sides truth, as our history shows these truths tend to end in conflict and death as 2 immovable forces collide, better to have an almost fictional one than that.. its why the hands where tied in the first place and why most scoff at the concept of another kind of leader as we've been there twice with the ensuing death and destruction.. interestingly though it has also throw up open rebellions with fictional leaders..

as for populism they are all always populists, even the likes of Biden is a populist leader with populist policies to ensnare one side which will ensure those 2 immovable forces collide at some point rather than negotiate a path between the 2..

a reply to: nickyw

During covid we had a leader and cabinet not turning up to Cobra meetings, telling everyone to shake hands it's all fine while Europe, particularly Italy were besieged with Covid. Then they screwed up track and trace, they gave PPE contracts to chums with no experience at all (one being the Health secretary's pub-landlord chum). They told us to eat out, arguably leading to a much larger wave thereafter. Then there's the parties.

I think 'right' and 'truth' was plain for all to see. But the message we got was 'We'll meet again'. In other words carry as you are. Who does omission of these glaring venalities benefit? It's not the public!

We keep hearing the word Continuity. In my opinion it's an insidious notion thats being promoted every time its uttered in the msm. In a world where roughly 1% own 99% of the wealth, yet the 99% are being told not to ask for a pay rise - that inflation is their fault - change is exactly what we need.

a reply to: McGinty

Does Constitutional Monarchy exclude the monarch voicing an opinion?

No it doesn't.... not in private with a PM for sure. That's why the Monarchy 'sits on the fence'.
Let's see what Charlie boy does first.
Have you watched Charle's III by the way? Well worth the watch. Considering it was a stage play first (2014) before made into a film in 2017, you'll find it fascinating on how much of it has come true!
Here's the link to it on Vimeo.
vimeo.com...
A wee clip/trailer...


This last one is quite telling......

Rainbows
Jane

a reply to: McGinty

The main benefit to having a constitutional monarchy is the head of state is apolitical and keeps their personal views private. Their role is to unify the country and commonwealth, not interfere with democracy or create/exploit divisions in society.

I think most in the UK, including myself, are very anti-monarchy but have enormous respect for how thie Queen conducted herself impecibly for 70 years and the incredible service she gave to the country.

If Royals tried to act political, put their personal opinions or interests infront of the interests of the country we'd have them hanging from lamposts by the end of the week as it goes against the constitution and their function.

Austerity and cost of living were both the main focus of a few of the Queen's speeches; the jubilee fund gave hundreds of millions to charities working in these sectors (billions over her reign).

If she was 'sitting on the fence' she would have spent her reign with her feet up counting money instead of working 16+ hour days 24/7 for the last 70 years and being utterly devoted to carrying out their duties and serving the commmonwealth and becoming the most experienced head of state, diplomat, envoy etc in human history.

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: McGinty

The main benefit to having a constitutional monarchy is the head of state is apolitical and keeps their personal views private.

The other main benefit is that the Crown Estate is sacrosanct - the properties (including our coastline) can't just be sold off by the Govt to their wealthy Arab friends, and the income received from them is thus guaranteed.

a reply to: angelchemuel

I did watch it and enjoyed it very much - great casting and more my bag than The Crown.

Indeed, let's see what Charlie boy does. I once had high hopes for him, with his environmental stance and vociferous protest to 'carbuncles' of architecture cropping up around the city (the brutalist variety i believe; having grown up on a large council estate i shared to disgust at the style). Looks nice on a CV, but i wonder if those f**kers that design them have to live in them.

I didn't agree with all of his opinions, but i liked that he voiced them - the enemy of democracy is silence and a person with that clout breaking silences and opening debate is something to celebrate.

However, his speech suggested that now he has the mantle he'll play the game and keep his gob shut. That'd be a crying shame. And then there's that bloody meme of his impatience with the 'help' at not moving the ink pot quickly enough. Oh boy was that ever a window onto a life of such privilege that we can surely not expect him to be capable of relating to the plight of his subjects in any way at all. It made me wonder if those earlier protests about the environment and architecture are simply related to His environment and not in sympathy with his subjects.

It all makes you wonder if Liz refused to abdicate in extreme old age in fear of what a hash Charlie would make of it. Afraid of him making things worse for her subjects due to incompetence? Oe of making things worse for her circle - lessor of the evils i 'spose. Good luck, Charlie, although i think it's us lot that'll need it.

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: McGinty

The main benefit to having a constitutional monarchy is the head of state is apolitical and keeps their personal views private.

The other main benefit is that the Crown Estate is sacrosanct - the properties (including our coastline) can't just be sold off by the Govt to their wealthy Arab friends, and the income received from them is thus guaranteed.

A great point! Pity we can't trust the elected do protect that.

a reply to: McGinty

the problem is its change you want if for people who think like you or you like, which is always the issue, as you use covid we saw it with those demanding the tradition of consent is thrown away so the unvaccinated could be be punished but once you start throwing away your principles to punish those you dislike..

As I said we've been here before and it never ends well, the body count its left in its wake is why we have the system we do and why what is said is private and thus all sides can speculate who supports them, more fool Charles if he decides to be Charles 1 not 2, and more fool us..

originally posted by: Hecate666
What I find very disturbing is that 99% of the people who came there have their idiot mobile phones in front of their faces. None of them can say they were actually watching this live. Why are they filming this? Whatever happened to seeing and experiencing things with your own eyes and keeping it in memory with the knowledge you actually looked at things whilst they were happening?
They won't watch it over and over because there is better official footage of this, they can't make money with it later because there are thousands of these idiot little clips and it's nothing special.

And please those who hate the Queen, be adult and hold back your disdain because you must be aware that your opinion isn't actually the only one, nor the right one. I have enough emotions and respect, not get into the explanation here at this moment in time.

They were at least asked to lower their phones when Charles and William came out Saturday to speak to people who had queued to see the Queen lying in state but you are right, it is something that needed to be absorbed, if at all possible, in the moment and you can't do that when you're trying to film with your phone, but that's the culture dumbing down that we're seeing these days.

originally posted by: McGinty
a reply to: angelchemuel

I think having a counter balance to parliament is a good idea, so long as it effectively counter balances it. My problem is that the monarchy would appeal to be the ones sitting on the fence.

I'm not sure the definition of Constitutional Monarchy applies to my questions. I've not suggested that they act unilateral to the government, making decrees to change laws and such. I'm simply suggesting that they could use their grand stage to voice concerns - to open debate - in the interests of the people paying their bills. Does Constitutional Monarchy exclude the monarch voicing an opinion?

There's been a deafening silence on the 10 year travesty austerity and now the cost of living crises and the obvious injustice when that suffering enriches elites within their society. I'd call that 'closing ranks'.

You realise that it is not the job of the Monarchy to get involved in that because it is Politics at the end of the day, this is why you won't hear anymore green lobbying by Charles now. They can offer sympathy and support but it's symbolic because they are above Politics and should never offer strong opinions on such things.

a reply to: Paulzx

I appreciate that's what we're told to think about the set up. Imo it's wrong! If something seems to them explicitly unreasonable, then theirs a moral responsibility to question it that supersedes man's laws designed to maintain our highly inequitable status quo. These laws are more or less a post Cromwellian pact to stay out of the business end, or else. It's a pact that seems to me to be held to for fear, rather than some vague duty, or morality.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
BBC News - Emma the pony and other personal moments at funeral
www.bbc.co.uk...

Bless!

Seeing Emma the Pony is when I lost it -- totally and completely!!! And the Corgis. They must miss their mama soooooo much!

I found this last night, and thought it might warm your heart just a little... and our other proud Brit ATSers. People all over the world are mourning for Britain and with Britain. May she rest in well-earned and well-deserved peace.

How the world paid its respects to the Queen: Mourners from around the globe watch on and hold their own tributes as Her Majesty's funeral takes place

a reply to: McGinty

Beyond the political ramifications and restrictions, Queen Elizabeth was an amazing woman, but she was not a medical doctor, and had no business giving medical advice or opinions to the public. None. To do so would have been a gross violation of her Constitutional position, incredibly irresponsible and possibly quite dangerous.

I would also add that we have no idea what influence the Queen wielded through soft diplomacy behind the scenes -- for better and/or worse.

The problem is the elected politicians, chosen and empowered by the people, who made the craptastic decisions. Not the Queen.

a reply to: Boadicea
I agree with all of that.

Definitely shouldn't be giving medical advice, the politicians are without doubt 'craptastic' and as i said earlier we don't know what influence she's had behind the scenes and could well have stopped things becoming even worse.

a reply to: McGinty

My apologies if I seemed antagonistic. I really didn't mean to be, I just got alarmed at the mere thought of the Queen interfering in that way! That would not have gone over well at all!!!

But it does make one wonder at what influence the Queen did hold, and how exactly she exercised that power and influence. I tend to think she had to walk a very fine line at times. (And did so brilliantly!)

Years and years ago, back during one of the Queen's previous Jubilees, I read an interview with a tribal leader (in Australian or New Zealand I think), who stated that his people received no respect or consideration from government until the Queen came to visit him. She didn't promise him anything or grant any special favors or requests, but apparently the Queen's soft diplomacy made a noticeable and appreciable difference politically.

I like to think that happened much more often than we know.

Delusional idiot here.

I mean, person with mental health issues:

BBC News - Man tried to check Queen was in coffin, court told
www.bbc.co.uk...