The State Funeral of HRH Queen Elizabeth II

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Probably part of the growing Qanonacrowd here in the UK.

a reply to: andy06shake

At least our resident sausage roll has gone.

originally posted by: Boadicea
I like to think that happened much more often than we know.

Me too! As you said, that’s the big question. I want to believe to it, as that would give many things a lot more meaning and purpose. Just not in my nature to believe in people, even the queen, without something a bit more first hand. What a grump I am. But it comes from a good place as once I’m sold on belief I’m as loyal a litter of corgis.

The PM visits the monarch once a week don't they?

I'd like to think that the visit is a bit like when you go to see your gran for a cup of tea and some jammy dodgers.

She won't exactly tell you what to do or not do but you need to make sure that what you are planning won't make her cross next week.

originally posted by: McGinty

originally posted by: Boadicea
I like to think that happened much more often than we know.

Me too! As you said, that’s the big question. I want to believe to it, as that would give many things a lot more meaning and purpose. Just not in my nature to believe without in people, even the queen, without something a bit more first hand. What a grump I am. But it comes from a good a good place as once I’m sold on belief I’m as loyal a litter of corgis.

a reply to: McGinty

Personally I have no problem with you or anyone else voicing their disapproval of QEII and/or The Royal Family now.
In fact I share many of your misgivings.

The very notion of monarchy, and an inherited one at that is morally wrong.
But what are the alternatives?

I've asked this before, several times, and no-one at all has come up with anything.

A Republic?
Another Cromwell?
No thanks.
The man betrayed the ordinary British people, was passionately opposed to universal suffrage and firmly believed that a select few had the right to dominate rule over the majority.
Although he never took the title of King he was a monarch in all but name.

Lets look at the USA.
Even with all their checks and balances they laud look at the options available.
Look at who they've had representing them recently; Trump and Biden.
Doesn't instil me with any faith.

And that's the thing; options.
If we elect a Head of State, its just another self-serving megalomaniac more consumed with self-aggrandisement, personal profit and gain and possibly the pursuit of a covert agenda pushed by hidden names and faces in the background.
That holds no appeal at all.

Look at our European neighbours; Macron, Merkel, Putin, Berlusconi et al.
Or those infesting the EU?
Do you really fancy someone like that as Head of State.....and probably with more influence than any monarch in a Constitutional Monarchy.

You seem to support and advocate QEII stepping in and calling a General Election during Covid.
That's one step away from an Absolute Monarch.
We can't demand they stay out of politics when their interfering goes against our beliefs and support them interfering when it suits.

Our system isn't perfect.
Far from it - it needs urgent and radical reform, the party political system has outlived its fit-for-purpose. But I think that's a discussion for another time and place.

But until someone can suggest a better alternative than what we have now I'd say lets stick with what we have.
That is of course provided the monarch keeps his/her nose out of the business of government.

I'm not entirely sure Charles will be able to resist temptation....but I hope he can, I'm prepared to give him a chance.

I don't know if you read the post I've repeated a few times by DISRAELI, but it really does sum it up...at present.

As I say, if anyone would like to try and convince that they should be abolished - and what should replace them - please try, I am genuinely interested.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Probably had to get to Greggs.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Double.

a reply to: Freeborn

You always take the time to present your case and i have a great deal of respect for that and for your opinion; always balanced and non-excluding of things that don't fit a certain narrative. The kind of posts i come to ATS for.

You're right, there's no better permanent system that i can think of!

Imo the problem isn't the lack of a perfect system - that's probably an impossibility. The problem is entropy; the inescapable change from an ordered, well intentioned effort to establish a system that works best, to the inevitable corruption of individual standards that doom every enterprise to collapse into the chaos of self interest.

In lieu of perhaps one day coming up with a system that somehow defies entropy all we can do is course-correct. We do this imo with vigilance and debate. The moment something is cordoned off as taboo - not to be criticised - then those are places that small lapses (everyone has them) can infect the whole system.

Suggesting QEII should've absolved parliament during Boris' total balls ups was indeed not a pragmatic notion. But i'd have saluted her if she'd done it. This tradition we have of royals not being allowed to voice an opinion i find difficult. Certainly they'd need to choose their battles wisely, but some battles can't be ignored. When 10s of thousand are dying that probably don't have to due to Boris and his chum dubious incompetence, or greed (be nice to see their offshore accounts - bet there's a Pfitzer deposit or two), it was a battle worth fighting - worth breaking a tradition for.. It was time to suggest that perhaps this isn't working and the people should have an opportunity to vote on it. Not a royal decree, just an opinion expressed.

Like i said, not pragmatic! There'd have been many rippling issues i've not foreseen, and no small social unrest if the government didn't take the hint, but i think it would've been the right thing to do. I can dream!

a reply to: gortex


RIP Queen Elizabeth II

a reply to: McGinty

that's kinda your job as citizens, isn't it??

All of us complain, myself included, about how Parliament, or Congress, don't do our bidding, or are not trustworthy, etc...

When, lately, have we practiced anything like consistent oversight, which is our job as citizens. Anyone??

a reply to: Nexttimemaybe

Why do you think it was nonsense?

Do you think it was too theatrical? Or did it seem to you to be a show? Of course it lasted for several days but they are following some protocol when the head of state dies.

Any other reasons for your disapproval?

a reply to: seagull

Oversight is the responsibility of politics. However, since politics appears to be overrun with venal self promoters and corporate stooges it does indeed fall to the rest of us to voice that oversight.

The rest of us includes royalty; born of woman just like you and I.

I’d go further to say that ‘one’s’ responsibility to voice oversight regarding the liberties and crimes against the people is equal to what their position in life affords them

In that context the stage, influence and uber wealth of the royals certainly affords them a far greater responsibility than most, if not all.

As if that wasn’t enough, much of that wealth is given to them continually by the public in taxes.

So, imo it’s not a big ask to voice a little oversight from time to time.

The question is why don’t they? Because of the rules? Yes indeed! And why don’t they wish to break those rules - to make exceptions when necessary? Self preservation, surely!

Some will say that opinions are subjective, so they must not voice any, as it would be partisan and cancel their impartiality. Well, judges must be impartial yet still judge. And sometimes there can be no arguments against voice ping a concern for democracy, when those in charge have been proven to lie repeatedly in the most grave situation; Boris in a global pandemic.

But I get the counter arguments and they’re correct. Rules are rules and we don’t like people breaking them around here, even if it’s in a good and moral cause.

a reply to: McGinty

I didn't mean to imply that Charles shouldn't have a roll in oversight--he most assuredly should, he's the head of state. Or any other head of state--be he or she royalty, or an upstart commoner...

But you, and I, as citizens also have a roll, though it's much, much harder for us to call someone onto the carpet, than it is for a head of state...

That goes without saying. We would need a good many of our fellow citizens to come along for the ride, all of us singing from the same hymnal, as it were.

a reply to: seagull