GRcade

Hyperion wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Hyperion wrote:It does serve to enforce that your circumstances of birth can determine your status in life, and that you are more important depending on who your family is.
It might not bother people, but it is a symbol of the inequality in the country. If you got rid of the beacon of inequality then maybe you could begin to address the rest of it

Except getting rid of the beacon of inequality would not lead to equality. That didn’t happen in France, America or any other place where they got rid of a monarchy.

Once you got rid of the monarchy, all that would happen is that things would be pretty much identical to now. Except with a President on top.

But theoretically anyone could become that President. You're not telling society that no you can't do this because you weren't born in the right family

Theoretically anybody can marry a prince or princess. Who gives a gooseberry fool though? And the USA at the moment would be a good example of why letting “anybody” become President is a terrible idea.

I know what you are saying and I broadly agree, but it is so far down on the list of priorities for this country that it’s really not something that bothers me. Having a royal family does nothing to harm us and getting rid will make no difference to us. I just can’t see why anybody cares.

Moggy wrote:

Hyperion wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Hyperion wrote:It does serve to enforce that your circumstances of birth can determine your status in life, and that you are more important depending on who your family is.
It might not bother people, but it is a symbol of the inequality in the country. If you got rid of the beacon of inequality then maybe you could begin to address the rest of it

Except getting rid of the beacon of inequality would not lead to equality. That didn’t happen in France, America or any other place where they got rid of a monarchy.

Once you got rid of the monarchy, all that would happen is that things would be pretty much identical to now. Except with a President on top.

But theoretically anyone could become that President. You're not telling society that no you can't do this because you weren't born in the right family

Theoretically anybody can marry a prince or princess. Who gives a gooseberry fool though? And the USA at the moment would be a good example of why letting “anybody” become President is a terrible idea.

I know what you are saying and I broadly agree, but it is so far down on the list of priorities for this country that it’s really not something that bothers me. Having a royal family does nothing to harm us and getting rid will make no difference to us. I just can’t see why anybody cares.

Yes, but you still can't become King. The US President is irrelevant because as said previously we'd be a parliamentary republic not a presidential one.
I'm not even an ardent republican, but like in the House of Lords, it has no place in a democracy.
But hey, apathy, me too

Hyperion wrote:Yes, but you still can't become King.

Does anybody really want to be?

The US President is irrelevant because as said previously we'd be a parliamentary republic not a presidential one.

Well we have no idea what we would be if we got rid of the royal family. We would probably remain a parliamentary republic, but that's even more reason to just keep the damn queen rather than a pointless ceremonial head of state President.

I'm not even an ardent republican, but like in the House of Lords, it has no place in a democracy.
But hey, apathy, me too

I agree. But it would make no difference at all to any of our lives if the royals are there or not. And so I don't care that they are there.

Moggy wrote:it would make no difference at all to any of our lives if the royals are there or not.

We'd all have less Daily Express headlines to ignore

Preezy wrote:

Moggy wrote:it would make no difference at all to any of our lives if the royals are there or not.

We'd all have less Daily Express headlines to ignore

No we wouldn’t. They would still talk about how Princess Di would have saved the monarchy from destruction at the hands of the evil lefties.

And the whole Windsor family would still be followed by all of the media with their daily lives splashed across the tabloids.

The best argument for getting rid of the monarchy is that we can jib that godawful anthem

Hyperion wrote:The best argument for getting rid of the monarchy is that we can jib that godawful anthem

They’ll only change it to “God save the PM”.

Priority number one in terms of political reform should be an elected house of Lords in my opinion.

I quite like the nostalgia that goes with the monarchy, even though it's an archaic system. Plus, I dont see it as a life of luxury. To me, the Royals live a life of absolute hell and have far less freedom than I enjoy in my own country. William can't even take his kid to school without a massive security operation.

Yeah but red dog, they probably have the softest toilet paper in the world. The bastards.

Preezy wrote:Yeah but red dog, they probably have the softest toilet paper in the world. The bastards.

It may be soft but is it refrigerated? that's what I want to know!

Hyperion wrote:The best argument for getting rid of the monarchy is that we can jib that godawful anthem

I've said it before, but as an atheist republican there is something beautifully sincere about singing "God save the Queen"

captain red dog wrote:Priority number one in terms of political reform should be an elected house of Lords in my opinion.

I quite like the nostalgia that goes with the monarchy, even though it's an archaic system. Plus, I dont see it as a life of luxury. To me, the Royals live a life of absolute hell and have far less freedom than I enjoy in my own country. William can't even take his kid to school without a massive security operation.

I agree with all of that.

The House of Lords desperately needs to be reformed. If they don’t want to make it elected, then they at least need to strip it of the remaining hereditary and religious peers.

I am sure being a royal was fantastic back in the day, but the modern life of a royal must be awful. And it is impossible to get away from, the press will hound you whether you stay in the public eye or stay out of it. All the money in the world is useless if you can’t even drive your kids to school without the paparazzi stalking you.

OrangeRakoon wrote:

Hyperion wrote:The best argument for getting rid of the monarchy is that we can jib that godawful anthem

I've said it before, but as an atheist republican there is something beautifully sincere about singing "God save the Queen"

It’s so unspecific that you can just pretend you are asking Odin to protect Queen Margrethe II.

I like to think of it as Robbie Fowler protecting Brian May

I actually support a non directly elected House of Lords. Being selected/confirmed by MPs still makes them democratically accountable (they are chosen by the people's representatives) but that one step removed frees them from the damaging effects of chasing popular approval, and dampens the swing from reactionary elections. It enables the house to be populated by subject experts rather than "politicians", who can concentrate on ensuring workable and sensible laws rather than just immediately popular and reactionary ones.

By that measure I'm 100% for reformation with the removal of hereditary and religious peers, and for introducing terms and other measures to reduce the house's bloated size. This is already being done, as I understand it.

OrangeRakoon wrote:I actually support a non directly elected House of Lords. Being selected/confirmed by MPs still makes them democratically accountable (they are chosen by the people's representatives) but that one step removed frees them from the damaging effects of chasing popular approval, and dampens the swing from reactionary elections. It enables the house to be populated by subject experts rather than "politicians", who can concentrate on ensuring workable and sensible laws rather than just immediately popular and reactionary ones.

I am not fully against the House of Lords being appointed, but if it is to remain so then it needs to have term length limits. People should not be in there as a job for life handed to them by their Prime Minister mate.

It’s a nice idea to have “subject experts” in there, but how often does that happen in practise? Usually the appointments are ex MPs and mates of the establishment,

I would personally have an elected House of Lords, but only allow them a single term of 10/15 years with no extensions. Once in they would not need to chase popularity and would be free to disobey their party if they felt it necessary. A single term would stop it being a job for life as well.

Sounds reasonable, although I feel like 10/15 years on a directly elected position is too long. You could have a house or lords representing a electorate that has long since changed dramatically.

They would need to be elected, if they are appointed it would be the same as the EU and no leaver would be hypocritical to not mind it here and only mind it there.

Must say I like her accent, finally we'll have a royal who doesn't sound like a twat.

How the general public has reacted to the news according to YouGov:

- Half of Brits (52%) say they are indifferent to the news of the engagement between Prince Harry & Meghan Markle.
39% say they are pleased for the couple.
- 4% are "disappointed"
- 6% said they "don’t know".

- While Markle has announced that she will be giving up acting in order to focus on Royal duties, around half (49%) of Brits want her to continue to have a normal job.
- Only 26% think she should now dedicate herself to Royal duties.
- 25% don’t know either way.

- Overwhelmingly Brits are not bothered by the fact that Markle is not British, divorced and mixed-race – though they are split over the prospect of a same-sex royal marriage

Poor Camilla.