ChatterBank1 min ago
So What Is Your View On Prince Charles Viewing Papers We Cannot?
34 Answers
Personally as a commit ed Republican I think it is totally wrong, but even if I try to put the Royalist hat on I still can't see why he should, especially given his interfering and extreme views on some subjects.
Still, I reckon that once Charlie boy gets on the throne (and not the one in the small room) it wont be long before he brings the Monarchy to its knees.
http://
Still, I reckon that once Charlie boy gets on the throne (and not the one in the small room) it wont be long before he brings the Monarchy to its knees.
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
how do you mean? All governments are elected. I don't mean you'll have personally voted for the winning party but you'll have taken part in the democratic process even if only by refusing to vote.
I see Murdoch and his men are still popping in to tell the government what to do
http://
That does bother me. They do have power. Who elected them? And yet somehow they're entitled to express their views and the head of state-in-waiting isn't?.
I see Murdoch and his men are still popping in to tell the government what to do
http://
That does bother me. They do have power. Who elected them? And yet somehow they're entitled to express their views and the head of state-in-waiting isn't?.
Oh for goodness sake.
The queen gets briefed on matters of state weekly I think. She has an opinion and I am sure makes it known so why shouldn't Charles?
Just because they say something doesn't mean they get their own way.
. Corbynites, socialists, republicans and the like just don't see the benefit so will never understand why they are popular and the only way to chip away at them is to constantly moan and complain about nothing of consequence.
Republicanism is as much a religion as any other dogma or opinion and once you are in it it is difficult for to leave or I change because it will,prove you are a numpty that got sucked in.
We all have our opinion about something where we are desperate to make everyone else agree with us as we are truly the only ones who have thought it through properly and if only they would listen they would see they are wrong. But obviously we can't see that they could possibly have the right but opposite opinion to us.
Human nature to have opinions.
The queen gets briefed on matters of state weekly I think. She has an opinion and I am sure makes it known so why shouldn't Charles?
Just because they say something doesn't mean they get their own way.
. Corbynites, socialists, republicans and the like just don't see the benefit so will never understand why they are popular and the only way to chip away at them is to constantly moan and complain about nothing of consequence.
Republicanism is as much a religion as any other dogma or opinion and once you are in it it is difficult for to leave or I change because it will,prove you are a numpty that got sucked in.
We all have our opinion about something where we are desperate to make everyone else agree with us as we are truly the only ones who have thought it through properly and if only they would listen they would see they are wrong. But obviously we can't see that they could possibly have the right but opposite opinion to us.
Human nature to have opinions.
"Th Prime Minister is already the de facto 'Head of State'."
Not correct, OG. The PM is not the Head of State, de facto or otherwise. He or she is not even chosen by voters, but by MPs. The Monarch is the Head of State.
"In any case why would one want a separate function as 'Head of State' when all the important stuff is covered by the Government anyway ?"
Once again you need to revisit your history and also study the (unwritten) constitution of the UK. Virtually all advanced countries separate the Head of State from the Head of government. Sometimes with a monarch and Prime Minister, often with a President and Prime Minister, some in other ways. You need to study the constitution of each of them to understand how their situation evolved and why they need both.
Not correct, OG. The PM is not the Head of State, de facto or otherwise. He or she is not even chosen by voters, but by MPs. The Monarch is the Head of State.
"In any case why would one want a separate function as 'Head of State' when all the important stuff is covered by the Government anyway ?"
Once again you need to revisit your history and also study the (unwritten) constitution of the UK. Virtually all advanced countries separate the Head of State from the Head of government. Sometimes with a monarch and Prime Minister, often with a President and Prime Minister, some in other ways. You need to study the constitution of each of them to understand how their situation evolved and why they need both.
“I can't see any reason why he should have access to confidential cabinet papers. He isn't King yet and may never be.”
Quite true, Mikey – he may never be. But only (in my opinion, despite what beso contends) if he predeceases his mother and that must be more unlikely than likely.
The UK government is Her Majesty’s government. If you know how the UK constitution works it is obvious she needs to be kept informed of what her government is up to. Charles is the heir to the throne and her government could become his government in a trice with no notice, especially as The Queen is now getting on a bit.
One of the things the Monarchy represents is stability and continuity (OK that's two things). Politicians come and go (thank God they all seem eventually to go!) but the Monarchy continues regardless. Among the many things the "Monarchy Machine" is good at is ensuring that stability and succession plans are at the heart of everything the Monarchy is involved in. It’s plainly obvious that Charles should be kept informed of affairs of the State.
Quite true, Mikey – he may never be. But only (in my opinion, despite what beso contends) if he predeceases his mother and that must be more unlikely than likely.
The UK government is Her Majesty’s government. If you know how the UK constitution works it is obvious she needs to be kept informed of what her government is up to. Charles is the heir to the throne and her government could become his government in a trice with no notice, especially as The Queen is now getting on a bit.
One of the things the Monarchy represents is stability and continuity (OK that's two things). Politicians come and go (thank God they all seem eventually to go!) but the Monarchy continues regardless. Among the many things the "Monarchy Machine" is good at is ensuring that stability and succession plans are at the heart of everything the Monarchy is involved in. It’s plainly obvious that Charles should be kept informed of affairs of the State.
Its similar to a Captain/Commander of a ship. The No1 should be privy to everything the Captain knows. Except sailing orders and mission objective in times of war on a Military vessel.
I do wish Prince Charles would button up on his opinions on such "carbuncles"'as he sees fit to describe when it comes to architecture and such. There are plebs out here who probably are better qualified than he yet we have to listen to his boring gripes on matters not to do with the affairs of the real monarchies role.
I do wish Prince Charles would button up on his opinions on such "carbuncles"'as he sees fit to describe when it comes to architecture and such. There are plebs out here who probably are better qualified than he yet we have to listen to his boring gripes on matters not to do with the affairs of the real monarchies role.
Latest Posts
Are The West In The Grip Of The Woke...
News3 mins ago
Crosswords4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles17 mins ago
Technology30 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.