Starmer & Lammy A Marriage Made In...
News4 mins ago
Prince Philip To Stand Down
Breaking news. Bless him.
Answers
The argument against the Monarchy (especially in a Constitution
15:10 Thu 04th May 2017
Any name can be disrespectful if it is said with spite or malice. But generally the queen has been referred to as Queenie/Queeny, Betty, maj, her mag, Liz/Lizzy and names like that.
For most people they are terms of inderement and as such are usually acceptable in an informal conversation.
If however someone uses one of these names just to show they have no respect and the familiarity is an extension of that disrespect then that is when it becomes unacceptable.
Only Mikey knows if his families term is respectful or not.
For most people they are terms of inderement and as such are usually acceptable in an informal conversation.
If however someone uses one of these names just to show they have no respect and the familiarity is an extension of that disrespect then that is when it becomes unacceptable.
Only Mikey knows if his families term is respectful or not.
One interesting snippet about Philip is that when he became naturalised in 1947 he had to abandon his foreign royal status and became plain Lt Mountbatten. What he did not know, and nobody bothered to tell him, was that by virtue of also being a prince of Denmark he was already British by virtue of his descent from Queen Victoria. The Queen remedied this in 1957, proclaiming him a prince of the UK.
The argument against the Monarchy (especially in a Constitutional Monarchy like here in the UK) for me always falls apart when the alternatives are considered.
Whenever new elected posts are created (such as mayors, police commissioners and so on) immediately from the woodwork emerges an assortment of slime-balls, time-servers, party hacks, washed up politicians and some who have never been in the sea to get washed up to start with. They all stand on Party bases and see a nice little earner coming their way if they can persuade enough gullible fools to cast a vote for them. If the post of "President of the UK" came on the market it would attract the worst of the worst of these. (I can think of a few names, but it doesn't really matter - in this respect they'd all be as bad as each other).
There would be no point in having an elected President unless he or she assumed some constitutional powers. There would be conflict between the "President" and Parliament, especially if the Commons majority and the President were on opposite sides of the political divide, and the sovereignty of Parliament would be in jeopardy.
The constitutional Monarchy has served the UK perfectly satisfactorily since the Glorious Revolution. It entails no democratic deficiency because the Monarch has no effective powers to propose or amend legislation. In short, it ain't broke so there is absolutely no need to fix it (especially when the cure will be far worse than any imagined disease.
The country has enough (in fact far too many) elected representatives. It needs no more, especially in a post that would attract candidates with delusions of grandeur of the very highest order. The Monarch is apolitical and the system works perfectly well. We do not need to elect our Head of State.
Whenever new elected posts are created (such as mayors, police commissioners and so on) immediately from the woodwork emerges an assortment of slime-balls, time-servers, party hacks, washed up politicians and some who have never been in the sea to get washed up to start with. They all stand on Party bases and see a nice little earner coming their way if they can persuade enough gullible fools to cast a vote for them. If the post of "President of the UK" came on the market it would attract the worst of the worst of these. (I can think of a few names, but it doesn't really matter - in this respect they'd all be as bad as each other).
There would be no point in having an elected President unless he or she assumed some constitutional powers. There would be conflict between the "President" and Parliament, especially if the Commons majority and the President were on opposite sides of the political divide, and the sovereignty of Parliament would be in jeopardy.
The constitutional Monarchy has served the UK perfectly satisfactorily since the Glorious Revolution. It entails no democratic deficiency because the Monarch has no effective powers to propose or amend legislation. In short, it ain't broke so there is absolutely no need to fix it (especially when the cure will be far worse than any imagined disease.
The country has enough (in fact far too many) elected representatives. It needs no more, especially in a post that would attract candidates with delusions of grandeur of the very highest order. The Monarch is apolitical and the system works perfectly well. We do not need to elect our Head of State.
//it ain't broke so there is absolutely no need to fix it //
True, at the moment. But looking at the shower to come forth I'd say that will not be the case in the near future. Wing Nut should be able to collapse the Monarchy easily especially with that awful wife of his.
Whilst it is true there are many wasters in politics I'm afraid the same can be said for the Royal family. The list for which the tax payer is responsible should be direct line only. All others should be paid per function, so Anne will be ok but William and Edward will need to go on the rock and roll or get a real job.
True, at the moment. But looking at the shower to come forth I'd say that will not be the case in the near future. Wing Nut should be able to collapse the Monarchy easily especially with that awful wife of his.
Whilst it is true there are many wasters in politics I'm afraid the same can be said for the Royal family. The list for which the tax payer is responsible should be direct line only. All others should be paid per function, so Anne will be ok but William and Edward will need to go on the rock and roll or get a real job.
hereIam - //I bet the Queen will miss him by her side when she's out and about. //
I've not heard or read the detail, but it may be just the PP is quitting his individual engagements - he may still step out with the Queen for the opening of Parliament and similar double-headers where protocol demands.
I've not heard or read the detail, but it may be just the PP is quitting his individual engagements - he may still step out with the Queen for the opening of Parliament and similar double-headers where protocol demands.
“But looking at the shower to come forth I'd say that will not be the case in the near future.”
The Monarchy has survived some truly awful attempts to discredit it and place it in jeopardy, youngmaf. Immediately springing to mind are George IV, Edward VII and Edward VIII.
Its strength lies in the fact that it is not the Monarch which holds it together but the Crown. The Crown endures regardless of what individual Monarchs do, good or bad. It will endure the current batch of successors because of that strength and however bad they may be, none of them can be as bad as the least bad of the bunch of candidates a Presidency is likely to attract.
The Monarchy has survived some truly awful attempts to discredit it and place it in jeopardy, youngmaf. Immediately springing to mind are George IV, Edward VII and Edward VIII.
Its strength lies in the fact that it is not the Monarch which holds it together but the Crown. The Crown endures regardless of what individual Monarchs do, good or bad. It will endure the current batch of successors because of that strength and however bad they may be, none of them can be as bad as the least bad of the bunch of candidates a Presidency is likely to attract.
Latest Posts
Home & Garden10 mins ago
ChatterBank11 mins ago
Erm, Have I Forgotten Anything, I...
ChatterBank15 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.