Is it time to put an end to British Monarchy?

[fncceo]

Given that Queen Elizabeth II has recently signaled her intention to step down next year and hand the reigns to her successor, Charles, in 2021, is it time to end the archaic practice of gynecological leadership?

Determining someone is fit to run a country by virtue of the womb from which they were extracted rather than any personal virtues seems, in this day-and-age, a most lurid anachronism.

Elizabeth II, in her way, has done a suitable job as Queen of England in post-empirical Britain. But, there is no indication that her progeny have any aptitude for the job or even any desire to do it.

Charles ... who is legally the next in line and must rule after The Queen unless he abdicates ... is a that strangest combination of a cruel and timid man. He is really just a geriatric hippy who is better suited to growing organic veggies than ruling The Commonwealth. The rest of the family, spoiled, and entitled as they are, have no desire for anything more than to keep hold on their wealth, their castles, their titles, and ... above all .. their privileges.

Just a quick recap on what powers the British Monarch still retains...

He/she still appoints all members to the upper house of Parliament (Lords) who are un-elected. Imagine having an un-elected Senate.

No bill passed by Parliament can be made law without the consent of the King/Queen. Although, this is largely considered a rubber-stamp since the last time a monarch vetoed law passed by Parliament was 1708.

No government can be formed without the consent of The Monarch. Regardless who the results of any election in the UK, the monarch must give permission for the elected party to form a government.

The Monarch is the 'Head of State' in most Commonwealth Countries, including the strategically important countries of Canada and Australia. This effectively give him/her the same power to form and dissolve governments as she has in England.

The King/Queen has several dozen other rights and powers not afforded to mere mortals that, while quaint and interesting, not really worth noting.


Twice, Americans have gone to war in an effort to shore up this failing system. Isn't it time to turn the whole pack of dole recipients out on their (in Charles' case, rather large) ears?

 

[JGalt]

Given that Queen Elizabeth II has recently signaled her intention to step down next year and hand the reigns to her successor, Charles, in 2021, is it time to end the archaic practice of gynecological leadership?

Determining someone is fit to run a country by virtue of the womb from which they were extracted rather than any personal virtues seems, in this day-and-age, a most lurid anachronism.

Elizabeth II, in her way, has done a suitable job as Queen of England in post-empirical Britain. But, there is no indication that her progeny have any aptitude for the job or even any desire to do it.

Charles ... who is legally the next in line and must rule after The Queen unless he abdicates ... is a that strangest combination of a cruel and timid man. He is really just a geriatric hippy who is better suited to growing organic veggies than ruling The Commonwealth. The rest of the family, spoiled, and entitled as they are, have no desire for anything more than to keep hold on their wealth, their castles, their titles, and ... above all .. their privileges.

Just a quick recap on what powers the British Monarch still retains...

He/she still appoints all members to the upper house of Parliament (Lords) who are un-elected. Imagine having an un-elected Senate.

No bill passed by Parliament can be made law without the consent of the King/Queen. Although, this is largely considered a rubber-stamp since the last time a monarch vetoed law passed by Parliament was 1708.

No government can be formed without the consent of The Monarch. Regardless who the results of any election in the UK, the monarch must give permission for the elected party to form a government.

The Monarch is the 'Head of State' in most Commonwealth Countries, including the strategically important countries of Canada and Australia. This effectively give him/her the same power to form and dissolve governments as she has in England.

The King/Queen has several dozen other rights and powers not afforded to mere mortals that, while quaint and interesting, not really worth noting.


Twice, Americans have gone to war in an effort to shore up this failing system. Isn't it time to turn the whole pack of dole recipients out on their (in Charles' case, rather large) ears?

British monarchy was at one time the only thing keeping the UK from becoming a totaly multi-cultural, multi-racial shithole. Apparently it failed, so yes. They might as well do away with it.

The funny thing is, I never realized the reason and purpose of their royalism until I just wrote that. How the mighty have fallen.

 

[Gracie]

Given that Queen Elizabeth II has recently signaled her intention to step down next year and hand the reigns to her successor, Charles, in 2021, is it time to end the archaic practice of gynecological leadership?

Determining someone is fit to run a country by virtue of the womb from which they were extracted rather than any personal virtues seems, in this day-and-age, a most lurid anachronism.

Elizabeth II, in her way, has done a suitable job as Queen of England in post-empirical Britain. But, there is no indication that her progeny have any aptitude for the job or even any desire to do it.

Charles ... who is legally the next in line and must rule after The Queen unless he abdicates ... is a that strangest combination of a cruel and timid man. He is really just a geriatric hippy who is better suited to growing organic veggies than ruling The Commonwealth. The rest of the family, spoiled, and entitled as they are, have no desire for anything more than to keep hold on their wealth, their castles, their titles, and ... above all .. their privileges.

Just a quick recap on what powers the British Monarch still retains...

He/she still appoints all members to the upper house of Parliament (Lords) who are un-elected. Imagine having an un-elected Senate.

No bill passed by Parliament can be made law without the consent of the King/Queen. Although, this is largely considered a rubber-stamp since the last time a monarch vetoed law passed by Parliament was 1708.

No government can be formed without the consent of The Monarch. Regardless who the results of any election in the UK, the monarch must give permission for the elected party to form a government.

The Monarch is the 'Head of State' in most Commonwealth Countries, including the strategically important countries of Canada and Australia. This effectively give him/her the same power to form and dissolve governments as she has in England.

The King/Queen has several dozen other rights and powers not afforded to mere mortals that, while quaint and interesting, not really worth noting.


Twice, Americans have gone to war in an effort to shore up this failing system. Isn't it time to turn the whole pack of dole recipients out on their (in Charles' case, rather large) ears?

Yeah, but it isn't any of our business what they do.
If they continue with this monarchy crap, then Charles needs to retire with his beloved Camilla and turn the whole shebang over to his son William who seems a bit more levelheaded than his dad.

 

[Yarddog]

Given that Queen Elizabeth II has recently signaled her intention to step down next year and hand the reigns to her successor, Charles, in 2021, is it time to end the archaic practice of gynecological leadership?

Determining someone is fit to run a country by virtue of the womb from which they were extracted rather than any personal virtues seems, in this day-and-age, a most lurid anachronism.

Elizabeth II, in her way, has done a suitable job as Queen of England in post-empirical Britain. But, there is no indication that her progeny have any aptitude for the job or even any desire to do it.

Charles ... who is legally the next in line and must rule after The Queen unless he abdicates ... is a that strangest combination of a cruel and timid man. He is really just a geriatric hippy who is better suited to growing organic veggies than ruling The Commonwealth. The rest of the family, spoiled, and entitled as they are, have no desire for anything more than to keep hold on their wealth, their castles, their titles, and ... above all .. their privileges.

Just a quick recap on what powers the British Monarch still retains...

He/she still appoints all members to the upper house of Parliament (Lords) who are un-elected. Imagine having an un-elected Senate.

No bill passed by Parliament can be made law without the consent of the King/Queen. Although, this is largely considered a rubber-stamp since the last time a monarch vetoed law passed by Parliament was 1708.

No government can be formed without the consent of The Monarch. Regardless who the results of any election in the UK, the monarch must give permission for the elected party to form a government.

The Monarch is the 'Head of State' in most Commonwealth Countries, including the strategically important countries of Canada and Australia. This effectively give him/her the same power to form and dissolve governments as she has in England.

The King/Queen has several dozen other rights and powers not afforded to mere mortals that, while quaint and interesting, not really worth noting.


Twice, Americans have gone to war in an effort to shore up this failing system. Isn't it time to turn the whole pack of dole recipients out on their (in Charles' case, rather large) ears?

All true but dont kick them to the curb until we find out where They are hiding the secret stash of emeralds. You know they are holding out.

 

[MarathonMike]

I'm just guessing but it seems the British people have some emotional attachment to the Royals as it gives some mystique and status to Great Britain it wouldn't have without them. I think they are a joke. And that God Damn royal couple that just moved into the US can leave tomorrow, that would be great.

 

[daveman]

Britain used to be a planetary empire.

Now they let barbarians rape their children for fear of being called racist.

Screw Britain.

 

[fncceo]

Yeah, but it isn't any of our business what they do.

As long as we are never again inclined to risk American lives and property in defense of their monarchy on account of our "special relationship".

 

[fncceo]

 

[ReinyDays]

God chooses the monarch ... and He so wills His anointed to bear forth His new monarch upon His lands ... to rule there exercising His sovereignty ...

God alone bestows the right of rule ... God is the King of kings, Lord of lords ... unto Him do all submit ... He set us overlords as He sees fit ... for His purpose ... our task is to obey God and those overlords God Himself has blessed ...

If you could understand ... God wouldn't have made you an American ... now would He? ...

 

[Kilroy2]

I not a big fan of it but they do make great tabloid news.

The drama is unreal. Diana saga was interesting.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

View attachment 419161

 

[fncceo]

I not a big fan of it but they do make great tabloid news.

The drama is unreal. Diana saga was interesting.

The "Diana Saga" was nothing more, or less, than two over-privileged, grotesquely-spoiled, quasi-adults endlessly complaining over how difficult it was to be given everything in life that they didn't deserve and how unhappy it made them.

The only way the saga could have ended well is that if they had both been in the Mercedes.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Determining someone is suitable to hold the highest office in the land because they attended Harvard or some other supposedly prestigious institution seems to be pretty ludicrous too considering how out of touch some of them are with reality.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The Monarchy is what's left of the tenuous strand of sanity left in Britian.

 

[fncceo]

The Monarchy is what's left of the tenuous strand of sanity left in Britian.

Really?

 

[Sunni Man]

From what I understand the Royals are a major tourist attraction that generates tens of millions of pounds into the UK economy. ...

 

[fncceo]

From what I understand the Royals are a major tourist attraction that generates tens of millions of pounds into the UK economy. ...

I've never understood that argument. Not a single person has ever come to England to see The Queen. You couldn't even if you wanted.

You can, at selected times, take a tour to see one of the palaces on a quick, guided tour, but more people visit Knott's Berry Farm than Buckingham Palace.

Also, if the royal palaces, jewels, and such are such a tourist draw, wouldn't it be much easier for people to see them without The Royals plodding about in their monogrammed robes and slippers?

The reason people can see the Roman ruins today is because The Romans are long gone.

 

[Kilroy2]

From what I understand the Royals are a major tourist attraction that generates tens of millions of pounds into the UK economy. ...

I've never understood that argument. Not a single person has ever come to England to see The Queen. You couldn't even if you wanted.

You can, at selected times, take a tour to see one of the palaces on a quick, guided tour, but more people visit Knott's Berry Farm than Buckingham Palace.

Also, if the royal palaces, jewels, and such are such a tourist draw, wouldn't it be much easier for people to see them without The Royals plodding about in their monogrammed robes and slippers?

The reason people can see the Roman ruins today is because The Romans are long gone.

Yeah know one goes to see the queen and like you say she does not do shows

They go to see the royal guards and see if u can get them to lose their composure
The royal guards with the big fluffy hat and a semi automatic weapon is worth the price of admissions. i gave him my best mama jokes and he just ignored the shit of me.

 

[fncceo]

he just ignored the shit of me.

I have no doubt you could get people to do that right here at home.

 

[Lysistrata]

The Monarchy is what's left of the tenuous strand of sanity left in Britian.

Really?

View attachment 419184

I've never, ever understood the English thing about bizarre hats. This woman either just stepped off the mothership or this is an antenna. I wish that I could find the comment I once read by George Bernard Shaw regarding sitting behind a woman at the opera who was wearing a dead bird on her head. Granted, I am a bit sour on hats since I was a Catholic in my youth and had to have something pinned to my head to even enter the church. At times it was a kleenex, and at times a lacy mantilla. I also had a Jackie Kennedy pillbox hat! The Supreme Being apparently did not like my head, or perhaps a bad hair style. Now it has to be freezing outside for me to even consider putting something on my head.

The idea that somebody is more important or more entitled to have everything they come into contact with be perfect and pleasing just because of who their parents were or some sort of physical characteristic is absurd. But people all over the world seem to like some sort of pomp, glitz, and display, and sometimes the British royals have given the people of the UK something to rally around in times of trouble, like when the king and queen refused to leave London during the Blitz and toured around to the bomb sites. I guess they inspired patriotism, stoicism, resolve, and a sense of continuity. People all over the world have watched the royal weddings and funerals, so I guess they get something inspirational out of it.

I don't think that foreigners come to London to see Liz II or her relatives. There are much more fun things to do, like go to the Tower and see the jewels, or visit the British Museum (I have a fantasy about "accidently" being locked in it overnight), or go to Westminster Abbey and try not to step on the graves in the floor.

One thing that I've wondered about: do the royals actually like what they do or does it get boring and jaded. They don't seem to be permitted an actual personal life. Living one's entire life as an icon might not be so comfortable.