Current Affairs Her majesty the Queen

Status
Not open for further replies.
Of the 38 members of the OECD, just 12 have monarchies (and several of those are ours). So 26 countries seem to get by just fine without one. Does the fact that we have one mean we should all be glued to what's happening, despite it having no practical bearing on our lives whatsoever? They're a complete anachronism that have no real practical role anymore, so I'm baffled as to the fuss around them.
Don't watch then. Sorted.

Go for a bike ride ?
 
Any of it really.
I'm not going to advocate that we truly need a monarchy, but I do feel that having one under our context (a constitutional monarchy) has benefits.

I mentioned yesterday: sober, continual leadership and being apolitical provide consistency compared to the chopping and change that comes with a republic.

A genuine question to yourself: what would be the benefits or removing the status quo - e.g. removing the monarchy? For me, the balance as it is works.

Although I do think the monarchy should be skimmed down to stop the hangers on from benefiting.
 
Don't watch then. Sorted.

Go for a bike ride ?
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not watching any of it. I was just saying that I don't really understand the fascination with it. You can pop down to Buckingham Palace most days of the year and the only people there will be tourists taking pictures. It doesn't seem to bother Brits most of the time.
I'm not going to advocate that we truly need a monarchy, but I do feel that having one under our context (a constitutional monarchy) has benefits.

I mentioned yesterday: sober, continual leadership and being apolitical provide consistency compared to the chopping and change that comes with a republic.

A genuine question to yourself: what would be the benefits or removing the status quo - e.g. removing the monarchy? For me, the balance as it is works.

Although I do think the monarchy should be skimmed down to stop the hangers on from benefiting.
Stability and consistency only matter when they actually do something though. Has the fact that she's been there helped anyone as the Tories have chopped and changed their leader so frequently in recent years?

As to the benefits of changing it, for me, the biggest benefit is the message it sends that someone isn't a cut above everyone else merely by virtue of the family they were born into.
 
It's always nice when an inbred royal lives to be older than the average age of life expectancy.

Shows just what a stress-less live and secret super drugs can do.

Good on you 'Liz, good on the taxpayers and good on the pharmaceutical companies.
Could also show that not smoking, stuffing your face and pouring gin down your neck by the bucket like her sister doesnt hurt either.
 
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not watching any of it. I was just saying that I don't really understand the fascination with it. You can pop down to Buckingham Palace most days of the year and the only people there will be tourists taking pictures. It doesn't seem to bother Brits most of the time
Yeah but The Queen doesn't die most days and the country doesn't get a new King most days.
You're not a simple man Bruce, you're not very good at impressions either.
 
Stability and consistency only matter when they actually do something though. Has the fact that she's been there helped anyone as the Tories have chopped and changed their leader so frequently in recent years?

As to the benefits of changing it, for me, the biggest benefit is the message it sends that someone isn't a cut above everyone else merely by virtue of the family they were born into.
Acting as a stable figure ahead, away from the nonsense and shenanigans of the Palace of Westminster, may be worth more than you're actually admitting.

Through the changing guise of the UK across the world, the political turmoil of the 70s and 80s and more recently Johnson and chums, there's been stability.

In terms of the message, I totally appreciate that message and it is an uncomfortable one, but again I balance it against the wider picture.

I'm not saying our monarchy is perfect, far from it, but nor is the republican and presidential model adopted by many countries. It's which is better.
 
I'm not going to advocate that we truly need a monarchy, but I do feel that having one under our context (a constitutional monarchy) has benefits.

I mentioned yesterday: sober, continual leadership and being apolitical provide consistency compared to the chopping and change that comes with a republic.

A genuine question to yourself: what would be the benefits or removing the status quo - e.g. removing the monarchy? For me, the balance as it is works.

Although I do think the monarchy should be skimmed down to stop the hangers on from benefiting.
Removing the biggest symbolic flagship of the immoral concept of someone being born superior to others would be a big benefit to an equal society
 
Yeah but The Queen doesn't die most days and the country doesn't get a new King most days.
You're not a simple man Bruce, you're not very good at impressions either.
What I'm finding is how funny it is watching the BBC reporters going from the most solemn face you could possibly see when talking about the queen dying to one of the most elated faces when talking about Charles taking over. The phoniness of it all is a great watch.
 
What I'm finding is how funny it is watching the BBC reporters going from the most solemn face you could possibly see when talking about the queen dying to one of the most elated faces when talking about Charles taking over. The phoniness of it all is a great watch.
Novelty has worn off for me. Properly worn off. I didnt realise how many besides witchell and bond I disliked...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top