Forum | Now that there is no doubt that Andrew is a liar by bluelagos

Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread

Now that there is no doubt that Andrew is a liar 12:39 - Oct 13 with 4507 views

as well as a nonce, is it time we got rid of the lot of them?

Even Lizzie, supposed wonderful Monarch was happy to fund his covering up his crimes.

Or are we cool to be ruled by a family that prioritises it's own PR before all else?

Poll:

This new lockdown poll - what you reckon?

Now that there is no doubt that Andrew is a liar on 12:54 - Oct 15 with 488 views

Ryorry

Now that there is no doubt that Andrew is a liar on 07:46 - Oct 15 by DJR
Given the make-up of, numbers in, and reasonableness of, the House of Lords, I can't see the likes of the people you mention having much impact or being elected. [Post edited 15 Oct 7:51]

Reasonableness? You think selecting ‘someone like themselves’ wouldn’t come into it?

Sadly we’ll never know!


Poll:	Town's most cultured left foot ever?

Now that there is no doubt that Andrew is a liar on 13:00 - Oct 15 with 465 views

reusersfreekicks

Now that there is no doubt that Andrew is a liar on 20:20 - Oct 13 by Swansea_Blue

Yes I think the ‘what’s the alternative?’ question often gets overlooked. For all their issues, in some ways the royals save us from ourselves, or at least could do if they were a bit more hands on. It’s probably a weak argument to keep them but I’m not 100% convinced democracy results in the best outcomes, as much as we like to tell ourselves that it’s the holy grail (and it probably is if genuine, but democratic systems now are too easily gamed/corrupted).

Didn't Churchill say it's the worst form of government, apart from all the others.

If a ruling PM/party wanted to sign into law a completely undemocratic/autocratic/nasty piece of legislation would royal ascent be withheld , and would it make any difference?

Now that there is no doubt that Andrew is a liar on 13:11 - Oct 15 with 438 views

MattinLondon

Now that there is no doubt that Andrew is a liar on 13:00 - Oct 15 by reusersfreekicks
Didn't Churchill say it's the worst form of government, apart from all the others. If a ruling PM/party wanted to sign into law a completely undemocratic/autocratic/nasty piece of legislation would royal ascent be withheld , and would it make any difference?

Royal ascent wouldn’t be withheld - if it was, then that government would simply release some dirt that they have on the royal family.

Now that there is no doubt that Andrew is a liar on 13:19 - Oct 15 with 422 views

leitrimblue

Now that there is no doubt that Andrew is a liar on 20:20 - Oct 13 by Swansea_Blue

Surely you could just elect a president/head of state like we do in Ireland?

I would like to put forward the following possible nominees

Richard Attenborough
Ant McPartlin
Jo Brand
Esther Rantzen
Daley Thompson
Brian Jacks
Fatima Whitbread
Robert Webb
Bob Mortimor
Either of the Fun House twins

Now that there is no doubt that Andrew is a liar on 13:22 - Oct 15 with 411 views

BiGDonnie

Nope. Fcuk the lot of em.

	COYBs
Poll:	Is it too soon to sack Hurst?

Now that there is no doubt that Andrew is a liar on 13:25 - Oct 15 with 397 views

bluelagos

Now that there is no doubt that Andrew is a liar on 13:19 - Oct 15 by leitrimblue
Surely you could just elect a president/head of state like we do in Ireland? I would like to put forward the following possible nominees Richard Attenborough Ant McPartlin Jo Brand Esther Rantzen Daley Thompson Brian Jacks Fatima Whitbread Robert Webb Bob Mortimor Either of the Fun House twins

I'd put Charles on the list too - and suspect he might well win - which is cool assuming that is what the people want.

Poll:

This new lockdown poll - what you reckon?

Now that there is no doubt that Andrew is a liar on 13:38 - Oct 15 with 371 views

leitrimblue

Now that there is no doubt that Andrew is a liar on 13:25 - Oct 15 by bluelagos
I'd put Charles on the list too - and suspect he might well win - which is cool assuming that is what the people want.

I'll add Andy. That's my best offer

Now that there is no doubt that Andrew is a liar on 13:41 - Oct 15 with 360 views

Ryorry

Now that there is no doubt that Andrew is a liar on 13:19 - Oct 15 by leitrimblue
Surely you could just elect a president/head of state like we do in Ireland? I would like to put forward the following possible nominees Richard Attenborough Ant McPartlin Jo Brand Esther Rantzen Daley Thompson Brian Jacks Fatima Whitbread Robert Webb Bob Mortimor Either of the Fun House twins

Ant, but no Dec?


Poll:	Town's most cultured left foot ever?

Now that there is no doubt that Andrew is a liar on 13:48 - Oct 15 with 338 views

DJR

Now that there is no doubt that Andrew is a liar on 12:54 - Oct 15 by Ryorry
Reasonableness? You think selecting ‘someone like themselves’ wouldn’t come into it? Sadly we’ll never know!

It is generally acknowledged that the Lords is a far more balanced (in both senses of the word) and less political chamber than the Commons.

And when it comes to the appointment, I was thinking it would be limited to one of their number.

Baroness Grey-Thompson springs to mind but there will be others.

[Post edited 15 Oct 13:52]

Now that there is no doubt that Andrew is a liar on 13:51 - Oct 15 with 336 views

leitrimblue

Now that there is no doubt that Andrew is a liar on 13:41 - Oct 15 by Ryorry
Ant, but no Dec?

Ant gets the nomination for being a Leitrim man. The McPartlins are from Drumkeeran, next village up from me. Ants often in the local buying drinks (and fuel

) for everyone. Leitrim legend

Nothing against Dec ( was fine in Byker Grove), actually they were both in the local a few years back filming some tv program. Locals love um both

Now that there is no doubt that Andrew is a liar on 14:06 - Oct 15 with 296 views

Ryorry

Now that there is no doubt that Andrew is a liar on 13:48 - Oct 15 by DJR
It is generally acknowledged that the Lords is a far more balanced (in both senses of the word) and less political chamber than the Commons. And when it comes to the appointment, I was thinking it would be limited to one of their number. Baroness Grey-Thompson springs to mind but there will be others. [Post edited 15 Oct 13:52]

The point is that the person selected by that method would still be perceived as one of 'the aristocracy' (even if they aren't) - when that's exactly what republicans are trying to get away from.


Poll:	Town's most cultured left foot ever?

Now that there is no doubt that Andrew is a liar on 14:38 - Oct 15 with 255 views

ArnoldMoorhen

Now that there is no doubt that Andrew is a liar on 15:00 - Oct 13 by Kievthegreat

Well they are property of the Sole Corporation, the "Crown", whose sole director is the Sovereign. However if they are no longer kings or queens, there is no sovereign anymore.

AFAIK it's all unprecedented so how to deal with it is not straightforward in the slightest. Perhaps Parliament could stipulate that upon the reigning monarchs death, the rights of the crown would not pass to their heir, but back to the state. Perhaps the monarch would willingly cede it. Perhaps Parliament would be more Draconian and attempt a seizure. You're entering into murky waters about the boundaries between people, institutions and states which are not always clear cut.

My main point would be that to frame the succession of the parts of the Royal Family's holding that is held via the Crown as defacto converting to their property is not certain or in my view morally justifiable.

But any MP suggesting a vote on that would be in breach of their oath of loyalty to the King and his lawful successors.

They have it all tied up quite neatly.

When the Queen died, we were told "This isn't the time to question the Monarchy".

So Charles got crowned, and it was too late to question the Monarchy!

Now that there is no doubt that Andrew is a liar on 15:12 - Oct 15 with 214 views

Kievthegreat

Now that there is no doubt that Andrew is a liar on 14:38 - Oct 15 by ArnoldMoorhen
But any MP suggesting a vote on that would be in breach of their oath of loyalty to the King and his lawful successors. They have it all tied up quite neatly. When the Queen died, we were told "This isn't the time to question the Monarchy". So Charles got crowned, and it was too late to question the Monarchy!

It is the monarchs "heirs and successors, according to law" that the oath covers. Parliament has changed the laws of succession and can do so again if it so chooses. Plus the right to express such an opinion would be covered by Parliamentary Privilege.

Although the easiest solution would be for the Royal Family to do the honourable thing and stop cosplaying voluntarily.

Now that there is no doubt that Andrew is a liar on 15:55 - Oct 15 with 171 views

Kievthegreat

Now that there is no doubt that Andrew is a liar on 20:20 - Oct 13 by Swansea_Blue

It's a pathetically weak argument in the sense that you've not really made much of one at all. There are a huge range of alternatives which is evident because the majority of democracies do not have a monarchy. However they've been dismissed with the empty argument of "what's the alternative?", which absolves any need for comparison because you've made a strawman that there are no proposals. Instead, please explain why in principle having a purely ceremonial Head of State who is elected by some means, be it by Parliament or by popular vote, is worse than a purely ceremonial Head of State that is arbitrarily chosen by which of Charlie's sperms was a better swimmer?

I'd happily lay out why I think a purely ceremonial, democratically elected Head of State is better.

- There is a mechanism to promote people who are suitable
- There is a mechanism to remove those who are unsuited
- In principle it is fairer and more democratic that the Head of State is chosen
- It promotes equality, monarchy is antithetical to equality
- We can stop being subjects
- God Save the King/Queen is absolute dirge and we can get a decent anthem

Could we end up electing badly, does democratic processes yield poor choices sometimes (even a lot of the time)? Of course. That's the whole bargain with democracy. If democratic systems are too easily corrupted to have an elected Head of State though, something you infer, would you also argue in favour of the King having greater political power and overruling democratically elected governments? Why should democracy be more worrisome when used for a ceremonial role than for the people who actually hold power?

This all glosses over on of the best things about democracy though. You get to change your mind, plot a new course, elect new people. The only way we've done that with Monarchs in this country is at the barrel of a gun, the shaft of a spear or in the original Charles' case, an axe to the neck. Imagine for a moment that it was William who accused of what Andrew is, or that some horrific tragedy occurred and Andrew was next in line. Would we you be arguing that it's fine to have nonce for a king? I would hope no-one on this thread would.

Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread