Royal News

Souleater

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
1,834
Reaction score
2,814
Points
153
As we've seen by recent leaks they have/are already manipulating the government to feather their own nest. Also as their popularity continues to decline who knows what "the firm" might be capable of to maintain the status quo?

After all, a fair few of the previous kings and queens of the UK haven't been shy about using force to stay in power.
You still havent suggested a replacement to whom our army forces would swear allegiance too?
 

Naughty_Felid

kneesy earsy nosey
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
8,442
Reaction score
11,181
Points
294
Bearing in mind that QE2 is the soverign of 15 other nations and doing away with the monarchy would throw all of those in to a situation too

Queen Elizabeth II is also the Sovereign of 15countries in the Commonwealth of Nations: Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, the Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu.
A fair few of those will probably ditch the royals in the next 20 years or so.
 

Souleater

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
1,834
Reaction score
2,814
Points
153
Why do we need to?

If they are purely symbolic, (as they'd like us to think), and are just there to open garden fetes then why are we paying millions of pounds on their wages?
So are you suggesting the armed forces of our country are loyal to the ruling party at the time? That is never a good idea, our police force becomes a force controlled by a political party? Never a good idea
 

Naughty_Felid

kneesy earsy nosey
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
8,442
Reaction score
11,181
Points
294
You still havent suggested a replacement to whom our army forces would swear allegiance too?
If they are symbolic why do we need to? I'd rather have a robust democratic system that can vote out/ remove a "head of state" than the royals. They can't be voted out can they?
 

Souleater

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
1,834
Reaction score
2,814
Points
153
A fair few of those will probably ditch the royals in the next 20 years or so.
As i said before im not averse to replacing the monarchy i just dont like the otjer options currently on the table
 

Naughty_Felid

kneesy earsy nosey
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
8,442
Reaction score
11,181
Points
294
So are you suggesting the armed forces of our country are loyal to the ruling party at the time? That is never a good idea, our police force becomes a force controlled by a political party? Never a good idea
And having "loyalty" to a bunch of people that can't even dress themselves in the morning? Have a random person elected as head of state who then gets voted out every couple of years or if we have to keep them then the Danish model of royals.

There are a lot of countries out there that don't have royals and do have armies.

I can't understand paying 35 people preposterous amounts of money, allowing them ownership of huge tracts of land with very little in the way of accountability doesn't concern people.

Edit: Many of the commonwealth countires will ditch the royals in the next couple of decades.
 
Last edited:

Souleater

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
1,834
Reaction score
2,814
Points
153
And having "loyalty" to a bunch of people that can't even dress themselves in the morning? Have a random person elected as head of state who then gets voted out every couple of years or if we have to keep them then the Danish model of royals.

There are a lot of countries out there that don't have royals and do have armies.

I can't understand paying 35 people preposterous amounts of money, allowing them ownership of huge tracts of land with very little in the way of accountability doesn't concern people.

Edit: Many of the commonwealths will ditch the royals in the next couple of decades.
I have already said im all for a system similar to other European countries Sweden, Danmark etc, and that i agree the civil list should be scrapped. And our police and armed forces swear allegiance to the crown so as not to be a political weapon
 

Naughty_Felid

kneesy earsy nosey
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
8,442
Reaction score
11,181
Points
294
I don't offer any ill will to anyone and I'm sure the vast majority of the royal family are decent people. I actually think for their own survival as an entity they probably need to look at scaling back their enterprise. I don't think the coming generations are going to accept the royals in their current form.

I think it's inevitable they will take on something like the Danish model of royalty which is respected and not overbearing. I'd certainly settle for that as a compromise.
 
Last edited:

Naughty_Felid

kneesy earsy nosey
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
8,442
Reaction score
11,181
Points
294
Royal reform aside.

Can some explain why everyone is pissed off with Harry and Megan? I've not followed this, just noticed the rage in the Express and Mail.
 

Souleater

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
1,834
Reaction score
2,814
Points
153

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
43,486
Reaction score
34,799
Points
309
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
Royal reform aside.

Can some explain why everyone is pissed off with Harry and Megan? I've not followed this, just noticed the rage in the Express and Mail.
I'm not clear on that myself. If they want to go off and have an independent life, good luck to them.
However... I don't think the marriage will last.
 

Trevp666

It was like that when I got here.........honest!!!
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
3,296
Reaction score
8,222
Points
219
Location
Welwyn Garden City (but oddly, not an actual city)
And with whom do we replace them?
Well it's all hypothetical, we won't be replacing the Royal Family, but I expect they will become increasingly irrelevant as time goes on.
It seems with Liz now in her mid 90s, both her and Phil are not long for this world, so Charlie will ascend to the throne fairly soon, but he is also getting on (72).
Maybe they might gain something in popularity if Charlie decides to just abdicate in favour of William in short order.
And the points made about the money they receive from the govt are valid. It's all very well covering the cost of things that are in the national interest, but not just money for them to 'piss up the wall' with.

And besides, it will all be a bit of a moot point once our new Gargalflaxian overlords hover their battlecruiser fleet ships over the capitals of the world, enslaving us for the rest of time.
 

Analogue Boy

Bar 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
11,418
Reaction score
11,272
Points
309
If we get rid of the Queen, who will be head of the Church?
Who will our services and armed forces swear allegiance to?
What happens to the Commonwealth?
Would the role of the Monarchy be replaced by a President and a first family?
 

Trevp666

It was like that when I got here.........honest!!!
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
3,296
Reaction score
8,222
Points
219
Location
Welwyn Garden City (but oddly, not an actual city)
We could get rid of the monarchy and revert to a feudal fiefdom!
The idea of having fief over local hunting grounds granted by the Earl of Hatfield seems appealing.

Of course the major downside to that would be that as a vassal state we would probably have to form a local militia and fight off the encroachment onto our territory by peasants from the land owned by the Bishop of St Albans....and I'm unpractised with a sword.
 

ramonmercado

CyberPunk
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
51,703
Reaction score
26,545
Points
309
Location
Eblana
Of course the major downside to that would be that as a vassal state we would probably have to form a local militia and fight off the encroachment onto our territory by peasants from the land owned by the Bishop of St Albans....and I'm unpractised with a sword.
We could organise Peasant Shoots as a tourist attraction.
 

Trevp666

It was like that when I got here.........honest!!!
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
3,296
Reaction score
8,222
Points
219
Location
Welwyn Garden City (but oddly, not an actual city)
Oooh now there's an idea. Where did I leave my blunderbuss?
 

Stormkhan

Disturbingly familiar
Joined
May 28, 2003
Messages
4,459
Reaction score
1,310
Points
184
Thing is, the monarch is the ruler of this country in theory.
Q: Who do the Armed Forces swear to? A: How's it done in other countries, especially ones that have been monarchies until recently? I'd suggest they are sworn to the laws of the nation. Thus, command devolves to politicians. At least you can vote them out. I know they aint perfect but ...
Q: Who would rule our country? A: The government, as it does now. You don't think 'Er Maj. comes up with all the ripping wheezes we get now personally? The government comes up with a law, it's run through Parliament then it's rubber stamped by the Queen.
Q: The monarchy has popular support. Why change it? A: Because popular support isn't maintaining the monarchy but the traditionalists in the high echelons of The Monarchy. All those lackies - suited old men (for 'tis ever so) whose family has served the royals for generations (i.e. earning a bloody good income and influence) and who maintain standards (i.e. preserving the status quo). If the royals were to be sidelined then they'd find it difficult to finance their property portfolio and their lifestyles. The parasites have a vested interest in preserving the host.

I've no axe to grind (to use a phrase) concerning individual members of the family but they are anachronistic because because they've been maintained so far. There has been no reason for royal reform, apart from the cosmetic changes. This is why they're desperate to find suitable 'mates' to prevent inbreeding. They could do so ... but not to the high standard that they seem to demand. They want to modernise ... or rather appear to modernise but they are flying in the face of time.
 
Top