Queen hiding wealth through political influence...

[Nearly Sane]

Colour me a shocked swan

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-queen-lobbied-for-change-in-law-to-hide-her-private-wealth

[Nearly Sane]

Though denials forthcoming

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55975199

[Anchorman]

 Power corrupts. Power with a silly golden hat and Tory chums gets away with it.

[Owlswing]

Power corrupts. Power with a silly golden hat and Tory chums gets away with it.

Putin has no silly golden hat and is about as far from Tory as you can get and he gets away with shit that does not exist in the UK - so don't go damning just the bloody Tories! They may be arseholes but they have their equivalents on the left - Corbyn for one - a supporter of the IRA among other things!

A man can be two of three things - Alive, Honest, a Politician - only two not all three!

The promises they make to get elected and then forget the second they get their entry to Westminster or the local council.

Owlswing

)O(

[Nearly Sane]

Putin has no silly golden hat and is about as far from Tory as you can get and he gets away with shit that does not exist in the UK - so don't go damning just the bloody Tories! They may be arseholes but they have their equivalents on the left - Corbyn for one - a supporter of the IRA among other things!

A man can be two of three things - Alive, Honest, a Politician - only two not all three!

The promises they make to get elected and then forget the second they get their entry to Westminster or the local council.

Owlswing

)O(

In what way do you think Putin is far away from the Tories?

[Owlswing]

 In what way do you think Putin is far away from the Tories?

He is diametrically opposite - a child of Communism!

Owlswing

)O(

[Anchorman]

Putin has no silly golden hat and is about as far from Tory as you can get and he gets away with shit that does not exist in the UK - so don't go damning just the bloody Tories! They may be arseholes but they have their equivalents on the left - Corbyn for one - a supporter of the IRA among other things!

A man can be two of three things - Alive, Honest, a Politician - only two not all three!

The promises they make to get elected and then forget the second they get their entry to Westminster or the local council.

Owlswing   


Not thst I hsbe the least respect for Tories, but my point was that Betty anf her brood have long had association with members of that club, don't y'know.

     
)O(

[Owlswing]

Not that I have the least respect for Tories, but my point was that Betty and her brood have long had an association with members of that club, don't y'know.

OK, let's have President instead - President Corbyn and the National Union of Railwaymen! - Goddess help us!

Let's face it - Cherie Blaire made her second fortune out of her husbands equal pay legislation or women's rights legislation - it is not only the bloody Tories who are bent!

Better still, let's go the whole hog - President Putin and the KGB!

Owlswing

)O(

[Aruntraveller]

OK, let's have President instead - President Corbyn and the National Union of Railwaymen! - Goddess help us!

Let's face it - Cherie Blaire made her second fortune out of her husbands equal pay legislation or women's rights legislation - it is not only the bloody Tories who are bent!

Better still, let's go the whole hog - President Putin and the KGB!

Owlswing

)O(

What the fuck are you babbling about?

[Anchorman]

OK, let's have President instead - President Corbyn and the National Union of Railwaymen! - Goddess help us!

Let's face it - Cherie Blaire made her second fortune out of her husbands equal pay legislation or women's rights legislation - it is not only the bloody Tories who are bent!

Better still, let's go the whole hog - President Putin and the KGB!

Owlswing

)O(

 
The head of state need not be executive, byr figurehead, as in Ireland, Finland, Germany, etc.
Accident of birth is not a qualification for such a role.
But, hey, you're pagan - and nothing wrong with that - but surely you'd prefer the old Celtic idea of selecting a king from the 'royal' 'derbfine' rather than leaving it to a couple having sex in the right bed?

[Owlswing]

TV and the Anchor

You don't like the idea of the, or a. monarch, so what do YOU propose to replace it with!

Owlswing

)O(

[Anchorman]

TV and the Anchor

You don't like the idea of the, or a. monarch, so what do YOU propose to replace it with!

Owlswing   

)O(

An elected, non executive, president with a seven year term of office.

[Gordon]

TV and the Anchor

You don't like the idea of the, or a. monarch, so what do YOU propose to replace it with!

Owlswing

)O(

I wouldn't bother replacing: I just get rid of the monarchy, along with the House of Lords, and all the traditions that surround both these anachronistic institutions. Political governance arrangements should be adjusted, after adequate public consultation, and if a second chamber is still considered essential then it's members should be elected too, so that every position in formal political governance arrangements is subject to regular election.

Personally, I don't see the need for a purely ceremonial head of state role.

[Gordon]

More instances of the influence of the monarchy on legislation - including copies of letters.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/queen-lobbied-for-changes-to-three-more-laws-documents-reveal

[Aruntraveller]

TV and the Anchor

You don't like the idea of the, or a. monarch, so what do YOU propose to replace it with!

Owlswing

)O(

I am resigned to the fact that given the nature of the electorate in England then I am lumbered with a monarch, so replacements systems, two of which have already been mentioned that are perfectly adequate, are moot points.

I'd just ask you to consider the current situation and how ludicrous it is.

We have a Queen who is head of state through an accident of birth, and then an accident of circumstances.

We, in my opinion, have been extremely lucky with Elizabeth II. By and large, she has been a "steady as she goes" influence. Had the royal line continued as it should have under Edward VIII you do have to wonder about the course history may have taken.

What may befall us as a nation once EII dies is an open question, but it bothers me that in a supposed democracy we allow the head of a certain family to lead us as head of state, purely on the basis of historical precedent. A family that owes it's very existence to the basest of human natures and throughout history survived by being the most vicious, most cruel, most privileged examples of humanity in our country.

That's pretty much why I want rid of them.

[Anchorman]

I am resigned to the fact that given the nature of the electorate in England then I am lumbered with a monarch, so replacements systems, two of which have already been mentioned that are perfectly adequate, are moot points. I'd just ask you to consider the current situation and how ludicrous it is. We have a Queen who is head of state through an accident of birth, and then an accident of circumstances. We, in my opinion, have been extremely lucky with Elizabeth II. By and large, she has been a "steady as she goes" influence. Had the royal line continued as it should have under Edward VIII you do have to wonder about the course history may have taken. What may befall us as a nation once EII dies is an open question, but it bothers me that in a supposed democracy we allow the head of a certain family to lead us as head of state, purely on the basis of historical precedent. A family that owes it's very existence to the basest of human natures and throughout history survived by being the most vicious, most cruel, most privileged examples of humanity in our country. That's pretty much why I want rid of them.

Hang on; good post, TV.....but of what is Elizabeth "II"? Just saying.

[Harrowby Hall]

What may befall us as a nation once EII dies is an open question, but it bothers me that in a supposed democracy we allow the head of a certain family to lead us as head of state, purely on the basis of historical precedent. A family that owes it's very existence to the basest of human natures and throughout history survived by being the most vicious, most cruel, most privileged examples of humanity in our country.

How interesting. Could you provide a little more detail, please?

[Gordon]

Looks like Charles has been using this process to his advantage: the sooner we are rid of this shower the better.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/09/prince-charles-vetted-laws-that-stop-his-tenants-buying-their-homes

[ProfessorDavey]

As many of you know I am no fan of the royals and am a republican who would prefer we had an elected head of state.

That said, I'm not sure I feel incensed over this and I think the biggest issue here is transparency.

Just because the Queen is the Queen I don't think that means she shouldn't be able to express her opinion (or that of the royals) on legislation that affects her or the broader royal family. With any legislation you'd expect any government to consult people who will be affected, and individual members of the public can lobby their MPs etc on legislation they don't like.

The key to me is, firstly, that the process is transparent so it isn't secret that the royal household have voiced an opinion. And secondly that there is no undue pressure on government to acquiesce just because she is the Queen - so effectively that the government feel that they can say 'thanks very much for your opinion - we are doing it anyway'. Finally, of course, that there can be no suggestion of a veto - so if the government bring forward legislation, enacted by parliament, that the Queen is required to give royal assent even if she doesn't like it.

I think the suggestion that the Queen and other royals should be banned from lobbying and expressing their opinions on legislation that affects them (caveats as above) seems to suggest they should be treated differently to the rest of the populous who are allowed to do this. That smacks somewhat of exceptionalism which is what you might expect of royalists, rather than republicans.

[ProfessorDavey]

What may befall us as a nation once EII dies is an open question, but it bothers me that in a supposed democracy we allow the head of a certain family to lead us as head of state, purely on the basis of historical precedent. A family that owes it's very existence to the basest of human natures and throughout history survived by being the most vicious, most cruel, most privileged examples of humanity in our country.

What is interesting I think is that whatever happens once the Queen dies will not have majority support as the preferred option is split three ways between people who want rid of the royals entirely, those that want Charles to succeed as King and those that want William to become King.

I think from the most recent polling on this Charles becoming King (the most likely outcome), was only supported by 32% of people, well behind William becoming King, although he still only has 40% support.

So whoever becomes King between 60-70% of people wont prefer that outcome.

[Gordon]

As many of you know I am no fan of the royals and am a republican who would prefer we had an elected head of state.

That said, I'm not sure I feel incensed over this and I think the biggest issue here is transparency.

Just because the Queen is the Queen I don't think that means she shouldn't be able to express her opinion (or that of the royals) on legislation that affects her or the broader royal family. With any legislation you'd expect any government to consult people who will be affected, and individual members of the public can lobby their MPs etc on legislation they don't like.

The key to me is, firstly, that the process is transparent so it isn't secret that the royal household have voiced an opinion. And secondly that there is no undue pressure on government to acquiesce just because she is the Queen - so effectively that the government feel that they can say 'thanks very much for your opinion - we are doing it anyway'. Finally, of course, that there can be no suggestion of a veto - so if the government bring forward legislation, enacted by parliament, that the Queen is required to give royal assent even if she doesn't like it.

I think the suggestion that the Queen and other royals should be banned from lobbying and expressing their opinions on legislation that affects them (caveats as above) seems to suggest they should be treated differently to the rest of the populous who are allowed to do this. That smacks somewhat of exceptionalism which is what you might expect of royalists, rather than republicans.

Then we disenfranchise the fuckers: they can become private citizens and, as such, they can press their case using the exactly same channels as the rest of us without then having the opportunity to exert influence from behind close doors.

[ProfessorDavey]

Then we disenfranchise the fuckers: they can become private citizens and, as such, they can press their case using the exactly same channels as the rest of us without then having the opportunity to exert influence from behind close doors.

I don't disagree, but while they remain I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to lobby and provide their opinion on legislation that affects them, providing it is done transparently and subject to no greater influence over government than lobbying from others.

Otherwise we are layering exceptionalism on exceptionalism.

[Harrowby Hall]

What is interesting I think is that whatever happens once the Queen dies will not have majority support as the preferred option is split three ways between people who want rid of the royals entirely, those that want Charles to succeed as King and those that want William to become King.

I think from the most recent polling on this Charles becoming King (the most likely outcome), was only supported by 32% of people, well behind William becoming King, although he still only has 40% support.

So whoever becomes King between 60-70% of people wont prefer that outcome.

But all this is totally immaterial. The succession is determined by the Act of Settlement 1701, an integral element in the British constitution.

The people can want who the hell they like, but they won't get him (or her).

[ProfessorDavey]

But all this is totally immaterial. The succession is determined by the Act of Settlement 1701, an intergral element in the British constitution.

The people can want who the hell they like, but they won't get him (or her).

Indeed - yet there is a fundamental problem at the heart of public opinion on this matter.

The consensus public view is that they want to retain the monarchy, yet want William to become King rather than Charles - this is cake and eat it. In a hereditary monarchy you get the person that succession determines to be first in line. You get no choice. If you want a choice, then you don't want a hereditary monarchy and you should plump for something else.

I wonder whether there will be any shift in general opinion on the monarchy when, as seems very likely, Charles become King despite that not being the preference of nearly 70% of the population.

[Harrowby Hall]

It is interesting to recall that when Charles was a similar age to his son he was held in very high public regard. It was - possibly - reduced by his somewhat enforced unsatisfactory marriage to a woman whose expertise in public relations massively outshone that of the family into which she had married.

I am not a monarchist - I would prefer a non-executive elected head of state - but do have some sympathy for the condition in which Charles finds himself. He is a man of some intelligence but has never been permitted to put his intelligence to any real use. He has - in effect - been held under some condition similar to house arrest for pretty much his entire life just waiting for a single event. His constitutional responsibility has been to amuse himself doing nothing controversial until his mother dies.