Queen may be a gonner already, or very close to it

[assfly]

How can she be a world leader in any meaningful sense when she's not involved in any world leadership decisions?

Whether it's meaningful is a matter of opinion and debate, but there is no denying she is a world leader. Otherwise why would she open the British Parliament every year? Why would she be invited to make a speech at Cop26? Why is being hosted by the Queen such a significant achievement for so many heads of state? Why has she traditionally opened the CHOGM meetings? When she speaks on a topic, the world listens due to her ability to influence debate. She is the very definition of soft power that so many other countries strive to achieve.

[Gumboot]

How can she be a world leader in any meaningful sense when she's not involved in any world leadership decisions?

Whether it's meaningful is a matter of opinion and debate, but there is no denying she is a world leader. Otherwise why would she open the British Parliament every year? Why would she be invited to make a speech at Cop26? Why is being hosted by the Queen such a significant achievement for so many heads of state? Why has she traditionally opened the CHOGM meetings? When she speaks on a topic, the world listens due to her ability to influence debate. She is the very definition of soft power that so many other countries strive to achieve.

Speeches and openings and hosting dignitaries are the very definition of ceremonial fluff.

Soft power sounds like a cycle on a washing machine.

[assfly]

Soft power sounds like a cycle on a washing machine.

It isn't. It's a theory of international relations that carries a lot of weight. Look up Joseph Nye if you'd like read more about it.

[Gumboot]

Soft power sounds like a cycle on a washing machine.

It isn't. It's a theory of international relations that carries a lot of weight. Look up Joseph Nye if you'd like read more about it.

Thanks.

[Calculon]

Her role is purely ceremonial.

How can she be a world leader in any meaningful sense when she's not involved in any world leadership decisions?

Please don't let your emotions get in the way of a sincere answer this time.

This, she's not even supposed to have any influence on political decisions, to be completely apolitical. To then compare her to political leaders is pretty odd.

[assfly]

This, she's not even supposed to have any influence on political decisions, to be completely apolitical. To then compare her to political leaders is pretty odd.

She's not supposed to have any influence on British political decisions. But her global influence is considerable.

[Big Nipper]

This, she's not even supposed to have any influence on political decisions, to be completely apolitical. To then compare her to political leaders is pretty odd.

She's not supposed to have any influence on British political decisions. But her global influence is considerable.

[Sandstorm]

Couple of guys in here clearly failed modern history in high school.

[Calculon]

This, she's not even supposed to have any influence on political decisions, to be completely apolitical. To then compare her to political leaders is pretty odd.

She's not supposed to have any influence on British political decisions. But her global influence is considerable.

Her global influence is because she's a ceremonial figurehead who represents the British state. And her opening of parliament doesn't have anything to do with being a world leader, at this stage it's probably more to do with keeping the masses entertained with a bit of theater.

[sturginho]

Strange how people who claim to to care, don't support, couldn't care less, will celebrate her passing care so much that they post, repost and post again.

It seems to have become fashionable to hate or dislike the Royal Family. So fashionable that these people attention whore themselves all over the place.

"Look at me, look at me I dislike the Monarchy"

Just be quiet and move on with your lives.

an awful lot of projection going on in this post

[assfly]

Her global influence is because she's a ceremonial figurehead who represents the British state. And her opening of parliament doesn't have anything to do with being a world leader, at this stage it's probably more to do with keeping the masses entertained with a bit of theater.

I think you're oversimplifying it a bit, but we seem to be in agreement that she has global influence.

[inactionman]

This, she's not even supposed to have any influence on political decisions, to be completely apolitical. To then compare her to political leaders is pretty odd.

She's not supposed to have any influence on British political decisions. But her global influence is considerable.

Well, she sort of does to a limited extent - Royal assent turns bills taken through parliament into acts. It's a required step, although generally a formality.

The monarch essentially has a veto, it's really just a nicety although my understanding is that it is active - the Queen can refuse to accept a bill into an Act of Parliament. I'm not aware of it happening, but I gather it was a consideration in WWII when invasion seemed likely - the King would refuse to recognise any parliament and would subsequently refuse any royal assent, with the net effect that any government would be illegitimate and no British citizen could therefor be bound by it or be found guilty of treason if acting against it. Sounds nice in theory, and some small comfort to any potential, hypothetical resistance just as they were about to be shot, I'm sure.

[Calculon]

Her global influence is because she's a ceremonial figurehead who represents the British state. And her opening of parliament doesn't have anything to do with being a world leader, at this stage it's probably more to do with keeping the masses entertained with a bit of theater.

I think you're oversimplifying it a bit, but we seem to be in agreement that she has global influence.

Sure, but to repeat myself, her influence is interchangeable with that of the British state, it's nothing to do with being a world leader.

[Calculon]

Couple of guys in here clearly failed modern history in high school.

What is it with you souties and your fawning over the monarchy?

[assfly]

Well, she sort of does to a limited extent - Royal assent turns bills taken through parliament into acts. It's a required step, although generally a formality.

The monarch essentially has a veto, it's really just a nicety although my understanding is that it is active - the Queen can refuse to accept a bill into an Act of Parliament. I'm not aware of it happening, but I gather it was a consideration in WWII when invasion seemed likely - the King would refuse to recognise any parliament and would subsequently refuse any royal assent, with the net effect that any government would be illegitimate and no British citizen could therefor be bound by it or be found guilty of treason if acting against it. Sounds nice in theory, and some small comfort to any potential, hypothetical resistance just as they were about to be shot, I'm sure.

Yes, that's what I meant by supposedly not influencing British political decisions. But I'm sure we'd all like to know exactly goes on during her private meetings with the PM.

I guess at the moment we're in a quiet period when I don't think she feels the need to step in where she shouldn't. But there has been precedent during more volatile times:

In August 1979, she went to Zambia for a meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government despite Thatcher’s advice not to do so. It was that conference that gave impetus to Southern Rhodesia’s independence as Zimbabwe under a system of one-person-one-vote. Later in 1985, when Thatcher was firmly against my preference for sanctions on the apartheid regime in South Africa, so steadfast was the Queen to the antiapartheid cause – the most acute global struggle against racism on black-white lines – that, once again, she stood firm against the position of Thatcher.

Those are the words of Sir Shridath Ramphal.

[Openside]

Strange how people who claim to to care, don't support, couldn't care less, will celebrate her passing care so much that they post, repost and post again.

It seems to have become fashionable to hate or dislike the Royal Family. So fashionable that these people attention whore themselves all over the place.

"Look at me, look at me I dislike the Monarchy"

Just be quiet and move on with your lives.

an awful lot of projection going on in this post

Nah he is spot on!!

[fishfoodie]

In what way is she a world leader? Phoning in a "Good luck, chaps" to COP26? Her Xmas speech? Get real.

I think her, aside comment, which magically got picked up by a reporter; was what put ScoMo on a plane to COP26; when he wasn't looking like attending at all. Being shamed by her is still a weapon that Politicians in her orbit fear.

[inactionman]

Well, she sort of does to a limited extent - Royal assent turns bills taken through parliament into acts. It's a required step, although generally a formality.

The monarch essentially has a veto, it's really just a nicety although my understanding is that it is active - the Queen can refuse to accept a bill into an Act of Parliament. I'm not aware of it happening, but I gather it was a consideration in WWII when invasion seemed likely - the King would refuse to recognise any parliament and would subsequently refuse any royal assent, with the net effect that any government would be illegitimate and no British citizen could therefor be bound by it or be found guilty of treason if acting against it. Sounds nice in theory, and some small comfort to any potential, hypothetical resistance just as they were about to be shot, I'm sure.

Yes, that's what I meant by supposedly not influencing British political decisions. But I'm sure we'd all like to know exactly goes on during her private meetings with the PM.

I guess at the moment we're in a quiet period when I don't think she feels the need to step in where she shouldn't. But there has been precedent during more volatile times:

In August 1979, she went to Zambia for a meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government despite Thatcher’s advice not to do so. It was that conference that gave impetus to Southern Rhodesia’s independence as Zimbabwe under a system of one-person-one-vote. Later in 1985, when Thatcher was firmly against my preference for sanctions on the apartheid regime in South Africa, so steadfast was the Queen to the antiapartheid cause – the most acute global struggle against racism on black-white lines – that, once again, she stood firm against the position of Thatcher.

Those are the words of Sir Shridath Ramphal.

I'm not a monarchist by any means, but having the correcting influence of an apolitical monarch seems a useful feature to retain - avoids the adversarial contention between parties and also doesn't need to play to the voters.

Depends upon the monarch, of course.

[Tichtheid]

Strange how people who claim to to care, don't support, couldn't care less, will celebrate her passing care so much that they post, repost and post again.

It seems to have become fashionable to hate or dislike the Royal Family. So fashionable that these people attention whore themselves all over the place.

"Look at me, look at me I dislike the Monarchy"

Just be quiet and move on with your lives.

an awful lot of projection going on in this post

Nah he is spot on!!

Nope, absolutely 100% not.

republic
/rɪˈpʌblɪk/

noun
a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

This is a perfectly reasonable position to hold, absolutely nothing to do with fashion or narcissism, and frankly it is very insulting to suggest that it is.

I can respect the view that people want to continue to have a monarch, I completely disagree with it as I don't particularly believe that God has chosen certain people for that role and I don't see the point in a modern democracy, but I can respect their right to hold their view and to debate it

[JM2K6]

This, she's not even supposed to have any influence on political decisions, to be completely apolitical. To then compare her to political leaders is pretty odd.

She's not supposed to have any influence on British political decisions. But her global influence is considerable.

Well, she sort of does to a limited extent - Royal assent turns bills taken through parliament into acts. It's a required step, although generally a formality.

The monarch essentially has a veto, it's really just a nicety although my understanding is that it is active - the Queen can refuse to accept a bill into an Act of Parliament. I'm not aware of it happening, but I gather it was a consideration in WWII when invasion seemed likely - the King would refuse to recognise any parliament and would subsequently refuse any royal assent, with the net effect that any government would be illegitimate and no British citizen could therefor be bound by it or be found guilty of treason if acting against it. Sounds nice in theory, and some small comfort to any potential, hypothetical resistance just as they were about to be shot, I'm sure.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan ... veto-bills

[NeilOJism]

Well, she sort of does to a limited extent - Royal assent turns bills taken through parliament into acts. It's a required step, although generally a formality.

The monarch essentially has a veto, it's really just a nicety although my understanding is that it is active - the Queen can refuse to accept a bill into an Act of Parliament. I'm not aware of it happening, but I gather it was a consideration in WWII when invasion seemed likely - the King would refuse to recognise any parliament and would subsequently refuse any royal assent, with the net effect that any government would be illegitimate and no British citizen could therefor be bound by it or be found guilty of treason if acting against it. Sounds nice in theory, and some small comfort to any potential, hypothetical resistance just as they were about to be shot, I'm sure.

Yes, that's what I meant by supposedly not influencing British political decisions. But I'm sure we'd all like to know exactly goes on during her private meetings with the PM.

I guess at the moment we're in a quiet period when I don't think she feels the need to step in where she shouldn't. But there has been precedent during more volatile times:

In August 1979, she went to Zambia for a meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government despite Thatcher’s advice not to do so. It was that conference that gave impetus to Southern Rhodesia’s independence as Zimbabwe under a system of one-person-one-vote. Later in 1985, when Thatcher was firmly against my preference for sanctions on the apartheid regime in South Africa, so steadfast was the Queen to the antiapartheid cause – the most acute global struggle against racism on black-white lines – that, once again, she stood firm against the position of Thatcher.

Those are the words of Sir Shridath Ramphal.

I'm not a monarchist by any means, but having the correcting influence of an apolitical monarch seems a useful feature to retain - avoids the adversarial contention between parties and also doesn't need to play to the voters.

Depends upon the monarch, of course.

Nail on head.

Something unelected has to provide a backstop/framework/context for the whole democratic exercise, to avoid either a) supreme, unchecked power in the hands of someone as monstrous as a politician, or b) an infinite regress of the bastards.

You either make it a random person, or you leave it to a representative of a dynasty laboratory-developed for just such a function.

It’s something the shrill VIth formers often miss - between moaning that this privileged (care to swap?) person has too much power, or has too little, and is therefore an expensive bauble.

But as you say, it’s monarch dependent. Liz & Phil got the balance - and graft - spot on.

Chuck - and I speak from a tiny bit of personal experience - is dense as fuck. And crucially, world leaders think he is, too.

[fishfoodie]

Only Anne seems remotely capable of being a useful Monarch; but the system puts the thicko, eldest son, on the throne.

[sturginho]

Yes, that's what I meant by supposedly not influencing British political decisions. But I'm sure we'd all like to know exactly goes on during her private meetings with the PM.

I guess at the moment we're in a quiet period when I don't think she feels the need to step in where she shouldn't. But there has been precedent during more volatile times:



Those are the words of Sir Shridath Ramphal.

I'm not a monarchist by any means, but having the correcting influence of an apolitical monarch seems a useful feature to retain - avoids the adversarial contention between parties and also doesn't need to play to the voters.

Depends upon the monarch, of course.

Nail on head.

Something unelected has to provide a backstop/framework/context for the whole democratic exercise, to avoid either a) supreme, unchecked power in the hands of someone as monstrous as a politician, or b) an infinite regress of the bastards.

You either make it a random person, or you leave it to a representative of a dynasty laboratory-developed for just such a function.

It’s something the shrill VIth formers often miss - between moaning that this privileged (care to swap?) person has too much power, or has too little, and is therefore an expensive bauble.

But as you say, it’s monarch dependent. Liz & Phil got the balance - and graft - spot on.

Chuck - and I speak from a tiny bit of personal experience - is dense as fuck. And crucially, world leaders think he is, too.

oh dear oh dear oh dear

[Biffer]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59322086

[Big Nipper]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59322086

[sturginho]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59322086

Has ASMO turned into Jake? Has our world been rocked??

[tabascoboy]

Only Anne seems remotely capable of being a useful Monarch; but the system puts the thicko, eldest son, on the throne.

Maybe we need a 'Royalty's Got Talent' competition where they go up against each other for votes

[Marylandolorian]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59322086

Has ASMO turned into Jake? Has our world been rocked??

This deserves a good

[NeilOJism]

I'm not a monarchist by any means, but having the correcting influence of an apolitical monarch seems a useful feature to retain - avoids the adversarial contention between parties and also doesn't need to play to the voters.

Depends upon the monarch, of course.

Nail on head.

Something unelected has to provide a backstop/framework/context for the whole democratic exercise, to avoid either a) supreme, unchecked power in the hands of someone as monstrous as a politician, or b) an infinite regress of the bastards.

You either make it a random person, or you leave it to a representative of a dynasty laboratory-developed for just such a function.

It’s something the shrill VIth formers often miss - between moaning that this privileged (care to swap?) person has too much power, or has too little, and is therefore an expensive bauble.

But as you say, it’s monarch dependent. Liz & Phil got the balance - and graft - spot on.

Chuck - and I speak from a tiny bit of personal experience - is dense as fuck. And crucially, world leaders think he is, too.

oh dear oh dear oh dear

Have you and Thomas Hobbes even been seen in the same room, at the same time? Hmmmm..?

[ScarfaceClaw]

Only Anne seems remotely capable of being a useful Monarch; but the system puts the thicko, eldest son, on the throne.

Maybe we need a 'Royalty's Got Talent' competition where they go up against each other for votes

It’s already been done.

[NeilOJism]

Actually, the best argument I can think of for the current monarch’s value is.... could you imagine Prime Minister Trump??

Admittedly, he’d fück a Corgi, wipe his dick on a Beefeater and generally be a disaster the moment he set foot in the Palace for his weeklies, but I reckon 1:1 Liz would twist his nipples (probably literally...) until she broke the chaotic bell-end.

He’d slope back to Downing Towers like a rape victim...

“I, er, *cough*, just need to have a shower and a lie down *whimper*”

[GogLais]

Actually, the best argument I can think of for the current monarch’s value is.... could you imagine Prime Minister Trump??

Admittedly, he’d fück a Corgi, wipe his dick on a Beefeater and generally be a disaster the moment he set foot in the Palace for his weeklies, but I reckon 1:1 Liz would twist his nipples (probably literally...) until she broke the chaotic bell-end.

He’d slope back to Downing Towers like a rape victim...

“I, er, *cough*, just need to have a shower and a lie down *whimper*”

With the major difference that rape victims don’t deserve what’s happened to them.

[NeilOJism]

No arguments here, petal

[JM2K6]

Actually, the best argument I can think of for the current monarch’s value is.... could you imagine Prime Minister Trump??

Admittedly, he’d fück a Corgi, wipe his dick on a Beefeater and generally be a disaster the moment he set foot in the Palace for his weeklies, but I reckon 1:1 Liz would twist his nipples (probably literally...) until she broke the chaotic bell-end.

He’d slope back to Downing Towers like a rape victim...

“I, er, *cough*, just need to have a shower and a lie down *whimper*”

Because this has worked out so well with Boris?

[Tichtheid]

How about imagining King Donald?

with no set term, no way of getting rid

[SaintK]

How about imagining King Donald?

with no set term, no way of getting rid

There would be a huge queue lining up to be the assassin!

[Tichtheid]

How about imagining King Donald?

with no set term, no way of getting rid

There would be a huge queue lining up to be the assassin!

The point is that the current monarch can’t be used as an argument for the continuation of the “office”, just suppose it was Chaz in that car in Paris, next in line would be Andy.

[SaintK]

How about imagining King Donald?

with no set term, no way of getting rid

There would be a huge queue lining up to be the assassin!

The point is that the current monarch can’t be used as an argument for the continuation of the “office”, just suppose it was Chaz in that car in Paris, next in line would be Andy.

Would it not have been William even at his age then?

[Uncle fester]

Strange how people who claim to to care, don't support, couldn't care less, will celebrate her passing care so much that they post, repost and post again.

It seems to have become fashionable to hate or dislike the Royal Family. So fashionable that these people attention whore themselves all over the place.

"Look at me, look at me I dislike the Monarchy"

Just be quiet and move on with your lives.

Nah, we're just goading you.

Was it OS who got his knickers in a twist on the old bored when somebody wished ill on his beloved Bojo?

[Calculon]

Is Betty also as thick as fuck? Or maybe Prince Philip was? You don't get to be born as thick as fuck unless one parent, usually both, share the condition.