Republicanism

form all your responses I'd say you did j04

bet she gets peeved if people do not treat her with the deference she is used to though!

I don't know about the military but the Police take an oath of attestation to: 'well and truly serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality.....'

www.watchingyou.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53&Itemid=133

I don't care where it effing flippin' well comes from. I hate it!

Hate what? Sorry, you've lost me there, jings.

Hate the expression, "Enough already".

Have you read any of this?

I'm not on the wrong thread am I?

As I understand it, the Oath of Allegiance, to which all military personnel swear, is to the Queen, and not to any government. So it is a sort of fail safe, which, in theory, precludes a government controlling the military. (??? Afghanistan?!) Does it work?

In a way, the principle is a good one, but in a written, democratic constitution, the Head of State need not be a person of accidental, hereditary privilege and wealth, but one chosen by the people.

The pageantry is fun and interesting, but also emotive, given its links. It could be kept alive in an historical events calendar.

Democracy means that those who have more should not have the immediate right to dictate to those who have less. Wealth does not mandate power. (CF CofE, RC church, etc. etc. but that's another issue.

Time-out, jingl. or

I don't like it either, jingl...(unless the person saying it is an American Jew)

How I wish we had a tongue in cheek emoticon. The nearest thing is but it doesn't quite do it.

Can we not stick to the thread, just for once? Please? (asking nicely because don't want head bitten off)

I was sticking to it Ariadne but someone took exception to my mode of expression. We need to refer it to pedants' corner. I promise not to rise to the bait again. [penitent emoticon]

Annobel

Oh but anno, that's half the fun! (rising to bait and being fished )

Back to thread. I agree with ariadne and others who have expressed the same/similar views. The monarchy is an anachronism.

I think it is quite worrying that in addition to an hereditary monarchy and an unelected second chamber, the idea of meritocracy (as if it were a good thing) seems to have taken hold. This bodes ill for the poorest and most vulnerable in our society and is likely to reduce our already declining level of social mobility. I also find it interesting, if curious, that a man who has to have half a dozen eggs boiled for his breakfast so that he can find exactly the right texture and who employs someone to squeeze the toothpaste on to his toothbrush, should suddenly enjoy a rush of popularity and support for his future kingship.

absent you're right. How can any individual who has no notion of what normal citizens live like be placed in a position of power over them?

when The monarch doesn't really have power and has influence only if the PM is willing to listen and pay attention. However one wonders if the PoW's endless green-ink-style letters simply wear down their recipients' resistance. My concern is more to do with society's acceptance of privilege, whether by birth, appointment, money or whatever, resulting in a blind eye being turned to unfairness, injustice, inequality, etc, as well as social mobility (which should perhaps be renamed social paralysis, these days). That is what I meant earlier about street parties and the pageant being bread and circuses. The happy masses are distracted – for far longer than just the one weekend – from serious concerns about the state of the society in which we live and the direction in which it is going.

We also need a like button! like and agree with your comment absent

absent I take your point, but there is no law to prevent the monarch interfering in politics, and we don't have a written constitution. Charles has said on more than one occasion that he sees himself as an activist and there is a concern that his prerogative of 'advising' the prime minister when he succeeds the throne would become unbalanced in his favour if we had a weak prime minister.

In terms of society accepting privilege and power being assumed by anyone with a penchant for seizing such opportunities, we are a gullible nation if we don't challenge these issues. Look how quickly Europe has assumed powers that our country once had. I would happily integrate with a democratic, republican Europe, but not one that has oppressive leaders and cultures even less fair than the UK.

The monarch is 'subservient' to parliament (rubber stamper). Any monarch that tried to push its weight around too much would get kicked out. Surely Charles isn't that stupid.

Actually, it might bring things to crisis if he is. Carry on being stoopid, Charlie.

Sorry, Bags, but can you really see any government trying to oust a monarch?

Bags isn't the monarch only subservient to parliament through recent custom and practice? I agree, bring it on and let Charles try throwing his weight around and we'll soon see a constitution that becomes more republican than at present.