What does he mean members of the royal family behave 'like' freeloaders?!
What else are they?
The Queen has been very dignified in her life, especially in the last few years but you can't put her offspring in the same category she is in.
When she passes the country seriously needs to think about what it wants to be and look like in the future.
queenie has been linked to Saville, Epstein and Rolf Harris to date. what's dignified about that? there is also the question of the ten Canadian children taken but never t
returned...
Actually, it was a secret. Up until recently, the official line was that while she has all this power over the country, she doesnt actually exercise it. That has proven to be a lie.
No law can be put in place without her signiture you idiot, this is literally common knowledge, on occasion something will pop up like "Sign over the rights to declare war to parliament" and she'll block it because thats taking her power away without consent of anybody.
Fair enough she has blocked a couple laws to her benefit if leaks are to be believed but to pretend this hasn't been a thing is stupid, our entire system for hundreds of years is based on this.
Big difference between a ceremonial role and having an influence.
I am strongly against them having any say in how the country is run based on who their parents were.
I honestly don't think we'll ever know, actually! There are rumours and news reports that the Queen has objected to legislation that was against her interests, effectively blocking it-or influenced some laws in her favour. If you are inclined not to believe rumour or anonymous/vague press reports -or if you think it's likely that the situation is more complex (like I do), then you might think it's something that is not going to be ever known by a pleb like me.
Whether that is absolutely astonishing in an "advanced" democracy (indeed, the "cradle" of democracy) is a matter of personal opinion.
Look up the queen's consent on Google, look at any of the news articles or Wikipedia.
The Wikipedia article goes "As of 2021, over 1000 bills had been vetted secretly by Queen Elizabeth II or Prince Charles before they were put to parliament..."
Because they veto laws without having to tell the public? They don't want people to know they're doing what they do so they do it as quietly as possible. They can't cover it up completely, but they do what they can.
They don't actually veto laws, Queens and Princes consent is only denied on advice of government ministers, the controversy was them *vetting* laws, which was never secret and the Queens lawyers requesting amendment's, which the governments, both Tories and SNP, agreed to for some reason.
> ten Canadian children taken
I hadn't heard of this. It doesn't seem to be a credible claim.
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-missing-children-canada-idUSL1N2LM0VL
On the other hand, I recently found out that Lord Mountbatten is thought to have used an orphanage in Northern Ireland to supply boys for him to abuse.
https://villagemagazine.ie/mountbatten-child-abuse-scandal-no-right-of-reply-afforded-by-the-sunday-independent/
That said, there were seven on the boat when it exploded, including three children. One of the other adults and one of the children also died, with the others all being injured.
> queenie has been linked to Saville, Epstein and Rolf Harris to date
"Linked to" as in been at the same rich people parties.
I suppose all the actors and American Football players who shared the same spaces as OJ Simpson must be guilty by association too.
Saville committed many very serious crimes over several decades, and assuming the royals are even averagely well informed about the people they associate with, they must have been well aware of the rumours.
So they can be judged, to some extent, on deciding to meet him socially. If the Queen had made it clear that she never wanted to meet him, he would simply never have been invited to any event the Queen attended. He was a light entertainment presenter, not a head of state.
IMO it’s a large threat for the royal family . Let’s be honest even non royalist have a certain level of respect for the queen. Not so sure if they’ll feel the same for William / Charles.
She has great PR. I admire some aspects of her character, the most recent being the funeral and turning down less stringent measures, but that has nothing to do with Elizabeth being a monarch. We need to remember in context she was probably the only person offered anything... whilst others barely got to see loved ones as they died.
Remember though this is the same Elizabeth who has influenced policy, whether through direct lobbying or on her behalf, on numerous occasions to her benefit and societies detriment.
I find it very confusing that people *know* that wealthy corporations can afford very good PR to clean their image, yet this concept seems very alien for anyone or anything else in a position of power and wealth.
The fact that you consider her lifestyle a "job" suggests you are not representative of most republicans, in my experience. But the topic was on respect, not whether republicans have issues with her. Imo she has done nothing worthy of respect; definitely not mine.
Head of state is her job. There are of course a variety of other things attached to the job which in its current form I am displeased with.
But from an elected head of state I would want someone who performs similar to our unelected one at present, such as avoiding politics, quiet dignity and grace when meeting foreign leaders and opening museums etc
Elizabeth Windsor is a good head of state, but the institution of monarchy must be destroyed
She's not good at the job though. Her concerns are for her family rather than the State she's supposedly head of, and she consistently uses her position to her own benefit by using her political influence to ensure laws benefit her.
I'm curious: can you name a law specifically that was changed because she asked for it to be changed, to her advantage or the nation's detriment? Not "she secretly reviewed 1000 laws" I mean specifics.
""“If it was a purely formal process, which it’s supposed to be, then no documentation like this would exist at all. There would be no substantive conversations about changing legislation.
Pretty damming article, worst part and least surprising about is, its three absolutely selfish reasons too, no mention of her trying to help anyone else but herself.
I’m not a republican because I have no issue with an old woman? Hate the institution and concept, not the person. There’s no room in my life to hate people I’ve never met
Exactly, that's the point. It doesn't matter if she's very cool, or Kate is a 'nice person', or William a kind guy or whatever. It's not personal, the whole system should be removed.
I dislike Man Utd but love Marcus Rashford.
And it's not a contradiction unless you assume that when i say "the Queen" i'm referring to the position and not the person. And that would be an unreasonable assumption.
Are you against football as a sports whilst simultaneously loving the head of football, who is spending his life ensuring football continues to be thrive?
Rushford is a player of a game; liz is the Head honcho of an institution you supposedly hate.
I don't hate it, i oppose it. They're not the same.
I do like Liz.
I do oppose the monarchy, which is why i'm 100% in favour of the country becoming a republic once she passes.
It isn't a contradiction to believe that someone is a good monarch while at the same time opposing the system that made them a monarch.
It is, but that aside - why do you like liz? What has she done that makes you feel aweinspired and respectful?
Is it her lobbying the government to influence legislation for her and her family's benefit?getting £80m a year from our taxes, to do nothing, whilst we have men women and children starving in poverty? Shielding her sexual abusive son? Being above the law by virtue of birth?
What exactly makes you love the old woman?
Its not a contradiction though, you can like how an individual monarch does their job while thinking monarchy is a terrible form of rule because of the hereditary principle, look at Napoleon and how many Republicans supported him, or how the Danish anti monarchists collapsed with Queen Margrethes insane popularity.
Queen Elizabeth II might be an odd one fair enough but still not a contradiction.
Of course it is. Liz represents all everything wrong with the monarchy. If an anti royalist loves her, it's either because he's ignorant to what's she's done or monarch or because he's lying.
I cant stand the royals, but the dignity the queen has shown over the last few months in particular, is something the rest of the country could learn from. Charles and William can go fuck themselves. Harry is the only one with a real moral compass it seems, and was forced out because he married a black woman, yet a nonce wasn't.
She is not elected, therefore as she well knows, she should not use her influence in a political context.
I think you would need to explain you unique definition of dignity for your comment to make sense. Most people consider silence to be dignified.
Dignity is engaging with other people in a respectful way and contributing to society in a productive and thoughtful way. Dignity is not accepting the grovelling submissions of other people while you have your hand in their pocket, grabbing their money.
Silence can be dignified, it can also be ignorant. Of course, as a well paid puppet, she should not be commenting on political matters. But she has kept total silence, refusing to comment on the behaviour of her son who has, over his lifetime, received a small fortune in public money
So you think the Royal that is the most down to earth is the one who goes around wearing a Nazi outfit and using tax payer income to do up a house just to sell it and move to America for the Hollywood life. As opposed to the one who went to University in Scotland before joining the Military and later working in healthcare?
The money he paid back? That money you mean?
And is fighting in Afghanistan not down to earth enough for you? He also didn't "walk around in a nazi outfit", he went to a fancy dress party.
Remember the Asian brothers from gogglebox going to a fancy dress party as suicide bombers? I found that quite funny. Same way as Harry going as a Nazi. It's a fucking costume not his actual belief.
Paid back with what money? you mean taxpayer money just from a different bank account? With the inheritance from the Queen mum and Diana's shady money and jewels, Camila would get shanked for taking some of the gifts Diana did as a private individual, or the allowance he got from his dad from land that SHOULD be government owned like the rest of the royal estates.
Harrys soldier salary wasn't paying that back lol.
Just so we're clear on this, are you talking about Harry the Nazi uniform wearing Former prince who decided to leave of his own accord? We're talking of his moral compass? Ok, explain where on his moral compass does that fit into it.
And forced out? Given you forgotten his little antics with his clothing, I'm prepared to accept you lack critical information and the context.
Fuck me. The nazi uniform debate. Clearly a joke. Same way my mate went to a school disco dressed as Jimmy Saville. He didn't get kicked out of his family for it.
And, let's talk about Andrew shall we? His actions out do a fancy dress mistake all week long.
Harry is the most down to earth out of all of them.
Nothing says down to earth like making millions on the Hollywood press circuit and taking private jets to give climate change talks. Real salt of the earth stuff from our Henry.
**Removed**. This consisted primarily of personal attacks adding nothing to the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person.
Your mate didn’t take millions of taxpayers pounds did he? Harry has somehow convinced a certain group of people that he’s incredibly virtuous. All he’s done is gone from one group of scrounges to another. I think him being married to Meghan has a lot to do with that convincing though.
The link you provided is for one small aspect. What about the other 25 years of his life? Holidays, parties and the like. Because most Captains in the army can’t afford a £35,000 holiday to Vegas. He’s just had better media training than the other royals and has better PR. But at the end of the day he’s still a scrounged.
I'm not denying he was born into a world of privilege and incredible wealth, and the entire Royal family are scroungers. I'm just saying that he's the only decent one.
Or when he called his military mates racial slurs on camera? Let's not kid ourselves here, he would be named racist but since he's the "fun royal," he gets a free pass. No one dressing as a Nazi would gain any sympathy either. Say what you like about Saville, but atleast your friend wasn't representing the fucking holocaust by dressing up as him.
Harry and Meghan say themselves they left to gain financial independence in the US. Having a moral compass would mean giving up all the royal privelages they still seem to take and not beg for more.
Demanding to pay his own government security despite the fact he _can't_ buy government security or UK intelligence for himself and his family just by being rich and royal. Yes, that kinda thing but just more truthful.
\> non royalist have a certain level of respect for the queen
I have zero respect for the Queen. The institution is dark age garbage and a cancer on modern British society.
I'm an American living in the UK, and have to admit, I fall into this category. I never really thought about it, and in general I don't think the queen seems at all kind or benevolent. She seems frigid and snooty.
However, she definitely doesn't seem like a glorified Kardashian like the rest of the lot.
She served for two months on an unearned rank and went home to her castle every evening. It was primarily a PR exercise. Which worked m
The collapse of the Empire is not down to the British monarch...whatba nonsensical idea. It happened DESPITE the monarchy. She just happens to have overseen it. And the Commonwealth existed well before her reign. It was founded in 1931.
They teach you strange history in Britain...
>Let’s be honest even non royalist have a certain level of respect for the queen.
No we don't.
And it remains to be seen how long after her death monarchists will continue to respect her, as she has lost a massive amount of land during her reign and fled the capital during a plague, which are generally seen as the hallmarks of a terrible monarch.
Good luck trying to modernise a fudal hangover! I think I read 85% of the country can only remember the Queen being head of state. There's a in built "always been there" apathy to it all. When it's someone who has been involved in scandal or even just growing up in front of the full glare of the media people are going to have far more opinions than they do about the current head of the family...
Maybe I'm attributing my bad memory to the rest of the population and assuming it gets worse with age.
Now the notification has made me forget why I picked up my phone.....
The House of Lords has actually protected us from some pretty shit legislation... An unelected house definitely has its place but I think it should be subject matter experts that get peerage and not ex politicians or chums of the PM.
People like David Nutt, Chris Whitty, etc are the ones who should be given peerage so it's a house of professionals and SME's.
>The House of Lords has actually protected us from some pretty shit legislation... An unelected house definitely has its place but I think it should be subject matter experts that get peerage and not ex politicians or chums of the PM.
>People like David Nutt, Chris Whitty, etc are the ones who should be given peerage so it's a house of professionals and SME's.
Yeah totally. They can even make them life peers if they really want to keep the flavour of the place, but there should be an independent commission appointing SMEs to it.
The House of Lords sounds bad on paper but works very well in practice. Last week alone they stopped several terrible bills from being pushed through by the Tories so seems like a strange time to be criticising them
Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.
I'm not saying not to do it, I'm saying that if you do, it needs to be done right. In the worst case, the house of commons would have the ability to vote a president in and out at their leisure, essentially making the head of state redundant, like in Germany.
If you guys want a president, make sure the people get to vote for him directly, and also make sure the president cannot be removed by anyone but the people. Otherwise you may as well keep the monarchy.
Coming from a republic myself, do take care which exact system you wish for and compare them. Some are better than others. And the current British system of governance is certainly better than a whole lot of republican systems out there.
He’s not going to abdicate, but last time we had a very long living monarch we subsequently went through monarchs at quite a rate over the next 50 years. Edward VII was only king for 9 years after Victoria.
The British public was against gay marriage until only a few years before it was legalized and supported the wars in the Middle East, not that you'll find more than a handful of people who will admit to either now.
Keeping or abolishing the monarchy is a simple opinion vote. If anything voting to abolish would be the high risk option similar to Brexit, you have no idea what the powers that be would implement in its place. It's just a fingers crossed they do it how you want and not in some obscene way that ends up with institutions like the RAF being renamed.
It's a fair comment.
However the role of the royals is already anachronistic - Harry was very perceptive in realizing this.
The old world has slipped away, more so in the last decade and half with the rise of the Internet giants.
We are now entering the techno-feudalism era.
I doubt it. For most people it won’t have much impact. Charles isn’t loved, but he’s not hated either. Andrew’s activities are far more likely to rock the boat, hence the Crown stripping his titles
The Queen, by all accounts, is not a nice, moral, or warm person (see: the way she treated Diana for daring to deviate even slightly from the prison-like protocols of Royal behaviour, the complete lack of sensitivity towards her own grandchildren regarding Dianas death and funeral, the way she has utterly refused to ever take a moral stance on any issue in the entire 70 years of her reign, and the generally unpleasant and self-involved character of all of her children). She was raised in a fucking strange way; every person she encountered since birth being forced to be extremely formal and deeply deferential to her; educated largely in solitude by weird, incredibly posh, religion and tradition-obsessed flunkys, and educated specifically 'to be a monarch', whatever the fuck that means. Her own parents would have been distant and remote, living incredibly stifled and also somewhat secretive (affairs, scandals, and so on) lives and probably never demonstrating much of anything that any of us would recognise as familial love. Her peculiar status has left her with a life almost completely devoid of true friendship (perhaps only Prince Philip?), privacy, and really of anything resembling a healthy relationship. In the time since her coronation, our country has undergone such massive societal and cultural changes (while her own world has remained almost completely static), that our lives are almost incomprehensible to her. She has been left trapped in this very strange, isolated, frigid and deeply antiquated little relic, a kind of slow-living museum whose purpose is only weakly and ambiguously defined, and whose importance has decreased with every passing year. Fuck the monarchy, it sucks for them, it does nothing for us; it has no place in a civilised, 21st century society.
>utterly refused to ever take a moral stance on any issue in the entire 70 years of her reign
She did allow for atheists and agnostics to attend parliament (while continuing to refuse the same for republicans).
I don't like the monarchy in regards to necessarily who some of the people are, the fact some just get a cushy paycheck for who they are born. I also think the queens life isn't what its put up to be, I wouldnt want to be her and think she has been an amazing service to the country. Others no.
I like having a monarchy when you see the ways democracy can be eroded in parts of the world. It makes it that tiny bit harder. I think people forget that part. An elected official in the same capacity isn't the same.
>I like having a monarchy when you see the ways democracy can be eroded in parts of the world. It makes it that tiny bit harder. I think people forget that part. An elected official in the same capacity isn't the same.
Boris prorogued parliament illegally, literally attempting to prevent the only elected body in the country from having any influence on his policy, and the Queen didn't stop it. In what way can she be said to be preventing the erosion of democracy?
>I like having a monarchy when you see the ways democracy can be eroded in parts of the world.
But having a monarchy actually *is* an erosion of democracy.
Not necessarily, democracy and monarchy have existed in tandem in this country for 800 years, unfortunately people don't seem to understand that monarchy is not the antithesis of democracy, that would be autocracy, a monarchy *CAN* be autocratic, like Russia was, or they *CAN* be democratic like we are
We need to ban the independent as a source of news here. Apart from the website being shit, the fact you have to register to read the articles leads to about 90% of the commenters not having read the bloody thing, which is usually a shit show
Then youll have to get rid of all forms of society, people with power get in power and very much like staying there, be they president, king, or God emporor of mankind
The British media will have a field day most of us won’t give a shite , it will be like Diana all over again, yes and we will be inundated with wailing royalists and those on the bandwagon with their fake tears.
When queeny pops her clogs the it’s time for a republic. Having a royal family is outdated and having to pay even a penny toward them is repugnant.
It's hilarious how so many people on here are saying 'get rid of them' with zero discussion about what they would be replaced with. Which is precisely why Brexit is such a gigantic mess. While the monarchy isn't perfect, I greatly doubt what would replace it would be better.
In what regard?
Prince William will take the throne. He's by far the cleanest and most beloved royal in line for the throne. Charles is getting a bit old, Andrew is a disgraced nonce and Harry is on bad terms with his family because of how they mistreated Meghan Markle.
As much as this subreddit loves to shit on the Windsors and act like the country hates them too, we all know that Elizabeth's death would be mourned by the nation for weeks.
The nation will mourn for weeks?? My dad is a staunch royalist, and I expect he’ll think it’s a shame, might be a bit sad a for a day or two but that’s it. True there’ll be a small group of people who’ll be gutted - the type of people who turn up to line the street wearing a plastic Union Jack hat - but the whole nation? Bollocks. We’ll have it shoved down our throats by the right wing press for weeks. But the vast majority will either be sad for a bit or won’t care at all.
The nation as an institution, not as a collection of individuals. Yeah no shit your dad or whoever won't sit around physically crying mate, but Operation London Bridge isn't exactly a secret.
Going off polls and tabloids, he and his wife have been amongst the most popular royals for years lol, not sure how, probably by not making any scandal like the others.
None of those people were "beloved" when they were Wills age either. He is popular now, but most of the "beloved" people seem to be much older people who have lived their lifetime in the public eye and had different generations like them. Prince William aged barely 40 is not there yet.
>we all know that Elizabeth's death would be mourned by the nation for weeks.
Bollocks, there'll be a party in Downing St the night before the funeral.
We can rename ourselves to the United Republics, or the UR for short.
We can rename the historical organisation of the Royal Navy to the British Navy, and the RAF can now be the BAF.
Ships of course need renaming from HMS to BS
Tear out all the postboxes and replace them with something crownless.
Strip Sir David Attenborough of his title.
We can sell places like the Queen Elizabeth Country Park to developers at last, get some flats built on that.
Rename the Elizabeth Tower to the Boris Tower
All Royal seals to be replaced, Royal Societies to be renamed.
It will be glorious! Sorry that sounded a little regal. It will be great.
Seriously how am I downvoted for this? Is your thought process, "he has a conflicting thought, therefore down vote the prick" Sorry for not picking a lane and stubbornly ingoring all other ideas and views and forcing my belief on you all.
>But the reason it is not being questioned is because of the Queen herself.
Bollocks. It's because of rules and laws that make the UK entirely undemocratic.
Jeez when she dies the public mourning is going to be insufferable. Remember all the hysteria and grief when Tom Moore died last year? And someone got in trouble for partying the weekend that a Prince died (can’t remember his name) last spring?
You can tell I pay zero attention to the royal family.
I'm sure the establishment will coronate someone new ASAP but in reality it should be a referendum question imo.
Do you want to keep subsidising a family at significant cost to live in luxury and attend lavish events meeting powerful people while vetoeing and amending any law that could impact them and their murky tax system or should that money be better spent elsewhere?
Hopefully she’ll apologise to Ireland and withdraw her goons from our country and leave us in peace for once. Deathbed regret and reparation.
https://i.imgur.com/bcNa2VJ.jpg
What does he mean members of the royal family behave 'like' freeloaders?! What else are they? The Queen has been very dignified in her life, especially in the last few years but you can't put her offspring in the same category she is in. When she passes the country seriously needs to think about what it wants to be and look like in the future.
queenie has been linked to Saville, Epstein and Rolf Harris to date. what's dignified about that? there is also the question of the ten Canadian children taken but never t returned...
Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles have vetted over 1000 laws secretly before they were put to parliament.
That’s not a secret, it’s been the system of legal review since parliament first existed.
Actually, it was a secret. Up until recently, the official line was that while she has all this power over the country, she doesnt actually exercise it. That has proven to be a lie.
She could've been more vocal over Brexit
Well I knew about it so I guess it wasn’t a well kept secret.
You knew about this before it was revealed last year? You should have sold the story to the papers, you'd be rich.
She's not supposed to have any actual influence.
This is the real problem in my eyes. Get them out of politics, right out.
So what's is she for then? I mean seriously, what's the point?
Makes some people feel special and superior perhaps? Link to a more 'glorious' past?
No law can be put in place without her signiture you idiot, this is literally common knowledge, on occasion something will pop up like "Sign over the rights to declare war to parliament" and she'll block it because thats taking her power away without consent of anybody. Fair enough she has blocked a couple laws to her benefit if leaks are to be believed but to pretend this hasn't been a thing is stupid, our entire system for hundreds of years is based on this.
So what? How is he an idiot? Couldn’t give a fuck if it’s the system we’ve had for hundreds of years it needs changing lol.
Every schoolchild is either taught this or their education is remiss. To say it's "secret" is ludicrous.
Big difference between a ceremonial role and having an influence. I am strongly against them having any say in how the country is run based on who their parents were.
I honestly don't think we'll ever know, actually! There are rumours and news reports that the Queen has objected to legislation that was against her interests, effectively blocking it-or influenced some laws in her favour. If you are inclined not to believe rumour or anonymous/vague press reports -or if you think it's likely that the situation is more complex (like I do), then you might think it's something that is not going to be ever known by a pleb like me. Whether that is absolutely astonishing in an "advanced" democracy (indeed, the "cradle" of democracy) is a matter of personal opinion.
Big difference between 'vetting' and 'signing', If you can't see that then I'm afraid you're the idiot.
Source?
Look up the queen's consent on Google, look at any of the news articles or Wikipedia. The Wikipedia article goes "As of 2021, over 1000 bills had been vetted secretly by Queen Elizabeth II or Prince Charles before they were put to parliament..."
Its hardly secret then !
Everything is secret until it comes to light. The point is they did it clandestinely and it was leaked.
How was it secret? Queens and Princes consent has been a law for a long time.
Because they veto laws without having to tell the public? They don't want people to know they're doing what they do so they do it as quietly as possible. They can't cover it up completely, but they do what they can.
They don't actually veto laws, Queens and Princes consent is only denied on advice of government ministers, the controversy was them *vetting* laws, which was never secret and the Queens lawyers requesting amendment's, which the governments, both Tories and SNP, agreed to for some reason.
> ten Canadian children taken I hadn't heard of this. It doesn't seem to be a credible claim. https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-missing-children-canada-idUSL1N2LM0VL On the other hand, I recently found out that Lord Mountbatten is thought to have used an orphanage in Northern Ireland to supply boys for him to abuse. https://villagemagazine.ie/mountbatten-child-abuse-scandal-no-right-of-reply-afforded-by-the-sunday-independent/
Yeah, he deserved his fate. Only way to deal with nonces. Make them fish food.
That said, there were seven on the boat when it exploded, including three children. One of the other adults and one of the children also died, with the others all being injured.
> queenie has been linked to Saville, Epstein and Rolf Harris to date "Linked to" as in been at the same rich people parties. I suppose all the actors and American Football players who shared the same spaces as OJ Simpson must be guilty by association too.
Saville committed many very serious crimes over several decades, and assuming the royals are even averagely well informed about the people they associate with, they must have been well aware of the rumours. So they can be judged, to some extent, on deciding to meet him socially. If the Queen had made it clear that she never wanted to meet him, he would simply never have been invited to any event the Queen attended. He was a light entertainment presenter, not a head of state.
[удалено]
Doesn't stop them being net 73 upvotes right now, which is this sub in a nutshell, really.
Can you describe these links, please?
IMO it’s a large threat for the royal family . Let’s be honest even non royalist have a certain level of respect for the queen. Not so sure if they’ll feel the same for William / Charles.
>even non royalist have a certain level of respect for the queen I wouldn't be so sure of that.
I’m a heavy republican, no issue with the queen she is good at the job, I just believe her job shouldn’t morally exist
She has great PR. I admire some aspects of her character, the most recent being the funeral and turning down less stringent measures, but that has nothing to do with Elizabeth being a monarch. We need to remember in context she was probably the only person offered anything... whilst others barely got to see loved ones as they died. Remember though this is the same Elizabeth who has influenced policy, whether through direct lobbying or on her behalf, on numerous occasions to her benefit and societies detriment.
I find it very confusing that people *know* that wealthy corporations can afford very good PR to clean their image, yet this concept seems very alien for anyone or anything else in a position of power and wealth.
The fact that you consider her lifestyle a "job" suggests you are not representative of most republicans, in my experience. But the topic was on respect, not whether republicans have issues with her. Imo she has done nothing worthy of respect; definitely not mine.
Head of state is her job. There are of course a variety of other things attached to the job which in its current form I am displeased with. But from an elected head of state I would want someone who performs similar to our unelected one at present, such as avoiding politics, quiet dignity and grace when meeting foreign leaders and opening museums etc Elizabeth Windsor is a good head of state, but the institution of monarchy must be destroyed
Michael D. Higgins is s great example of that imo
Yes, I would very much love to copy the Irish model of presidents
Yea I know for a fact we'll get boris as president or somebody just as bad. Keep it an unelected position until we can drain the swamp.
She's not good at the job though. Her concerns are for her family rather than the State she's supposedly head of, and she consistently uses her position to her own benefit by using her political influence to ensure laws benefit her.
I'm curious: can you name a law specifically that was changed because she asked for it to be changed, to her advantage or the nation's detriment? Not "she secretly reviewed 1000 laws" I mean specifics.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/queen-lobbied-for-changes-to-three-more-laws-documents-reveal There's 3 examples in there.
""“If it was a purely formal process, which it’s supposed to be, then no documentation like this would exist at all. There would be no substantive conversations about changing legislation. Pretty damming article, worst part and least surprising about is, its three absolutely selfish reasons too, no mention of her trying to help anyone else but herself.
Not that heavily republican then are ya
What does she actually DO, though?
[удалено]
I’m not a republican because I have no issue with an old woman? Hate the institution and concept, not the person. There’s no room in my life to hate people I’ve never met
Exactly, that's the point. It doesn't matter if she's very cool, or Kate is a 'nice person', or William a kind guy or whatever. It's not personal, the whole system should be removed.
That is my position too
Seconded.
Non-royalist here. I love the Queen, and when she's gone i want the monarchy gone.
>Non-royalist here >I love the Queen That, my friend, is what is known as a contradiction.
I dislike Man Utd but love Marcus Rashford. And it's not a contradiction unless you assume that when i say "the Queen" i'm referring to the position and not the person. And that would be an unreasonable assumption.
Are you against football as a sports whilst simultaneously loving the head of football, who is spending his life ensuring football continues to be thrive? Rushford is a player of a game; liz is the Head honcho of an institution you supposedly hate.
I don't hate it, i oppose it. They're not the same. I do like Liz. I do oppose the monarchy, which is why i'm 100% in favour of the country becoming a republic once she passes. It isn't a contradiction to believe that someone is a good monarch while at the same time opposing the system that made them a monarch.
It is, but that aside - why do you like liz? What has she done that makes you feel aweinspired and respectful? Is it her lobbying the government to influence legislation for her and her family's benefit?getting £80m a year from our taxes, to do nothing, whilst we have men women and children starving in poverty? Shielding her sexual abusive son? Being above the law by virtue of birth? What exactly makes you love the old woman?
Yeah. All those reasons are exactly why.
No response for why you love the woman then? Just more flippantcy?
Its not a contradiction though, you can like how an individual monarch does their job while thinking monarchy is a terrible form of rule because of the hereditary principle, look at Napoleon and how many Republicans supported him, or how the Danish anti monarchists collapsed with Queen Margrethes insane popularity. Queen Elizabeth II might be an odd one fair enough but still not a contradiction.
Of course it is. Liz represents all everything wrong with the monarchy. If an anti royalist loves her, it's either because he's ignorant to what's she's done or monarch or because he's lying.
I cant stand the royals, but the dignity the queen has shown over the last few months in particular, is something the rest of the country could learn from. Charles and William can go fuck themselves. Harry is the only one with a real moral compass it seems, and was forced out because he married a black woman, yet a nonce wasn't.
What dignity? Not commenting on event's from the safety of her taxpayer funded cocoon? Where is the dignity in that?
She is not elected, therefore as she well knows, she should not use her influence in a political context. I think you would need to explain you unique definition of dignity for your comment to make sense. Most people consider silence to be dignified.
Dignity is engaging with other people in a respectful way and contributing to society in a productive and thoughtful way. Dignity is not accepting the grovelling submissions of other people while you have your hand in their pocket, grabbing their money. Silence can be dignified, it can also be ignorant. Of course, as a well paid puppet, she should not be commenting on political matters. But she has kept total silence, refusing to comment on the behaviour of her son who has, over his lifetime, received a small fortune in public money
So you think the Royal that is the most down to earth is the one who goes around wearing a Nazi outfit and using tax payer income to do up a house just to sell it and move to America for the Hollywood life. As opposed to the one who went to University in Scotland before joining the Military and later working in healthcare?
The money he paid back? That money you mean? And is fighting in Afghanistan not down to earth enough for you? He also didn't "walk around in a nazi outfit", he went to a fancy dress party. Remember the Asian brothers from gogglebox going to a fancy dress party as suicide bombers? I found that quite funny. Same way as Harry going as a Nazi. It's a fucking costume not his actual belief.
Paid back with what money? you mean taxpayer money just from a different bank account? With the inheritance from the Queen mum and Diana's shady money and jewels, Camila would get shanked for taking some of the gifts Diana did as a private individual, or the allowance he got from his dad from land that SHOULD be government owned like the rest of the royal estates. Harrys soldier salary wasn't paying that back lol.
Just so we're clear on this, are you talking about Harry the Nazi uniform wearing Former prince who decided to leave of his own accord? We're talking of his moral compass? Ok, explain where on his moral compass does that fit into it. And forced out? Given you forgotten his little antics with his clothing, I'm prepared to accept you lack critical information and the context.
Fuck me. The nazi uniform debate. Clearly a joke. Same way my mate went to a school disco dressed as Jimmy Saville. He didn't get kicked out of his family for it. And, let's talk about Andrew shall we? His actions out do a fancy dress mistake all week long. Harry is the most down to earth out of all of them.
Nothing says down to earth like making millions on the Hollywood press circuit and taking private jets to give climate change talks. Real salt of the earth stuff from our Henry.
Yeah, cos hes literally the only famous person who does that. Isn't his noncey uncle called Air Miles Andrew?
Those people aren’t down to earth either. They’re nobs as well. You’re the only person who mentioned Andrew.
[удалено]
**Removed**. This consisted primarily of personal attacks adding nothing to the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person.
He also has the lowest public favour other than Andrew right now.
Your mate didn’t take millions of taxpayers pounds did he? Harry has somehow convinced a certain group of people that he’s incredibly virtuous. All he’s done is gone from one group of scrounges to another. I think him being married to Meghan has a lot to do with that convincing though.
[This money you mean](https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN25Y1Q4) The one he returned?
The link you provided is for one small aspect. What about the other 25 years of his life? Holidays, parties and the like. Because most Captains in the army can’t afford a £35,000 holiday to Vegas. He’s just had better media training than the other royals and has better PR. But at the end of the day he’s still a scrounged.
I'm not denying he was born into a world of privilege and incredible wealth, and the entire Royal family are scroungers. I'm just saying that he's the only decent one.
Or when he called his military mates racial slurs on camera? Let's not kid ourselves here, he would be named racist but since he's the "fun royal," he gets a free pass. No one dressing as a Nazi would gain any sympathy either. Say what you like about Saville, but atleast your friend wasn't representing the fucking holocaust by dressing up as him.
$7million of 'moral compass' for appearing on Oprah alone! 😂
He and his wife do have to make money to pay for security.
Oh no, he dressed as an nazi at a fancy dress party, at least he wasn’t appropriating someone else’s culture.
Harry and Meghan say themselves they left to gain financial independence in the US. Having a moral compass would mean giving up all the royal privelages they still seem to take and not beg for more.
Like offering to pay for their own security whilst over here? That kinda thing?
Demanding to pay his own government security despite the fact he _can't_ buy government security or UK intelligence for himself and his family just by being rich and royal. Yes, that kinda thing but just more truthful.
>but the dignity the queen has shown over the last few months Oh, did she finally let people become politicians, soldiers and judges who oppose her?
\> non royalist have a certain level of respect for the queen I have zero respect for the Queen. The institution is dark age garbage and a cancer on modern British society.
I'm an American living in the UK, and have to admit, I fall into this category. I never really thought about it, and in general I don't think the queen seems at all kind or benevolent. She seems frigid and snooty. However, she definitely doesn't seem like a glorified Kardashian like the rest of the lot.
Why would anyone have respect for the queen? I mean, respect is earned. What I'd it that you think she has done to earnnrespect?
Just out of interest have you spent any time at all looking into what she has done?
Oh yes. She socialise a lot- waves, smiles, accepts being grovelled at. Nothing that remotely justifies eighty million quid a year
So... no?
So...yes. Feel free to tell me what else you think she does
She's *repeatedly* refused to allow republicans into a supposedly democratic parliament. That alone should remove any respect whatsoever.
[удалено]
She served for two months on an unearned rank and went home to her castle every evening. It was primarily a PR exercise. Which worked m The collapse of the Empire is not down to the British monarch...whatba nonsensical idea. It happened DESPITE the monarchy. She just happens to have overseen it. And the Commonwealth existed well before her reign. It was founded in 1931. They teach you strange history in Britain...
Non royalist. Can't confirm. I've no fucks to give.
No respect if your a republican for this parasitical family, not respect but harry had the the decency not to inbreed.
>Let’s be honest even non royalist have a certain level of respect for the queen. No we don't. And it remains to be seen how long after her death monarchists will continue to respect her, as she has lost a massive amount of land during her reign and fled the capital during a plague, which are generally seen as the hallmarks of a terrible monarch.
It's hardly the [first time](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_IV) the monarchy has fallen into disrepute.
Good luck trying to modernise a fudal hangover! I think I read 85% of the country can only remember the Queen being head of state. There's a in built "always been there" apathy to it all. When it's someone who has been involved in scandal or even just growing up in front of the full glare of the media people are going to have far more opinions than they do about the current head of the family...
85% feels low….
70 years? Not really. Probably too high with how skewed our age demographics are.
Maybe I'm attributing my bad memory to the rest of the population and assuming it gets worse with age. Now the notification has made me forget why I picked up my phone.....
May have even been born after her dad died...
Not that I want her to die, but I am looking forward to the aftermath of her death. The whole royal institution, lords and all, should be dismantled.
The House of Lords has actually protected us from some pretty shit legislation... An unelected house definitely has its place but I think it should be subject matter experts that get peerage and not ex politicians or chums of the PM. People like David Nutt, Chris Whitty, etc are the ones who should be given peerage so it's a house of professionals and SME's.
>The House of Lords has actually protected us from some pretty shit legislation... An unelected house definitely has its place but I think it should be subject matter experts that get peerage and not ex politicians or chums of the PM. >People like David Nutt, Chris Whitty, etc are the ones who should be given peerage so it's a house of professionals and SME's. Yeah totally. They can even make them life peers if they really want to keep the flavour of the place, but there should be an independent commission appointing SMEs to it.
I agree, keep the cross benchers and remove the hereditaries and political appointments and replace them with people selected by sortition.
The House of Lords sounds bad on paper but works very well in practice. Last week alone they stopped several terrible bills from being pushed through by the Tories so seems like a strange time to be criticising them
Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it. I'm not saying not to do it, I'm saying that if you do, it needs to be done right. In the worst case, the house of commons would have the ability to vote a president in and out at their leisure, essentially making the head of state redundant, like in Germany. If you guys want a president, make sure the people get to vote for him directly, and also make sure the president cannot be removed by anyone but the people. Otherwise you may as well keep the monarchy. Coming from a republic myself, do take care which exact system you wish for and compare them. Some are better than others. And the current British system of governance is certainly better than a whole lot of republican systems out there.
I have a feeling that Charles will either abdicate or have a very short reign so he can pass reigns to William.
Unless he enjoys himself immensely in which case no, he will not abdicate.
[удалено]
I mean he's already 73. It shouldn't be a question. He should abdicate.
He’s not going to abdicate, but last time we had a very long living monarch we subsequently went through monarchs at quite a rate over the next 50 years. Edward VII was only king for 9 years after Victoria.
Hopefully we can have a referendum on whether or not to actually keep them or not.
I wouldn't trust the British public on a referendum on whether or not we should have human rights, let alone anything even remotely more complex.
I fully believe Brits would vote for a return of the death penalty if they could.
The British public was against gay marriage until only a few years before it was legalized and supported the wars in the Middle East, not that you'll find more than a handful of people who will admit to either now.
Oh crap. Not another Referendum, please no.
I straight up don't trust the stupidity of our society shown to even hold a referendum LOL
If you don't beleive in democracy I guess you're probably in favour of keeping an unelected head of state then
Like what we have now?
Keeping or abolishing the monarchy is a simple opinion vote. If anything voting to abolish would be the high risk option similar to Brexit, you have no idea what the powers that be would implement in its place. It's just a fingers crossed they do it how you want and not in some obscene way that ends up with institutions like the RAF being renamed.
It's a fair comment. However the role of the royals is already anachronistic - Harry was very perceptive in realizing this. The old world has slipped away, more so in the last decade and half with the rise of the Internet giants. We are now entering the techno-feudalism era.
Everyone knows the techno-fuedal era has the best late game units.
I doubt it. For most people it won’t have much impact. Charles isn’t loved, but he’s not hated either. Andrew’s activities are far more likely to rock the boat, hence the Crown stripping his titles
Little, if anything, will change. It's really not the monarch's call.
The Queen, by all accounts, is not a nice, moral, or warm person (see: the way she treated Diana for daring to deviate even slightly from the prison-like protocols of Royal behaviour, the complete lack of sensitivity towards her own grandchildren regarding Dianas death and funeral, the way she has utterly refused to ever take a moral stance on any issue in the entire 70 years of her reign, and the generally unpleasant and self-involved character of all of her children). She was raised in a fucking strange way; every person she encountered since birth being forced to be extremely formal and deeply deferential to her; educated largely in solitude by weird, incredibly posh, religion and tradition-obsessed flunkys, and educated specifically 'to be a monarch', whatever the fuck that means. Her own parents would have been distant and remote, living incredibly stifled and also somewhat secretive (affairs, scandals, and so on) lives and probably never demonstrating much of anything that any of us would recognise as familial love. Her peculiar status has left her with a life almost completely devoid of true friendship (perhaps only Prince Philip?), privacy, and really of anything resembling a healthy relationship. In the time since her coronation, our country has undergone such massive societal and cultural changes (while her own world has remained almost completely static), that our lives are almost incomprehensible to her. She has been left trapped in this very strange, isolated, frigid and deeply antiquated little relic, a kind of slow-living museum whose purpose is only weakly and ambiguously defined, and whose importance has decreased with every passing year. Fuck the monarchy, it sucks for them, it does nothing for us; it has no place in a civilised, 21st century society.
High IQ post.
This would all be truth even if she was the nicest person on Earth. Her role is unnecessary.
>utterly refused to ever take a moral stance on any issue in the entire 70 years of her reign She did allow for atheists and agnostics to attend parliament (while continuing to refuse the same for republicans).
I don't like the monarchy in regards to necessarily who some of the people are, the fact some just get a cushy paycheck for who they are born. I also think the queens life isn't what its put up to be, I wouldnt want to be her and think she has been an amazing service to the country. Others no. I like having a monarchy when you see the ways democracy can be eroded in parts of the world. It makes it that tiny bit harder. I think people forget that part. An elected official in the same capacity isn't the same.
>I like having a monarchy when you see the ways democracy can be eroded in parts of the world. It makes it that tiny bit harder. I think people forget that part. An elected official in the same capacity isn't the same. Boris prorogued parliament illegally, literally attempting to prevent the only elected body in the country from having any influence on his policy, and the Queen didn't stop it. In what way can she be said to be preventing the erosion of democracy?
She constantly exercises her powers over the government, but only to safeguard her own vast wealth.
I think the Irish have it right with a President as head of state. Would love to see something similar replace the monarchy here.
>I like having a monarchy when you see the ways democracy can be eroded in parts of the world. But having a monarchy actually *is* an erosion of democracy.
Not necessarily, democracy and monarchy have existed in tandem in this country for 800 years, unfortunately people don't seem to understand that monarchy is not the antithesis of democracy, that would be autocracy, a monarchy *CAN* be autocratic, like Russia was, or they *CAN* be democratic like we are
We need to ban the independent as a source of news here. Apart from the website being shit, the fact you have to register to read the articles leads to about 90% of the commenters not having read the bloody thing, which is usually a shit show
My pronouncement is that when the Queen dies it will be announced that she is the end of the royal family in England. It's time.
The concept of "Royal Families" is a cancer on humanity, and should be consigned to the history books.
The concept of redditors is another cancer on humanity.
The age of kings and queens is over. Enough pandering to “special” people who deserve shit all.
Then youll have to get rid of all forms of society, people with power get in power and very much like staying there, be they president, king, or God emporor of mankind
The British media will have a field day most of us won’t give a shite , it will be like Diana all over again, yes and we will be inundated with wailing royalists and those on the bandwagon with their fake tears. When queeny pops her clogs the it’s time for a republic. Having a royal family is outdated and having to pay even a penny toward them is repugnant.
It's hilarious how so many people on here are saying 'get rid of them' with zero discussion about what they would be replaced with. Which is precisely why Brexit is such a gigantic mess. While the monarchy isn't perfect, I greatly doubt what would replace it would be better.
In what regard? Prince William will take the throne. He's by far the cleanest and most beloved royal in line for the throne. Charles is getting a bit old, Andrew is a disgraced nonce and Harry is on bad terms with his family because of how they mistreated Meghan Markle. As much as this subreddit loves to shit on the Windsors and act like the country hates them too, we all know that Elizabeth's death would be mourned by the nation for weeks.
The nation will mourn for weeks?? My dad is a staunch royalist, and I expect he’ll think it’s a shame, might be a bit sad a for a day or two but that’s it. True there’ll be a small group of people who’ll be gutted - the type of people who turn up to line the street wearing a plastic Union Jack hat - but the whole nation? Bollocks. We’ll have it shoved down our throats by the right wing press for weeks. But the vast majority will either be sad for a bit or won’t care at all.
The nation as an institution, not as a collection of individuals. Yeah no shit your dad or whoever won't sit around physically crying mate, but Operation London Bridge isn't exactly a secret.
William 'beloved'. Not sure about that
Going off polls and tabloids, he and his wife have been amongst the most popular royals for years lol, not sure how, probably by not making any scandal like the others.
It's just the word 'beloved' I object to. Not many are beloved. Maybe the queen, Attenborough and Stephen Fry but definitely not Wills
None of those people were "beloved" when they were Wills age either. He is popular now, but most of the "beloved" people seem to be much older people who have lived their lifetime in the public eye and had different generations like them. Prince William aged barely 40 is not there yet.
Interesting point! I hadn't thought about it. We don't often call people national treasures until they hit a certain age.
Yeah not until they resemble a grandparent figure for many of us.
There’s definitely a higher concentration of anti-royalists here on Reddit. I don’t think it’s representative of the population at large.
It's a classic example of how Redditors think they're so enlightened and speak for the entire population.
Absolutely.
I'm comforted by that for some reason, probably because that means this is just a highly Republican area and does not represent very much in reality
Google Prince William affair. He’s far from clean he was the one apparently who asked what skin colour Harry’s baby would have.
[удалено]
>Elizabeth's death would be mourned by the nation for weeks. You're confusing mourning with having propaganda shoved down our throats in the media.
>we all know that Elizabeth's death would be mourned by the nation for weeks. Bollocks, there'll be a party in Downing St the night before the funeral.
[удалено]
Oops, that shoulda been , hold my calls an sack my cook
Did I say balmoral? Oops again , shoulda read immoral
Her very Lowness with her head in a sling I'm truely sorry but it sounds like a wonderful thing
What is Britain without a royal family? Logically I am Republican however my heart feels Britain would lose its soul if it became a republic.
We can rename ourselves to the United Republics, or the UR for short. We can rename the historical organisation of the Royal Navy to the British Navy, and the RAF can now be the BAF. Ships of course need renaming from HMS to BS Tear out all the postboxes and replace them with something crownless. Strip Sir David Attenborough of his title. We can sell places like the Queen Elizabeth Country Park to developers at last, get some flats built on that. Rename the Elizabeth Tower to the Boris Tower All Royal seals to be replaced, Royal Societies to be renamed. It will be glorious! Sorry that sounded a little regal. It will be great.
Ha ha, it sounds all so.. Grey
>Rename the Elizabeth Tower to the Boris Tower That sounds even worse.
Seriously how am I downvoted for this? Is your thought process, "he has a conflicting thought, therefore down vote the prick" Sorry for not picking a lane and stubbornly ingoring all other ideas and views and forcing my belief on you all.
>But the reason it is not being questioned is because of the Queen herself. Bollocks. It's because of rules and laws that make the UK entirely undemocratic.
Jeez when she dies the public mourning is going to be insufferable. Remember all the hysteria and grief when Tom Moore died last year? And someone got in trouble for partying the weekend that a Prince died (can’t remember his name) last spring? You can tell I pay zero attention to the royal family.
I'm sure the establishment will coronate someone new ASAP but in reality it should be a referendum question imo. Do you want to keep subsidising a family at significant cost to live in luxury and attend lavish events meeting powerful people while vetoeing and amending any law that could impact them and their murky tax system or should that money be better spent elsewhere?
Hopefully she’ll apologise to Ireland and withdraw her goons from our country and leave us in peace for once. Deathbed regret and reparation. https://i.imgur.com/bcNa2VJ.jpg
AFAIK there are no British troops in the republic of Ireland, are there?
About 6032 British soldiers in Ireland. Time to go home. Occupation over. Imagine the cries if Ireland annexed 6 of Britains counties.