In the 21st century, do we need a monarch?

When making a post, please ensure it complies with this site's Main Rules at all times.
  • I believe in a meritocracy, on that basis the royals would be in scummy jobs and living on a sink estate in some Northern hell hole. They're hardly the sharpest tools in the box.

    Reminds me of the writer of The Diary of Adrian Mole, the late Sue Townsend, who had similar thoughts on them. My grandfather had no time for them at all. He was far more concerned with what privilege had done to those considered not worthy, even if those considered not worthy exceeded many considered worthy in almost every aspect except shooting wildlife and avoiding anything that looked like hard work.

  • I don't begrudge his wealth and if he wants to have gang bangs, that's his business, but I do begrudge that while he is living his wealthy playboy lifestyle, the security to protect him is paid for by us.

    I think it's nice that he does the war veteran stuff and even nicer, if I thought he was genuine about it.

    As you say, like footballers, when people get to a certain level, they do believe they can act and do what they want, which if they pay for it out of their own cash and it's legal, is their business.

    The fact that he is subsided by the tax payer makes it all of our business, unlike a football player.

    I'm completely cynical about his charity 'work'. Attending veteran's sport events patronises both those who have been working in disability sport for years and those non-military disabled [such as myself] who are so often angrily stereotyped as 'spongers'.

    Likewise his 'work' with 3rd world charity would go down less badly without his previous history as 'Party Boy of the Western World' and as a member of a western military, which bombs the crud out of any passing 'native' who gets in the way of the interests of the White House.

  • Yes, but their being nice is a big boost to image. Diana got through to the people and in doing so, she made the British monarchy look like a good idea. She had high hopes of "being a team" with Charles but his hope was singular and it was called Camilla. So Diana struggled with that anomaly for a while, got somewhat traumatised by his lack of empathy for using her as a brood mare for heirs and then died horribly in the murky depths of a relationship that appears to have been as engineered as her Royal disaster was.

    She remains a tragic figure, no matter what some may want to paint her as. She was used and all the good things she accomplished and the connections she made were undone by Charles' inability to take responsibility for his role as the Queen's successor. Charles in his younger days was a proper aristo supremacy merchant. He has no public relations genes and is seemingly pretty selfish.

    Kate is the last hope for a revival of what Diana was trying to achieve - a reachable, caring monarchy. She is good looking, elegant, mature, good at social performances and makes a good partner to Will, who is mostly looked to as Diana's successor rather than Charles'. I like William and think he has privately had enough of the media and the hideous hoax that is Royal privilege. Together, William and Kate could knit up the ravelled sleeve of Monarchy, to misquote a Shakespearean phrase.

    Time will tell. In fact, Will and Kate are a lot like a couple in a Shakespearean play and are the younger generation that heals the wounds of an elder generation. If All is Well that Ends Well there, then good for them. If not, they will have tried.

  • I think it works between Will and Kate because she takes a back step.

    He is the one who meets and greets first. He is the one who gets the attention first. That's one of things that Charles hated about Diana in that she "stole," as he saw it, the attention and adulation away from him.

  • How narcissistic of him! He has the personality of a wet rag. Diana was good for everything, including the British rag trade. He simply didn't pay her the attention that might have reflected back on him. His neglect caused her to wander off into somewhat sentimental issues instead.

  • As said, William hasn't made the mistake his dad made. He chose someone who would take a back seat to him and stay there. They split up originally, but he obviously felt she was a good match, so they got back together again and married pumping our more little royals in the process. As long as she knows her place, it will be fine between them.

  • As she is a so-called commoner, she will comprehend the value of humouring the establishment. I'm glad Harry's SA girlfriend didn't stay as she would have kicked up one heck of a shindig if any of the chosen ones had started telling her what to do. Far too independent for that. She went to Will's wedding, took another look at all the good little drones in funny hats and thought "no thanks".

  • As I was sent to get today's papers all with Diana stories and pictures in them again.. there was a story in there about Harry's girlfriend. I'll have a read if it later if I can be bothered and post here. I don't follow celeb/royal stories, so I don't know who's going out with who or what they are doing. I'm sure it will make riveting reading.:):rolleyes:

  • Remember, this is not about being 'nice' or being a 'personality'. It's about having, as our constitutional Head of State someone who is entirely unelected, and in no way answerable to the democratic process.

    This sends out the message that to have political control - even political rights - in this country, one must be white, Christian and from an elite minority.

    So, whenever you praise the personality cult of a Diana, a William, a Harry or a Kate, you are opening the door to the selfish, ambitious creed of a Boris Johnson or a Jacob Rees-Mogg.

  • I agree with your first bit there PM, but lost me on the rest I'm afraid.

    Is your argument that because the Queen is white, as are her heirs, this alienates minorities in this country and somehow prevents them from voting somehow??

    And on your last bit, again I'm lost. I'm not sure how any of the Royals could be compared to Boris Johnson. I'm not sure how anyone can be compared to him. Boris is Boris.

  • When the two heirs of Prince Charles both went to Eton, I think the class connection to the likes of 'Boris' and 'Jacob' is pretty clear. As is the reason that such establishment figures get the same easy ride from the mainstream media.

    Moving on a little, am I the only one confused as to the real reason for all the publicity surrounding the Invictus Games?

    Is it genuinely to promote sport among the disabled?

    Is it to promote the British armed forces?

    Or is it just good PR for 'prince' Harry and his latest sexual partner?

  • When the two heirs of Prince Charles both went to Eton, I think the class connection to the likes of 'Boris' and 'Jacob' is pretty clear. As is the reason that such establishment figures get the same easy ride from the mainstream media.

    I don't begrudge anyone going to Eton or any other posh establishment, but I do begrudge someone becoming an officer in the army based purely on who they are. It was alleged that Harry had help with his art A-Level. Without that he wouldn't have been able to get into Sandhurst.

    Moving on a little, am I the only one confused as to the real reason for all the publicity surrounding the Invictus Games?


    Is it genuinely to promote sport among the disabled?


    Is it to promote the British armed forces?


    Or is it just good PR for 'prince' Harry and his latest sexual partner?

    I think its a PR machine for Harry. The bulk of the news has focussed on him, not the athletes. Going by the pictures though, Harry's had a good time. Good for him! Wish I could have a nice trip to Toronto, especially if the bill is picked up by others.... I've had three holidays in the last seventeen years.

  • When the two heirs of Prince Charles both went to Eton, I think the class connection to the likes of 'Boris' and 'Jacob' is pretty clear. As is the reason that such establishment figures get the same easy ride from the mainstream media.

    There was a cartoon in one of the papers the other day. A chap saying ' I think Eton should be put into special measures.' It's long overdue judging by the performances of Cameron and the rest of them.

  • Do watch the video on the link, I couldn't have put it better myself. Well done Simon McCoy.

    I know this is not the thread, but this is another example of "pre news" here, in the extreme.

    Of course, the real news, the news that no one covers is the Duchess' continual "morning" sickness. Perhaps if she were not so thin the "morning" sickness, as it's currently described, would not be so severe for her...

  • I will give one simple answer to the Question asked by the Thread Title:

    Do we need a monarchy in 21st Century Britain?

    Yes.

    Did we ever?

    Yes.

    Monarchy is part and parcel of what this country is about. Our democracy is founded upon monarchy and the system of governance today is also kept in check by a monarch. And the alternative of having President Blair or President Osborne feels me with such nausea, I couldn't even relate to this being Britain if such a thing occurred.

  • Remember, this is not about being 'nice' or being a 'personality'. It's about having, as our constitutional Head of State someone who is entirely unelected, and in no way answerable to the democratic process.

    This sends out the message that to have political control - even political rights - in this country, one must be white, Christian and from an elite minority.

    So, whenever you praise the personality cult of a Diana, a William, a Harry or a Kate, you are opening the door to the selfish, ambitious creed of a Boris Johnson or a Jacob Rees-Mogg.

    Elizabeth II in my view is not a cult personality. The biggest example of cult personality in this country is Corbyn and the way his followers ignore or protest about any fact or criticism is disturbing beyond the realms of sensible behaviour. The Monarch may be unelected, but they don't make the laws do they? We elect people to do that for us, yet these same folk who bemoan the monarch as being unelected, are embracing the EU as some kind of wondrous, fair organisation, that is fully democratic and accountable. If you believe that, you believe the loch ness monster lives in your garden pond!

    As for your "one must be white, Christian and from an elite minority" comments, I found this quite offensive to be honest. All of us can go to a posh college or university if we really aspired to. The only ones preventing us from doing so are ourselves. Aspiration is what this country used to be about. And if you stop promoting aspiration you develop a country of state reliance, where those with little start resenting those who have more. In honesty, rather than resenting the have's, people should be aspiring to become like them. If they choose not to, fair enough, but why waste energy resenting them? As for your white and christian comments, I'm sorry to say this, but it comes across to me as if you have a persecution complex, or at the least a very big chip on your shoulder. Britain historically is a white, Christian country, and our population is still majority white, and will be like that probably for all our lifetimes. Are you suggesting the majority should no longer be represented by people they can relate to anymore, as some kind of forced appeasement to the ethnic minorities? Maybe if people stopped looking beyond skin colour and ethnicity, they might start achieving things.

    I'm not overly sure about what you mean about the "selfish, ambitious creed of a Boris Johnson or a Jacob Rees-Mogg." Although I do observe that these two figures are rattling the left so much it would be delicious to have them in power just to witness the fireworks! Joking aside though, these two men are politicians, therefore by their very nature they are ambitious. I can't think of one MP or politician who isn't. As for being selfish, well surely that is just a bizarre comment based on the fact that you oppose their politics. They clearly have the interests of Britain as their priority and whether their vision of what the country should be is something you share or otherwise, does not mean they're selfish.

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!