Forums Forums National News Every little helps...

Of the ten current European monarchs, eight of them are constitutional monarchs exactly the same as ours. Of the remaining two, one is an absolute monarch.

Our Queen has not interfered with matters of state, the last time this happened was in 1707. She has no significant absolute powers of state and while she can speak her mind (as can any citizen) she is mostly beheld to the the Prime Minister and Parliament. Most of her functions are "duties" not "powers".

"Our Queen has not interfered with matters of state..."

Oh Yes? The meetings between the Queen and the PM are secret. Who knows what goes on in them?

GB Shaw wrote a play about a 'constitutional' monarch and the way he was able to exercise his will using exactly the sort of access to government our queen has.

In fact you really have no idea of the extent to which our monarch gets her way.


My main objection to a monarchy has nothing to do with its cost however. I dislike it most because it legitimises the idea that some people (e.g. members of the royal family) are more important than commoners like you, Granny.

Once this idea is embedded, intermediate levels of importance are introduced. Members of the House of Lords are expected to be referred to as 'Sir Bonehead or 'Lord Numbskull' and people like you, Granny, are happy to go along with this. Idiotic titles like 'Lord High Sheriff of the County' proliferate, and instead of lampooning this lunacy, people like you, Granny, defer to them.

I'd have more respect for you were you to tell them to eff off and stop being such twits, but you seem to lie being a 'subject' rathr than a 'citizen'. Time for you to have a good long think about this IMO.

She's a constitutional monarch, she hasn't got the political power to do much at all, the Prime Minister has the political power. Of course she gives advice from her years of experience of working with other Prime Ministers but advice is the limit of her political involvement, she can't force anything upon the Prime Minister, she isn't an absolute monarch.

The power was effectively removed from the Crown around 400 years ago.

Once again you fail to provide any evidence whatsoever for your assertion that these European countries are doing rather better than us as a result of them ditching their monarchies.

Respect! There's a word I wouldn't relate to you Ex.

Quite right! I have NO respect for an institution that is essentially parasitic.

I want to be a citizen, not a 'subject'.

And if the queen takes no part in the running of the country, surely it is obvious even to the meanest intelligence that she can be dropped without any effect on us.

In fact you have no idea of how influential she is. I suspect that Charles - who is already notorious for telling ministers what they should do - will take a much more active role. Will they do as he orders? Some won't, but undoubtedly some will. Many are hoping for a knighthood, and will not want to offend the person who hands them out.

If you are happy with this situation then I think you are beyond human help.

Dear Ex,

I shall not be drawn into your continued negative obsession, as I have no wish to be accused of you suffering a heart attack from sheer anger or frustration.
A woman's tongue can lash like a King John's royal whip. Do you know anything about the Magna Carter ?
However, I will grant you the option of continuing with your 'royal rant', and providing the necessary stimulation that Wiki so drastically needs at this moment in time.
Please try to answer Spellbinder's question,.. there's a dear. We are all waiting with eagerness.
Our Queen is also the Supreme Governor of the Church of England , maybe we should dispose of the Pope at the same time and all his followers with silly outfits and funny hats ? Then we could get rid of Christianity and make do with Islam instead. Just a little on the lines of the German Royal family followed by Herr Hitler !

God bless our Queen and God bless you.
Just off to take the puppies for their morning walk. Enjoy yours.
Granny.

Yes, and rather more than you I fancy. I can at least spell it properly.

It was a document that gave certain right to barons and wealthy merchants (not ordinary people). It was subsequently largely ignored by both sides until it was annulled by the pope.

God knows what you imagine it was, and its relevance to the pros and cons of the monarchy. Perhaps you'd like to tell us?

Does he know anything about the magna carta ? Well I would say he seems to know everything

How does one differentiate between an internet troll and a genuine knob?

Look in the Mirror?

Yes, probably Dilly. Anyway, maybe he hasn't seen this, which epitomises everything.




It struck me this morning that there might, to some people, appear to be something slightly incongruous in celebrating the 800th anniversary of the curtailing of the power of the monarch by unveiling a statue of the monarch.

Not at all. Because while John represented arguably the worst of monarchy, Queen Elizabeth II represents undoubtedly the best of monarchy.

While John exercised arbitrary power, Queen Elizabeth is the embodiment of the laws that protect our rights.

She represents the ultimate refinement of the principle of constitutional monarchy that has served the UK so well.

– Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond

Spiegel im Spiegel.

And this will explain how it has influenced the rest of the world. Just for personal interest, not in anyway connecting to remarks by the jester.

https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/articles/magna-carta-in-the-20th-century#