|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Should the Queen retire?
|
Tulfes
Shipmate
# 18000
|
Posted
I wonder when the poor old Queen will be allowed to put her feet up? I see that she turned 88 yesterday and is still hard at work. Surely there is a human rights issue in this? Is she the only person in the UK who literally will have to work until they drop? I think the Dutch have the right idea. Their old Queen was allowed to retire last year at the respectable age of 75. So civilised. It strikes me that, however healthy and willing, a lady of 88 just cannot bring the energy to the role which it requires. It's not fair to make her keep going. She should be enjoying a country retirement in Norfolk or maybe Balmoral, with her dogs and horses and her beloved Prince Philip.
[ 22. April 2014, 12:55: Message edited by: Tulfes ]
Posts: 175 | Registered: Feb 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
She's already foisted off the arduous duties of touring Australia and New Zealand to younger royals. Perhaps having young George perform public duties should raise questions of child labour as well?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Up to her. No-one's forcing her. I for one am quite happy for her to stand down and claim an old age pension like anyone else.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tulfes
Shipmate
# 18000
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
She's already foisted off the arduous duties of touring Australia and New Zealand to younger royals. Perhaps having young George perform public duties should raise questions of child labour as well?
But George doesn't know that he is "performing". Yet. The problems may come later if he chooses to "rebel". Unlike his dad and grandad.
Posts: 175 | Registered: Feb 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trin
Shipmate
# 12100
|
Posted
What ever makes you think she's being forced?
Posts: 442 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tulfes
Shipmate
# 18000
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Up to her. No-one's forcing her. I for one am quite happy for her to stand down and claim an old age pension like anyone else.
But she is being forced to keep going. abdication is a dirty word in the recent history of the British Royals. Heck, even a Pope has retired recently due to advancing years. there's no shame in it.
Posts: 175 | Registered: Feb 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Up to her. No-one's forcing her. I for one am quite happy for her to stand down and claim an old age pension like anyone else.
But she is being forced to keep going. abdication is a dirty word in the recent history of the British Royals. Heck, even a Pope has retired recently due to advancing years. there's no shame in it.
It's only a dirty word amongst themselves. No-one else I know has a problem with it. Either they're republicans like me and don't give a monkey's, or they see no reason she shouldn't retire. Resistance to stepping down comes from the monarchy itself - i.e. the Queen. Put it another way, she doesn't step down because she doesn't want to.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
DangerousDeacon
Shipmate
# 10582
|
Posted
The Queen does not have to abdicate in order to retire. She could have Prince Charles appointed as Regent: whilst she would still be Queen, all the duties and functions of the monarchy would be carried out by Charles.
--------------------
'All the same, it may be that I am wrong; what I take for gold and diamonds may be only a little copper and glass.'
Posts: 506 | From: Top End | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
I think the Queen has always gently let it be known that when she made her coronation vows, there was nothing in them to suggest it was to be a temporary appointment.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Quite. Certainly whilst she is in possession of her main faculties, she would see no reason why she should retire, and neither do I. Different ball game if she starts losing it but, even then, precedent suggests a regency of some kind rather than abdication.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
The Queen seems still in her 80s to manage lots of things to do, and to look OK. She also does use her son and his son to work too. Her mother was much more ancient, in her 100s ! So this Queen may last for ages and ages, still OK !
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
... a lady of 88 just cannot bring the energy to the role which it requires ...
To the extent that she and her advisors think she is falling short, I'm sure they will make appropriate delegations. But she is remarkable - just to see her walking down stairs without a hand rail gives me hope. If I can do that in 25 years time ...
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
No - because she can't.
I'm amazed that this is seen as a possibility in this forum.
A priest is ordained and we invoke the Holy Spirit: although she/he may subsequently retire from active ministry they don't cease to be a priest until death.
We anoint a monarch with holy oil and invoke the Holy Spirit: thus they may cease to carry out duties but they can't cease to be a monarch until death.
Will ER II retire - yes, in fact I think she's in the process of doing so. But there's no chance of her ceasing to be queen.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
An die Freude
Shipmate
# 14794
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
A priest is ordained and we invoke the Holy Spirit: although she/he may subsequently retire from active ministry they don't cease to be a priest until death.
We anoint a monarch with holy oil and invoke the Holy Spirit: thus they may cease to carry out duties but they can't cease to be a monarch until death.
Will ER II retire - yes, in fact I think she's in the process of doing so. But there's no chance of her ceasing to be queen.
What about Benny Ratzinger?
--------------------
"I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable."
Walt Whitman
Formerly JFH
Posts: 851 | From: Proud Socialist Monarchy of Sweden | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
He's not been de-frocked, just retired: officially he is Pope Emeritus.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Even Salvation Army officers retire from active service but keep their rank and ability to minister until death.
The Queen is anointed and has vowed to God that she will serve the people. She cannot retire.
[ 22. April 2014, 15:34: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I think the Queen has always gently let it be known that when she made her coronation vows, there was nothing in them to suggest it was to be a temporary appointment.
I agree with this. I think she has always taken her vows very seriously and all the more so in the wake of the abdication that made her heiress to the throne. I know it's fictionalised, but The King's Speech brought this out very strongly for me.
Now, could we get Charles to miss his turn? That would seem a very pragmatic decision to me, and I don't think he'd be anywhere near as bothered about it as his mum.
[ 22. April 2014, 15:38: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
I think Adeodatus was referring to this:
"I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong."
This was part of a speech the Queen presented by radio on her 21st birthday from Cape Town. It appears that she meant it then and means it now.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
She has made it clear that she will not abdicate. I think she takes her role seriously - for her, it is not just a job, it is her calling, her duty.
In a world where people make all the money they want to, and then retire to spend it all - when retirement is seen as the aim in life for so many - I admire her belief that this is not for her. Lets be clear, her mother made her century, and was pretty capable up to the last few.
I am sure that she has discussions about roles that others can take on, and will continue to delegate maybe even to the point of making Charles regent. But she sees her role as being Queen for life - not out of compulsion, but because someone has to take the role seriously.
And she will not even consider giving up until she has ruled longer than Victoria. Given that she is still fit and healthy, I don't see any reason why she shouldn't.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Duty is her touchstone, I think. If the Queen reaches the stage where she cannot do her duty, she will take a back seat. I think she has good judgment about that; also she is probably well aware of the particular difficulties Charles would face as her successor, even if she wasn't such a hard act to follow.
I'm not a royalist but I have a great deal of respect for the way the Queen has both fulfilled the role and been realistic about the necessity of change. The institution of the monarchy has been lucky to have her during a time of profound social change.
[ 22. April 2014, 17:10: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
Fully agree with Barnabas62, except that I am a royalist.
Her Majesty understands the meaning of the word Duty.
She serves, and she does it with dignity.
This does not mean she ought to do a "John Paul Two", staying in office even though unfit to exercise it. That would not be service, for Duty could no longer be fulfiled; it would be identifying oneself with an Office, instead of seeing oneself as a servant, and temporary holder, of that Office.
The point is simply that she is still fit to do her Duty, so she will.
If this is increasingly at odds with the prevailing Zeitgeist , then it says more about how increasingly "modern" people are incapable of holding ideals, than about the sense of Her Majesty's role.
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Now, could we get Charles to miss his turn? That would seem a very pragmatic decision to me, and I don't think he'd be anywhere near as bothered about it as his mum.
This is probably a more relevant question where the future is concerned. The Queen will not abdicate, as others have said, she believes with every fibre of her being, the oath she made in Cape Town. Also, as a Christian, I'm sure she acepts the chrism of her coronation in the same spirit as priesthood. But as she ages, it's inevitable that those younger than herself are going to take a more active role. whether this will ever require a formal regency is yet to determine. I often feel sorry for Charles. He's been preparing all his life for the day when he would become king, and he hasn't always found it easy. I'm sure that his work as a gentleman farmer at Highgrove is what gives him most satisfaction. Under the British Constitution he must become king on his mother's death.
It will then be up to him if he chooses to serve as king or abdicate in favour of his son. Personally, as a royalist, I think abdication would be the right choise for Charles. William, Kate and George have the perfect family image to keep the monarchy popular. Charles probably doesn't, with the memory of Diana still large in so many people's eyes. And I'm not sure if being married to a divorcee is compatible with his role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England. While I have great respect for both Charles and his wife, they can't cut it like William and Kate do.
One of the great strengths of the hereditary monarchy is that it's the institution which matters more than the individual, and Charles is perfectly entitled to sit on the throne from the time of his mother's death until his own. If he chooses that path, I would respect his decision and pledge my sword to him. But I think that, for the sake of the future of monarchy itself in this land, William can have a much longer and more popular reign, and is better suited to the task.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
It will then be up to him if he chooses to serve as king or abdicate in favour of his son. Personally, as a royalist, I think abdication would be the right choice for Charles.
I don't think he will. He, too, would see abdication as a betrayal of duty (doubly so because he would be dumping the job on his son.) I think I agree with you that he would be much happier as a country gentleman than as King, but I don't think he sees that there is a choice.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I think I agree with you that he would be much happier as a country gentleman than as King, but I don't think he sees that there is a choice.
Where Charles would have a greater choice than the Queen lies in the fact that he hasn't taken any oaths, coronation or otherwise. To abdicate prior to coronation, as did Edward VIII is much easier, and would be unlikely to cause the constitutional crisis it did in 1936.from this evenings "Evening Standard" George is beng called the "Republican Slayer" down under, where even republicans are saying that Williams's PR machine is good. It says,
"The visit has given him (William) a chance to show his brand of royalty-a new style for a new generation from the future king, his dutiful and beautiful wife the Duchess of Cambridge and their little showstopper Prince George."
Now they won't be young forever, and Charles himself was always popular in Australia, but this young family has it together in every important way, and would maximaise the chances of the Royal Family continuing for at least another generation.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
The more mischievous monarchists will suggest that Charles, in his turn, abdicate in all the realms but Australian, and head off to reign from Toowoomba.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
The Queen seems still in her 80s to manage lots of things to do, and to look OK. She also does use her son and his son to work too. Her mother was much more ancient, in her 100s ! So this Queen may last for ages and ages, still OK !
True but she's not as pickled in Gin as her mother was, so she might not last as long.
[ 22. April 2014, 19:55: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Up to her. No-one's forcing her. I for one am quite happy for her to stand down and claim an old age pension like anyone else.
At the standard flat rate of course. Presumably she already gets the free TV licence being over 80.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
Oh come on!
Why do these parasites get special treatment?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
If she reaches 100, who will send her a birthday letter?
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tulfes
Shipmate
# 18000
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
If she reaches 100, who will send her a birthday letter?
Prince Charles?
Posts: 175 | Registered: Feb 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
quote:
Should the Queen retire?
Well I, for one, am not holding my breath.
I know nothing about her really, but in my opinion she will never give in, she sees it as a vocation. I think she sees it as given her by God. I think she thinks of her father a lot.
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
And in case that came across as a bit short, I honour her for it.
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
No - because she can't.
I'm amazed that this is seen as a possibility in this forum.
A priest is ordained and we invoke the Holy Spirit: although she/he may subsequently retire from active ministry they don't cease to be a priest until death.
We anoint a monarch with holy oil and invoke the Holy Spirit: thus they may cease to carry out duties but they can't cease to be a monarch until death.
Will ER II retire - yes, in fact I think she's in the process of doing so. But there's no chance of her ceasing to be queen.
Nonsense. Edward VIII's abdication was nothing then? Legally, she was Queen when George VI (of late and happy memory) passed away, the Coronation is just for show and sentiment. She's Queen because 13 Commonwealth Parliaments and the Act of Settlement say she is, nothing else.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
Without a dog in this fight, since I live in a land where celebrity rather than royalty rule the day, but I suspect QEII is as likely to retire as she is to divorce Prince Philip and then launch into a series of one-night stands with assorted aristocratic gigolos (if any such exist).
She strikes me as one who understands her position as destined, and her job as seeing her assigned role through to the end with as much dignity as can be mustered.
As dignity seems to be in shorter and shorter supply these days on both sides of the pond, I respect that position, though I'm quite sure I couldn't, myself, ever pull it off, not even with all the alleged training royals get in public composure. I wouldn't even be able to manage bits of small talk with the assorted flower girls appointed to curtsy & present bouquets to visiting royals.
Personally, I find the whole institution of royalty incomprehensible. That said, QEII seems to be managing the whole atavistic business as well as anybody could be expected to. Further, I rather doubt she trusts Charles to pull off the dignity bit as she has. I also think she imagines he might launch some silly initiatives into compost tea or architecture or something that will set the populace into antagonisms.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Garasu:
Why do these parasites get special treatment?
Explain in what way they're parasites. If you're going to talk about how much they cost, you know nothing about how the system works.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
The more mischievous monarchists will suggest that Charles, in his turn, abdicate in all the realms but Australian, and head off to reign from Toowoomba.
I'll bite. Why Toowoomba?
A newspaper columnist here in Canberra advocated many years ago inviting Princess Anne to come and start an Australian royal line.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
The more mischievous monarchists will suggest that Charles, in his turn, abdicate in all the realms but Australian, and head off to reign from Toowoomba.
I'll bite. Why Toowoomba?
A newspaper columnist here in Canberra advocated many years ago inviting Princess Anne to come and start an Australian royal line.
*tangent alert* An acquaintance did a parallel history SF novel about Australia where Rasputin had survived Prince Obolenskiy's plot and somehow made it to Queensland, where he set up shop wreaking havoc with the ladies of the Toowoomba RSL, using his sexual powers to eventually becoming Premier of Queensland as Sir Greg Rasputin, and installing the last of the Romanovs on the throne of Australia. She still hasn't found a publisher for it.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I like it, I like it. And all those of the Orthodox hierarchy moving in to Canberra! Prhaps even the Ecumenical Patriarch could be persuaded to set up residence on one of the points jutting out into the lake to remind him of the Golden Horn and the Bosphorus!
[ 23. April 2014, 03:49: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
The more mischievous monarchists will suggest that Charles, in his turn, abdicate in all the realms but Australian, and head off to reign from Toowoomba.
I'll bite. Why Toowoomba?
A newspaper columnist here in Canberra advocated many years ago inviting Princess Anne to come and start an Australian royal line.
Doesn't the rightful heir to the throne live in Australia somewhere. ISTR a TV program narrated by Tony Robinson linking this chap to Edward IVth's wife's affair with a member of his army.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Oh come on!
Why do these parasites get special treatment?
She can always apply for DLA or Family Tax Credit if she's a bit short (there's lots of relatives around, none of them working).
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Charles himself was always popular in Australia is news to us living here. Sure, he spent a term at Geelong Grammar's Timbertop, but that's over 45 years ago now, and scarcely your local public school. A better adjective would be indifferent.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
She can always apply for DLA or Family Tax Credit if she's a bit short (there's lots of relatives around, none of them working).
None of them working? Then what would she be retiring from?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Oh come on!
Why do these parasites get special treatment?
Sorry, what special treatment? She has committed to a role for life, and is fulfilling that commitment.
That role has all sorts of responsibilities that come along with it, and all sorts of perks. As do most roles you take on.
I am not an out and out royalist. But I actually do believe that we get good value for our monarchy. The cost is high, but the impact, the stabilising role she plays, is also significant.
Its not perfect, of course. But I think she earns her money much more than other very wealthy people in other areas of business.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
But I think she earns her money much more than other very wealthy people in other areas of business.
Plus, as long as she's there, preventing Cameron or one of his cronies in the Eton Mess styling themselves "Head of State", she's worth any amount of my money.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
The more mischievous monarchists will suggest that Charles, in his turn, abdicate in all the realms but Australian, and head off to reign from Toowoomba.
I'll bite. Why Toowoomba?
A newspaper columnist here in Canberra advocated many years ago inviting Princess Anne to come and start an Australian royal line.
Doesn't the rightful heir to the throne live in Australia somewhere. ISTR a TV program narrated by Tony Robinson linking this chap to Edward IVth's wife's affair with a member of his army.
If there be any truth in the rumours it was Richard, Duke of York who was cuckolded by his Duchess making Edward IV the cuckoo in the nest. If one accepts the Yorkist claim to the throne then this means that the rightwise heir was the Duke of Clarence and it his his descendant who is living in Oz (and who is, as it happens, a Republican). There are three small snags with this theory.
1/ The Duke of York may, for all we know, have been cuckolded but at this juncture we can hardly prove the matter one way or another.
2/ Henry VII assumed the throne on the basis of the Lancastrian claim. Whilst he tactfully adopted the Tudor Rose and married the heiress to the Yorkist claim his claim to the throne had nothing to do with descent from Edward IV.
3/ In any event the Queen rules on the basis of the Act of Settlement not on the grounds that she has the best claim on grounds of primogeniture.
So it's an entertaining theory but not really one for the constitutional lawyers.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
It all boils down to who had the biggest bunch of thugs in Anglo-Saxon times (including the 1066 General Election, with its shock Norman landslide result), and who had the religion everyone was least scared of in the 17th and 18th centuries.
I can't get excited about it.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
Why would we replace a constitutionally limited monarch with an executive head of state? (Although wasn't Australia given that option, and rejected it?)
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
