A right and proper move for the 21st century. The world has changed dramatically, we even give women the vote now and let them have jobs and stuff. Best to let them be Queen if they're the oldest as well.
I can't see the point? The whole concept around succession to the throne is that it is antiquated and unfair - I mean, none of us can become monarch even if we would make a very good one, even the great Sir Christopher Robin Powell can't become king so what does this change actually do or mean. If the monarchy was brought into the 21st Century, there probably wouldn't be one.
No point in not doing it. Those who think the monachy is not progessive just use that because they ultimately don't want one. The monachy is progressive.
Hopefully they will also end the out-date rules around the religion of those they are marrrying.
I can't see the point? The whole concept around succession to the throne is that it is antiquated and unfair - I mean, none of us can become monarch even if we would make a very good one, even the great Sir Christopher Robin Powell can't become king so what does this change actually do or mean. If the monarchy was brought into the 21st Century, there probably wouldn't be one.
I agree ... a right and proper decision for the 21st century is democracy not monarchy
I haven't got anything against the Queen btw - she is a very good Queen - I just object to the principle which doesn't feel right for this day and age. Not top of my list to put right though - especially as the Queen is doing a decent job.
For me, as soon as the current Queen kicks the bucket we should vote for a republic with an elected head of state. All the 'royals' can sign on the dole or go looking for a real job just like everyone else.
We live in a democracy so it seems odd that we still have an unelected monarchy. People should have a right to vote for the next monarch using the only kind of voting system that the masses are interested in: a TV phone poll. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you The Rex-Factor.
For me, as soon as the current Queen kicks the bucket we should vote for a republic with an elected head of state. All the 'royals' can sign on the dole or go looking for a real job just like everyone else.
I reckon the queen has done more hours in her recent shifts in Australia than a lot of people have in a week (in some cases a month/year). (and don't forget Phil who is 90! and got straight off that plane in Oz and got straight into visits.
We live in a democracy so it seems odd that we still have an unelected monarchy. People should have a right to vote for the next monarch using the only kind of voting system that the masses are interested in: a TV phone poll. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you The Rex-Factor.
will louis walsh still be on the panel still doing that annoying loud whole hand clap thing? then I'm not up for that!
We live in a democracy so it seems odd that we still have an unelected monarchy. People should have a right to vote for the next monarch using the only kind of voting system that the masses are interested in: a TV phone poll. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you The Rex-Factor.
LMAO - brilliant.
No Louis Walsh as he's not a UK Citizen I believe but would you open the door to foreign contestants? We've had enough Germans before so maybe an American or Nigerian this time.
For me, as soon as the current Queen kicks the bucket we should vote for a republic with an elected head of state. All the 'royals' can sign on the dole or go looking for a real job just like everyone else.
I reckon the queen has done more hours in her recent shifts in Australia than a lot of people have in a week (in some cases a month/year). (and don't forget Phil who is 90! and got straight off that plane in Oz and got straight into visits.
The Queen & Prince Phillip get the worlds best medical care and havent done a day of hard work in their lives not surprised they can both troop around Australia at their ages. I would never vote for a republic though.
For all those who think a president would be better, please take a moment to consider President Cameron.
It's a different role though. Cameron is chief decision maker whereas the monarch (or president) is a figurehead. I'd therefore suggest someone more at ease with the public and someone with more personality: President Winton.
For me, as soon as the current Queen kicks the bucket we should vote for a republic with an elected head of state. All the 'royals' can sign on the dole or go looking for a real job just like everyone else.
I reckon the queen has done more hours in her recent shifts in Australia than a lot of people have in a week (in some cases a month/year). (and don't forget Phil who is 90! and got straight off that plane in Oz and got straight into visits.
The Queen & Prince Phillip get the worlds best medical care and havent done a day of hard work in their lives not surprised they can both troop around Australia at their ages. I would never vote for a republic though.
I agree with you totally, well EXCEPT for the part where you nix a republic. Give me a viable alternative to what we have now other than a republic or dictatorship. And excuse me for saying but anyone who claims to be a 'royalist' is an obsequious groveller with the self respect of a bootlicker and the brain of a rocking horse.
For me, as soon as the current Queen kicks the bucket we should vote for a republic with an elected head of state. All the 'royals' can sign on the dole or go looking for a real job just like everyone else.
I reckon the queen has done more hours in her recent shifts in Australia than a lot of people have in a week (in some cases a month/year). (and don't forget Phil who is 90! and got straight off that plane in Oz and got straight into visits.
The Queen & Prince Phillip get the worlds best medical care and havent done a day of hard work in their lives not surprised they can both troop around Australia at their ages. I would never vote for a republic though.
I agree with you totally, well EXCEPT for the part where you nix a republic. Give me a viable alternative to what we have now other than a republic or dictatorship. And excuse me for saying but anyone who claims to be a 'royalist' is an obsequious groveller with the self respect of a bootlicker and the brain of a rocking horse.
Not a royalist in the slightest (i know you are not suggesting that by the way) but having a royal family is regarded as a useful export due to the money it generates from visitors etc. Basically this is the only use of the royal family to us. I think the current system in place is the right one but of course the problem is the personnel and i know will always be the case. I dont think there is an alternative.
For me, as soon as the current Queen kicks the bucket we should vote for a republic with an elected head of state. All the 'royals' can sign on the dole or go looking for a real job just like everyone else.
I reckon the queen has done more hours in her recent shifts in Australia than a lot of people have in a week (in some cases a month/year). (and don't forget Phil who is 90! and got straight off that plane in Oz and got straight into visits.
The Queen & Prince Phillip get the worlds best medical care and havent done a day of hard work in their lives not surprised they can both troop around Australia at their ages. I would never vote for a republic though.
I agree with you totally, well EXCEPT for the part where you nix a republic. Give me a viable alternative to what we have now other than a republic or dictatorship. And excuse me for saying but anyone who claims to be a 'royalist' is an obsequious groveller with the self respect of a bootlicker and the brain of a rocking horse.
Not a royalist in the slightest (i know you are not suggesting that by the way) but having a royal family is regarded as a useful export due to the money it generates from visitors etc. Basically this is the only use of the royal family to us. I think the current system in place is the right one but of course the problem is the personnel and i know will always be the case. I dont think there is an alternative.
It's good to see a man who has his principles. The notion that it's worth keeping the 'royals' as they are good for tourism doesn't hold up. France has many more tourists that the UK and the French 'royals' bit the dust quite a while ago. I would argue that toursist prefer 'the glory that was Rome' to actually what Rome is today, that is, history trumps 'reality' when it comes to traipsing around 'royal' palarses. Given that mummification is making a bit of a comeback Liz and Phil, Charlie and Thingy are all good candidates. Stuff em all and display the results in the V&A or Brit Museum, that will definitely pack in the tourists and balance the trade deficit tout de suite. (excuse the dodgy French spelling)
For me, as soon as the current Queen kicks the bucket we should vote for a republic with an elected head of state. All the 'royals' can sign on the dole or go looking for a real job just like everyone else.
I reckon the queen has done more hours in her recent shifts in Australia than a lot of people have in a week (in some cases a month/year). (and don't forget Phil who is 90! and got straight off that plane in Oz and got straight into visits.
The Queen & Prince Phillip get the worlds best medical care and havent done a day of hard work in their lives not surprised they can both troop around Australia at their ages. I would never vote for a republic though.
I agree with you totally, well EXCEPT for the part where you nix a republic. Give me a viable alternative to what we have now other than a republic or dictatorship. And excuse me for saying but anyone who claims to be a 'royalist' is an obsequious groveller with the self respect of a bootlicker and the brain of a rocking horse.
Not a royalist in the slightest (i know you are not suggesting that by the way) but having a royal family is regarded as a useful export due to the money it generates from visitors etc. Basically this is the only use of the royal family to us. I think the current system in place is the right one but of course the problem is the personnel and i know will always be the case. I dont think there is an alternative.
It's good to see a man who has his principles. The notion that it's worth keeping the 'royals' as they are good for tourism doesn't hold up. France has many more tourists that the UK and the French 'royals' bit the dust quite a while ago. I would argue that toursist prefer 'the glory that was Rome' to actually what Rome is today, that is, history trumps 'reality' when it comes to traipsing around 'royal' palarses. Given that mummification is making a bit of a comeback Liz and Phil, Charlie and Thingy are all good candidates. Stuff em all and display the results in the V&A or Brit Museum, that will definitely pack in the tourists and balance the trade deficit tout de suite. (excuse the dodgy French spelling)
The royal estate profits for last year was around £230 million which I dont think would have been achieved if the monarchy wasnt in place so I cant agree with you on that point im afraid. The royal family get a fixed sum of that and the rest goes into the treasury. I dont think our nation as it stands can gamble with the current system in place based on that.
The estimated total annual cost of the monarchy to taxpayers is £202.4m, around five times the official figure published by the royal household (£38.3m last year).The official figure excludes a number of costs, including round-the-clock security, lavish royal visits and lost revenue from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall.Civil List expenditure has increased by 94 per cent in real terms over the last two decades.£202.4m is equivalent to 9,560 nurses, 8,200 police officers and more than the total annual Ministry of Defence spending on food. The total cost is also equivalent to a number of high profile government cuts, including cuts to the Sure Start programme.The British monarchy is 112 times as expensive as the Irish president and more than twice as expensive as the French semi-presidential system.Britain's royal family is the most expensive in Europe at more than double the cost of the Dutch monarchy.Taxpayers are kept in the dark about the exact cost of the monarchy, due to the royal household's exemption from the Freedom of Information Act and widespread misunderstanding about the nature of the royal family's finances.
The estimated total annual cost of the monarchy to taxpayers is £202.4m, around five times the official figure published by the royal household (£38.3m last year). The official figure excludes a number of costs, including round-the-clock security, lavish royal visits and lost revenue from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. Civil List expenditure has increased by 94 per cent in real terms over the last two decades. £202.4m is equivalent to 9,560 nurses, 8,200 police officers and more than the total annual Ministry of Defence spending on food. The total cost is also equivalent to a number of high profile government cuts, including cuts to the Sure Start programme. The British monarchy is 112 times as expensive as the Irish president and more than twice as expensive as the French semi-presidential system. Britain's royal family is the most expensive in Europe at more than double the cost of the Dutch monarchy. Taxpayers are kept in the dark about the exact cost of the monarchy, due to the royal household's exemption from the Freedom of Information Act and widespread misunderstanding about the nature of the royal family's finances.
and not to mention that in this day and age it is still OK for some people to be addressed as 'Your Royal Highness' and bowed and curtsied to simply as a result of their birth status, quite simply ridiculous.
Comments
but it wouldnt be right for us all to agree with eachother would it ?
is David Starkey a secret CL contributor ? ...lets see
No point in not doing it. Those who think the monachy is not progessive just use that because they ultimately don't want one. The monachy is progressive.
Hopefully they will also end the out-date rules around the religion of those they are marrrying.
No Louis Walsh as he's not a UK Citizen I believe but would you open the door to foreign contestants? We've had enough Germans before so maybe an American or Nigerian this time.
For all those who think a president would be better, please take a moment to consider President Cameron.
Alternatively........................
The estimated total annual cost of the monarchy to taxpayers is £202.4m, around five times the official figure published by the royal household (£38.3m last year).The official figure excludes a number of costs, including round-the-clock security, lavish royal visits and lost revenue from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall.Civil List expenditure has increased by 94 per cent in real terms over the last two decades.£202.4m is equivalent to 9,560 nurses, 8,200 police officers and more than the total annual Ministry of Defence spending on food. The total cost is also equivalent to a number of high profile government cuts, including cuts to the Sure Start programme.The British monarchy is 112 times as expensive as the Irish president and more than twice as expensive as the French semi-presidential system.Britain's royal family is the most expensive in Europe at more than double the cost of the Dutch monarchy.Taxpayers are kept in the dark about the exact cost of the monarchy, due to the royal household's exemption from the Freedom of Information Act and widespread misunderstanding about the nature of the royal family's finances.And I give you...
The Duchess of York.
Many years ago when music was on vinyl single and long playing records the joke was:
'What's the Queens favourite record?'
'Magic Moments' on Philips seven inch.