• REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do much without having been registered!

    At the moment you have limited access to view all discussions - and most importantly, you haven't joined our community. What are you waiting for? Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Join Talking Horses here!

Curtsy

I would suggest a public vote but past experience has shown there's plenty here don't accept results they don't like :ROFLMAO:
 
As the originator of this post, a couple of points in clarification.

Even as a small 'r' republican I think if I were a British citizen that I would be in favour of retaining the monarchy by about 52-48%. It's principal value as I see it is (generally speaking) that it acts as a 'cross-cut' institution that in some way can provide a unifying presence in a society of warring factions. I think countries and nations who can find an institution to unite political and social cleavages do better in the long run if something that pulls them together is stronger than that which drives them apart.

Recent example, Belgium which went almost two years without an agreed government and then the tie was broken when the King intervened and the Flemish/Walloon/French factions realised that they had something in common through their loyalty to their monarch than the tribal separations that drove them apart. I think that in Ireland the cross-cuts have historically been the Church (no more, thankfully) and resistance to foreign occupation and oppression and is now more focussed on being positively active in EU and UN, building a post-Rome liberal democracy, sport in all its forms and, of course, finding something to beat Constitution Hill at Cheltenham next month.

My clumsily expressed opening point remains: even for supporters of the monarchy, why the phuck would a sentient, intelligent person take the knee before another in 2025 because the Act of Settlement found a Hanoverian protestant to bar a Catholic from assuming the throne in 1714?
 
It was a succinct opening post, Al.

Far from clumsy, so don't put yourself down, the thread just morphed into a more general debate about the Royal Family.

You make further succinct and excellent points in paragraphs two and three in your above post which yes I do agree and empathise with.

You've ended with a pertinent question.

I'll take the 5th.
 
Hope being the operative word!

What current leader of what current politcal party for these parts has a policy to abolish the Royal Family?

The greens maybe?

Unless all the Royals just drop dead of course. I hope we aren't wishing that on them...
 
The little-known "YFUSA*" Party has the following policies/manifesto commitments -

1 Abolition of the monarchy

2 Closure of The Daily Mail

3 Mandatory custodial sentences for all verified Daily Mail readers

4 Free Tiramisu for all

(*Your Favourite Uncle Smart Arse)
 
Desert Orchid said:
Nostradamus allegedly predicted the monarchy would end with Charles III. Let's hope his ante-post punt comes good.
Click to expand...
Apparently the quote goes on to say that the crown would go to someone who did not expect it - which commentators are speculating could mean Harry.

So let's hope Nostradamus and his like are very very wrong. Though I think England would deserve such a King.
 
simmo said:
Apparently the quote goes on to say that the crown would go to someone who did not expect it - which commentators are speculating could mean Harry.

So let's hope Nostradamus and his like are very very wrong. Though I think England would deserve such a King.
Click to expand...

Sounds like old Nostra was hedging his bets. The end of the monarchy followed by the 'crown' going to so someone else?

Don't sound compatible.
 


Write your reply...
Back
Top