Charles is King of 15 countries - but for how much longer?

[Mac Mickmanus]

1 minute ago, RayC said:

That's the whole point. Monarchs aren't elected. By and large, they are above the law and are pretty much unaccountable.

Which Laws has King Charles broken for which he hasn't been held  accountable for ?

[transam]

2 minutes ago, RayC said:

That's the whole point. Monarchs aren't elected. By and large, they are above the law and are pretty much unaccountable. Usually we can't get rid of them unless there is an armed uprising.

 

I'm British so I (largely) limit my comments on this forum to articles about the UK but if I were Belgian, Dutch, Norwegian, etc I doubt that my views on the Monarchy would be any different.

 

I don't understand how you can reach that conclusion. I want an elected HoS but I don't crave a Putin. It's extremely debatable whether Putin was elected by means of a fair and free election but, playing Devil's Advocate and assuming that he was, the natural conclusion of your line of argument is that to avoid the possibility of a Putin type figure being elected into a position of power in the UK, we should do away with elections. That can only mean that we live under a dictatorship. Maybe s/he would be benevolent but I wouldn't bet my house on it.

Yes, it was me laughing.........

 

Great Britain always had Kings, until the Romans came along, they butchered and governed for 500 years, then they buggered off, so we could get back to normal, with Kings.

It has been Kings ever since, except a minor blip, but us Brits like King's and Queen's, it is our now United Kingdom...Hip-Hip....Hoorah.....

[transam]

What some of you ant-King folk don't understand is that a Royal is brought up from birth to be a Royal, to be a King, not a voted in bloke, like Putin, Xi, and all the other communist killers, oh and that French bloke...????

[JensenZ]

On 5/4/2023 at 11:45 AM, petermik said:

And long may he reign.....God save King Charles ????

Charles already won the genetic lottery. Let's save our prayers for the rest of humanity that can't pay their bills.

[kwilco]

there was a time when the majority of EU members were monarchies.

 

In Europe now still quite a few survive, but without the pomp and circumstance of the UK.

 

European constitutional monarchies. 

Andorra, 

Belgium, 

Denmark, 

Luxembourg,

Netherlands, 

Norway, 

Spain, 

Sweden 

...all are  democratic states  where the monarch has a limited, largely, or entirely ceremonial role.

 

the most powerful heads of state in Europe are not monarchs.

 

Edited May 7, 2023 by kwilco

[Eleftheros]

19 minutes ago, transam said:

Great Britain always had Kings, until the Romans came along,

The Romans conquered the island which they called Britannia more than 800 years before there was even anything called England, or even inhabitants who spoke English.

 

At that time, the locals were a bunch of Celtic tribes who wore nothing but paint and animal furs, a practice which has largely died out, at least in the southern parts of the islands.

[Mac Mickmanus]

3 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

The Romans conquered the island which they called Britannia more than 800 years before there was even anything called England, or even inhabitants who spoke English.

 

Well the place was called "Britannia* at the time , rather than the current name Great Britain and we spoke *Old English' at the time, rather than the current *English* that we speak 

[RayC]

47 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Which Laws has King Charles broken for which he hasn't been held  accountable for ?

"That's the whole point. Monarchs aren't elected. By and large, they are above the law and are pretty much unaccountable."

 

Where in this paragraph do I say that Charles has broken any laws? To reinforce my point that should he do so he could not be prosecuted:

 

https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/queen/is-it-true-that-the-queen-is-above-the-law-142670/?cn-reloaded=1

 

 

[JensenZ]

On 5/5/2023 at 10:31 AM, VocalNeal said:

https://royalcentral.co.uk/features/insight/think-a-republic-would-be-cheaper-than-monarchy-think-again-40065/

 

France more

Italy more

Germany about the same

Poland the same.

It's certainly true that in the UK, the Monarchy is a big money generator for the economy.

 

"While the average annual cost for UK taxpayers in royal upkeep comes to around £500m a year, Brand Finance estimates the monarchy’s brand contributes £2.5bn to the British economy in the same timeframe."

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/royal-family-cost-money-tourism-b2333999.html

 

But there's no point keeping the Monarchy in Commonwealth countries, but the changeovder to a republic would be very expensive, and it's probably one of the reasons that a changeover could take a long time in countries such as Canada, NZ and Australia.

[transam]

23 minutes ago, Eleftheros said:

The Romans conquered the island which they called Britannia more than 800 years before there was even anything called England, or even inhabitants who spoke English.

 

At that time, the locals were a bunch of Celtic tribes who wore nothing but paint and animal furs, a practice which has largely died out, at least in the southern parts of the islands.

Which had Kings in many areas, unless you were there...................????

[Gandtee]

On 5/4/2023 at 4:13 PM, kwilco said:

  

Basically compared to the coronation in 1953, nobody is that bothered.

 

Those "fans" of pomp and ceremony are looked upon as slightly unhinged. or sad.

 

The main difference between the two coronations is that back in 1953 it was seen as part of a new beginning - a young girl as Queen the end of rationing and the Festival of Britain the new NHS - we were coming out of the effects of WW2 and people were looking forward to a new united Europe.

 

Now it's an old git with weird eccentric ideas who talks to trees, a relic of an old outdated family who isn't expected to be King for more than 10 years at the most - this is a "rump" monarchy. Inflation and recession are taking hold, the standards of living is dropping and the future as an isolated Britain with a doddery old king looks anything but rosy. Any freedoms and future of democracy are looking bleak as the government hastily introduces draconian laws to stop free protestors, corruption is rife and the welfare state is under attack  - no wonder coronation celebrations are hugely undersubscribed – the public has things to worry about other than Charles – a figure we have known for 6 decades and quite frankly aren't excited about in the slightest.

 

Sadly, I have to agree with you. I was a serving soldier, under canvas in Kensington Gardens at QE2s coronation and the atmosphere and mood of the public was different from today. It was before we became a multicultural society or the internet and Britain was still a mainly a  'god fearing' country and still rallied around those that were seen as figureheads at that time. Recent shenanigans within the monarchy have left many Brits disenchanted with it. As much as I enjoy the pageantry, I, and maybe many others may start to question why the church is comes out with this mumbo jumbo of god allowing HM Charles 111 to be King. Having said that. Long live the King. I doubt I will see another Coronation. Maybe there will never be another one.

[RayC]

51 minutes ago, transam said:

What some of you ant-King folk don't understand is that a Royal is brought up from birth to be a Royal, to be a King, not a voted in bloke, like Putin, Xi, and all the other communist killers, oh and that French bloke...????

The UK monarch is not meant to be political so what are these duties that us non-Royals are genetically unable to perform? The ceremonial opening of schools/ fetes/ etc? Call me arrogant but I am confident in my ability to put on a suit, say a few words of greeting, act civilly towards strangers and cut a ribbon.

 

Where do I apply for the job of King?

[transam]

The people have spoken in great numbers....Hip-Hip...Hoorah......

 

 

 

 

Fabulous, oh, and one from here............????

 

 

 

 

 

 

[transam]

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

He didn't say he is above the law, he said he can't be held to account.

Ooooooooooooooh, yes he can..........................????

[Mac Mickmanus]

1 minute ago, RayC said:

The UK monarch is not meant to be political so what are these duties that us non-Royals are genetically unable to perform? The ceremonial opening of schools/ fetes/ etc? Call me arrogant but I am confident in my ability to put on a suit, say a few words of greeting, act civilly towards strangers and cut a ribbon.

 

Where do I apply for the job of King?

You really need to accept your place in society .

You cannot be a King , you are a commoner 

[transam]

3 minutes ago, RayC said:

The UK monarch is not meant to be political so what are these duties that us non-Royals are genetically unable to perform? The ceremonial opening of schools/ fetes/ etc? Call me arrogant but I am confident in my ability to put on a suit, say a few words of greeting, act civilly towards strangers and cut a ribbon.

 

Where do I apply for the job of King?

Noooo, you were not brought up as a Royal, you would not know what fork to use..............????

[transam]

Just now, Mac Mickmanus said:

You really need to accept your place in society .

You cannot be a King , you are a commoner 

Pointless pointing this stuff out, you know, it is obviously over their head, they are used to the union bloke down the gas works directions....????

[RayC]

13 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

As you claim that Charles is above the law , I was asking you to give an example of laws he had broken  and thus proof of your claim .

   Can Charles drive at 120 MPH and the Police let him carry on ?

If Charles were to be clocked driving at 120mph he could not be prosecuted. Unless the law is changed, he could carry on driving at 120mph each and every day until he tires of the pursuit.

 

I'd say that pretty much puts him above the law and means that he isn't accountable.

[Mac Mickmanus]

12 minutes ago, RayC said:

If Charles were to be clocked driving at 120mph he could not be prosecuted. Unless the law is changed, he could carry on driving at 120mph each and every day until he tires of the pursuit.

 

I'd say that pretty much puts him above the law and means that he isn't accountable.

Now that Prince Charles is now King Charles , I will be thoroughly disappointed in him if he drives at 120 MPH back to Windsor Castle on Tuesday........................... thoroughly disappointed 

Edited May 7, 2023 by Mac Mickmanus

[RayC]

1 minute ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

No that Prince Charles is now King Charles , I will be thoroughly disappointed in him if he drives at 120 MPH back to Windsor Castle on Tuesday........................... thoroughly disappointed 

Nothing to indicate that he plans to do so, so rest easy.

 

Btw: Do you now agree that the UK Monarch is above the law?

[RayC]

19 minutes ago, transam said:

Noooo, you were not brought up as a Royal, you would not know what fork to use..............????

I'm a quick learner.

[Mac Mickmanus]

2 minutes ago, RayC said:

Nothing to indicate that he plans to do so, so rest easy.

 

Btw: Do you now agree that the UK Monarch is above the law?

I really don't know and its of little interest to me and I cannot even be bothered to look it up online .

   If Charles ever becomes reckless and begins to routinely break numerous laws, then I may take some interest in the subject

[Pink Mist]

 

Troll posts baiting others as well as Posts with bickering have been removed.

Gentleman your trolling baiting and bickering posts will stop or your posting rights will be suspended, this has gone on long enough.

 

9. You will not post disruptive or inflammatory messages. You will respect other members and post in a civil manner. Personal attacks, insults or hate speech posted on the forum or sent by private message are not allowed.

 

10. You will not post troll messages. Trolling is the act of purposefully antagonizing forum members by posting controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking other members into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

[RayC]

38 minutes ago, JensenZ said:

It's certainly true that in the UK, the Monarchy is a big money generator for the economy.

That is certainly not proven. Would tourists cease to go to (former) UK palaces if the Monarchy was abolished? The number of tourists visiting the châteaus of France suggests otherwise.

 

38 minutes ago, JensenZ said:

 

"While the average annual cost for UK taxpayers in royal upkeep comes to around £500m a year, Brand Finance estimates the monarchy’s brand contributes £2.5bn to the British economy in the same timeframe."

A brand is an intangible asset and is only worth what a buyer is willing to pay for it. The 'Woolworths' brand name was probably worth millions in its' heyday. 

 

38 minutes ago, JensenZ said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/royal-family/royal-family-cost-money-tourism-b2333999.html

There is nothing in this link that suggests that the institution of the Monarchy itself is responsible for this income.

 

38 minutes ago, JensenZ said:

But there's no point keeping the Monarchy in Commonwealth countries, but the changeovder to a republic would be very expensive, and it's probably one of the reasons that a changeover could take a long time in countries such as Canada, NZ and Australia.

No doubt it would require some detailed planning but why should it be very expensive? A number of Carribbean states seem to have managed the transition to a republic successfully and without breaking the bank.

[Eleftheros]

53 minutes ago, transam said:

Which had Kings in many areas, unless you were there...................????

Are you sure they were 'Kings', unless you were there...........????

[RayC]

13 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

I really don't know and its of little interest to me and I cannot even be bothered to look it up online .

 

No need to go to the trouble of searching for it yourself. Confirmation can be found in the link which I posted earlier????

[Mac Mickmanus]

1 minute ago, RayC said:

No need to go to the trouble of searching for it yourself. Confirmation can be found in the link which I posted earlier????

Which would involve clicking the link and 'looking it up online", would it not ?

[JensenZ]

2 minutes ago, RayC said:

No doubt it would require some detailed planning but why should it be very expensive? A number of Carribbean states seem to have managed the transition to a republic successfully and without breaking the bank.

I said it was "one of the reasons".  Another reason would be "if it's not broke, don't fix it". Unless there is major motivation, it won't be done. No doubt it's taking a lot of time and we're not even close. I don't think you can compare a tiny Carribbean state with Canada and Australia to make a case that change will be easy and cheap.

[RayC]

2 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Which would involve clicking the link and 'looking it up online", would it not ?

Yes it would. It would also coincidentally prove that your "uncertainty" that the UK monarch was 'above the law' was unfounded. As I say, no doubt, purely coincidental.

[onthedarkside]

///Topic closed///

 

After numerous posts from mods the bickering & trolling has continued!