The uncomfortable truth about Kate and William that nobody wants to admit

[mrfill]

1 hour ago, Bangkok Barry said:

The Head Of State is the Prime Minister, who is unelected as such by the people but by the Party membership.

 

The King or Queen is Head of the Commonwealth and acts in an advisory role in weekly meetings with the Prime Minister. The Royal Family has no active role in government, demonstrated by its representative, Black Rod, having the door to the Commons slammed in her face as she approaches from the Lords to summons MPs to hear the King's speech, which lays out the government's ambitions for the coming year.

Except the monarch has to give the Royal Assent before any Bill can be made an Act.

The monarch has no role in parliament, but does have a role in government. This was established after the shenanigans of Charles I who ended up being banned from the Commons - hence the need for Black Rod as the monarch was banned from entering the Commons.

The monarch is the Head of State and is Head of the Church of England. They are the one who, after an election, gives consent to the person visiting the right to form a government and the one who can prorogue parliament - last used legally in 1997 when Major wanted to avoid any debate on the 'Cash for Questions' scandal.

[roo860]

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

"Soft Monarchist"? 😆

 

She despises the monarchy. You only have to listen to her talking about them for 5 minutes to witness the envy and hatred seeping out from every aged pore. 

More like Soft <deleted>.

[Bangkok Barry]

19 minutes ago, mrfill said:

Except the monarch has to give the Royal Assent before any Bill can be made an Act.

 

Do you know of any occasion when he or she has refused to give assent to a bill passed by Parliament.

[transam]

I find the headline misleading, the media too nosey regarding our Monarchy.

All it does is bring the anti's out..........

[RayC]

1 hour ago, Bangkok Barry said:

 

The real Head of State is the PM. The King is largely a figurehead with no direct constitutional role, no matter what powers he might have on paper. If he took an active role in the actual running of the country or in enacting laws against the wish of the elected government then there would be uproar and rebellion. The compromise, if you will, is that he advises. But he does not impose, even if constitutionally he can.

 

Factually incorrect. Like it or not - I don't - the Head of State in the UK is the Monarch.

 

As MrFill states the Monarch has to give Royal Ascent for bills to become law. There was a case in Belgium 30-odd years ago where the King refused to sign a bill concerning abortion. It causes a constitutional crisis. In the end, the King resigned for a day, the bill became law and the King then resumed his duties. This incident - something similar could happen in the UK - begs a number of questions including, why should an unelected individual be able to defy the wishes of the elected parliamentarians? Given that a work-around was found, why do we need to invest constitutional powers outside of government/ parliament? 

[RayC]

1 hour ago, Bangkok Barry said:

In my line of work I have known a huge number of personalities, people who because of their talent are forced to live their life in the spotlight, and it isn't necessarily the glamourous life you might expect. Imagine being stared at wherever you go, if you are even able to go where you want to in the first place. Of course, there are the financial benefits, and the ability to get a table in a restaurant that is 'full'. And the famous meet others who are famous, people they admire and those us mere morals have no access to. Doors are opened. Most balance it well. A minority do not and fall by the wayside.

 

William and Kate do not have the option of leaving their job. Harry did, and look how he was hated for it, moving away from the tabloid attention he has largely and successfully sued against, leaving the intense spotlight he was under in the UK. That spotlight can be intense, and a life of privilege isn't without its downsides as well as its benefits. It isn't all roses.

 

How many of these personalities court publicity, and then cry foul when attention is focused on areas of their life not to their liking?

 

Having said that, imo attention is unavoidable for Heads of government/ state; public interest and scrutiny is part and parcel of the job.

 

I've no idea whether William is unhappy with this state of affairs but, if he is, then he should relinquish his claim to the throne. Assuming that he then keeps a low profile - unlike his brother - he should have privacy respected.

[sirineou]

I had to look up the article to see who they were.

I thought they were the two who  moved to America.

Anyway... 

[Bangkok Barry]

6 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Factually incorrect. Like it or not - I don't - the Head of State in the UK is the Monarch.

 

As MrFill states the Monarch has to give Royal Ascent for bills to become law. There was a case in Belgium 30-odd years ago where the King refused to sign a bill concerning abortion. It causes a constitutional crisis. In the end, the King resigned for a day, the bill became law and the King then resumed his duties. This incident - something similar could happen in the UK - begs a number of questions including, why should an unelected individual be able to defy the wishes of the elected parliamentarians? Given that a work-around was found, why do we need to invest constitutional powers outside of government/ parliament? 

 

Okay. But saying that something happened nearly 100 years ago concerning a minor royal family isn't much of an argument. The world and the position of royalty is very, very different now. The chance of that happening now, and with such a high profile family, is infinitesimal. In my opinion.

[Bangkok Barry]

8 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

How many of these personalities court publicity, and then cry foul when attention is focused on areas of their life not to their liking?

 

Having said that, imo attention is unavoidable for Heads of government/ state; public interest and scrutiny is part and parcel of the job.

 

I've no idea whether William is unhappy with this state of affairs but, if he is, then he should relinquish his claim to the throne. Assuming that he then keeps a low profile - unlike his brother - he should have privacy respected.

 

Those I know are involved in sport and their achievements speak for themselves. They don't need to court publicity. As for if William is unhappy and if so he should quit, it isn't like moving on from a job you don't like for another. You can't quit company A and join company B. And he would not be able to keep a low profile - Harry is evidence of that. Everything he does is reported whether he likes it or not. The only way he could avoid that is to become a recluse in a monastery. Becoming anonymous isn't an option. 

[Bangkok Barry]

10 minutes ago, sirineou said:

I had to look up the article to see who they were.

I thought they were the two who  moved to America.

Anyway... 

 

Why post your ignorance about one of the most well-known couples in the world? I'd have kept quiet about being so out of touch.

[sirineou]

Just now, Bangkok Barry said:

 

Why post your ignorance about one of the most well-known couples in the world? I'd have kept quiet about being so out of touch.

It is liberating. a wait of my chest. Now I can sleep well at night. 

[impulse]

If she has genuine health issues (and I'm not doubting she does), my heart goes out to Kate.  'Couple of years ago, I had a health issue and I lost half my energy, my ability to climb a ladder (no balance), and most of my sense of humor.  If you didn't know what caused it, it would have been easy to think it was a mental condition.  But it wasn't.  I just felt crabby and craved naps all day.  2-1/2 years later, I'm still not 100%.  I've just gotten used to feeling like poop. And I still don't crave public interactions except among friends.

 

No way someone in that condition should be put in front of the public until she gets to feeling better.  And people need to cut her some slack.

 

[RayC]

27 minutes ago, Bangkok Barry said:

 

Okay. But saying that something happened nearly 100 years ago concerning a minor royal family isn't much of an argument.

 

27 minutes ago, Bangkok Barry said:

 

The world and the position of royalty is very, very different now. The chance of that happening now, and with such a high profile family, is infinitesimal. In my opinion.

 

Who said anything about It happening "nearly 100 years ago"? The event occurred in 1990 so relatively recent history. 

 

Whether Belgium has "a minor royal family" is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that, like the UK, it has a constitution that allows an unelected Head of State to plunge the country into a constituental crisis.

 

Charles has weekly meetings with the PM where he can offer his opinion and, potentially, influence government policy. Why should an unelected individual be afforded this privilege?

 

It's known that Charles has strong opinions about a number of subjects. If he feels that he isn't being listened to, or taken seriously, he has options which shouldn't exist to make life uncomfortable for the government.

[RayC]

34 minutes ago, Bangkok Barry said:

 

Those I know are involved in sport and their achievements speak for themselves. They don't need to court publicity.

 

Exactly my point. Those sportsmen/ women who want to preserve their privacy largely keep a low profile outside of their arena. Those who court publicity usually get it.

 

34 minutes ago, Bangkok Barry said:

As for if William is unhappy and if so he should quit, it isn't like moving on from a job you don't like for another. You can't quit company A and join company B. And he would not be able to keep a low profile - Harry is evidence of that. Everything he does is reported whether he likes it or not. The only way he could avoid that is to become a recluse in a monastery. Becoming anonymous isn't an option. 

 

William could relinquish his right to the throne if he wanted. Imo after the inevitable immediate media interest, he would cease to be news and could live a largely anonymous life if he so wished. Look at the minor royals; they are rarely in the news 

 

If Harry didn't write books, appear on TV, produce podcasts and explore every possible avenue to promote himself and his wife maybe, just maybe, he would have a better chance of avoiding the media spotlight.

[Chomper Higgot]

4 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

"Soft Monarchist"? 😆

 

She despises the monarchy. You only have to listen to her talking about them for 5 minutes to witness the envy and hatred seeping out from every aged pore. 

Serf!

 

Edited March 18 by Chomper Higgot

[Chomper Higgot]

35 minutes ago, impulse said:

If she has genuine health issues (and I'm not doubting she does), my heart goes out to Kate.  'Couple of years ago, I had a health issue and I lost half my energy, my ability to climb a ladder (no balance), and most of my sense of humor.  If you didn't know what caused it, it would have been easy to think it was a mental condition.  But it wasn't.  I just felt crabby and craved naps all day.  2-1/2 years later, I'm still not 100%.  I've just gotten used to feeling like poop. And I still don't crave public interactions except among friends.

 

No way someone in that condition should be put in front of the public until she gets to feeling better.  And people need to cut her some slack.

 

I don’t agree with you on much but in this I do.

 

Health is everything and you have my very best wishes for the fullest of recoveries, as does Kate or indeed anyone suffering ill health.

 

[rickudon]

William and Kate are so anodyne that most younger people in the UK couldn't care less whether they became king and Queen or not. As for King Charles, yes he has strong opinions, but he cares about the UK and the commonwealth. If he refused to agree to some stupid new law, good for him, current government are a load of idiots.

[Seppius]

Charles will abdicate very, very soon, maybe today/tomorrow because of his cancer. William coronation will be in July

 

The Kate story is strange, maybe we will never know the truth, but all is not good. IMHO

 

(in my humble opinion)

[Bangkok Barry]

42 minutes ago, rickudon said:

William and Kate are so anodyne that most younger people in the UK couldn't care less whether they became king and Queen or not.

 

That is your opinion, unless you can quote a survey that backs you up.

[Bangkok Barry]

19 minutes ago, Seppius said:

Charles will abdicate very, very soon, maybe today/tomorrow because of his cancer. William coronation will be in July

 

Your opinion stated as fact, with nothing at all to back it up.

[RuamRudy]

5 hours ago, Bangkok Barry said:

 

William and Kate are the latest example of the once rigid formality of the Royal Family being eased, largely as a result of the enormous outcry when the Queen remained in Scotland after Princess Diana was killed. The whole 'enterprise' then was on very rocky ground, explained later by her desire to protect William and Harry from the huge public reaction to her death.

 

William has continued his mother's informality as much as he is able, and both he and Kate have attended many charities that help others. William's more down-to-earth approach, again as taught by Diana, in my opinion continues a march in the right direction. Just don't expect to see him riding the Tube, as he did in disguise as a kid.

 

At the same time, I find it ironic how many call for the royals to 'get a proper job' (without knowing what they actually do) and when Harry decided to 'get off the gravy train' and do exactly that he was vilified by many.

 

The ones who vilify Harry tend to be the ones who deify his father and brother. 

[RuamRudy]

5 hours ago, RayC said:

 

The PM is the leader of the government. The Head of State is the Monarch. Although he is unelected, the King holds constitutional powers and could exercise them through the use of the Royal Prerogative.

 

And they do use those powers - to their own benefit. 

 

Revealed: Queen lobbied for change in law to hide her private wealth

 

The Queen successfully lobbied the government to change a draft law in order to conceal her “embarrassing” private wealth from the public, according to documents discovered by the Guardian.

A series of government memos unearthed in the National Archives reveal that Elizabeth Windsor’s private lawyer put pressure on ministers to alter proposed legislation to prevent her shareholdings from being disclosed to the public.

[RuamRudy]

5 hours ago, Bangkok Barry said:

 

The real Head of State is the PM. The King is largely a figurehead with no direct constitutional role, no matter what powers he might have on paper. If he took an active role in the actual running of the country or in enacting laws against the wish of the elected government then there would be uproar and rebellion. The compromise, if you will, is that he advises. But he does not impose, even if constitutionally he can.

 

Wrong

 

Revealed: how Prince Charles pressured ministers to change law to benefit his estate

 

Prince Charles exploited a controversial procedure to compel government ministers to secretly change a proposed law to benefit his landed estate, according to documents uncovered by the Guardian.

Official papers unearthed in the National Archives reveal ministers in John Major’s government yielded to his demands amid fears that resisting the heir to the throne could spark a constitutional crisis. Ministers backed down to “avoid a major row” with the prince, effectively allowing him to force the hand of the elected government.

[bradiston]

8 hours ago, Thingamabob said:

Now conveniently forgotten it should be remembered that William lost his temper and insisted a lady telephone operator of Indian origin should be sacked for mistakenly putting through a fake call from Australia to Kate at St. George's hospital in London. The lady operator commited suicide out of shame. Worrying that the same William will one day be king.

Source?

[JonnyF]

15 hours ago, RayC said:

 

She has gone of record stating that she does not want rid of the monarchy so - unless she's lying - by definition, that makes her a monarchist.

 

Yes she is a liar. Amongst many other things. 

 

15 hours ago, RayC said:

 

Like any other rational person, she doesn't appear to believe in the 'divine right of kings'. If that adds up to despisal, then there's plenty of us who fit the bill 

 

 

Yes there is a lot of envy from certain types of people for those with more than ourselves. Sad, but it's human nature. We see it at all levels, even from the ultra privilged Princes like Harry moaning that William had 3 sausages and he only had 2. That type of envy destroys people from within, as we are seeing with Harry's fall from grace.

[JonnyF]

14 hours ago, Bangkok Barry said:

Harry did, and look how he was hated for it, moving away from the tabloid attention he has largely and successfully sued against, leaving the intense spotlight he was under in the UK. That spotlight can be intense, and a life of privilege isn't without its downsides as well as its benefits. It isn't all roses.

 

Harry hardly left the spotlight. Moving to the Paparazzi capital of the world California, appearing on late night TV shows, presenting and collecting awards, doing a tell-all reality series on Netflix and throwing his family under the bus in a auto-biography. Deciding to keep the titles as well despite claiming to despise the institution.

 

He doesn't hate the spotlight, he hates having to do the service that comes with it. 

 

Southpark's world wide privacy tour summed it up perfectly. Genius.

[JonnyF]

9 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

The ones who vilify Harry tend to be the ones who deify his father and brother. 

 

I would disagree. I'm not a huge fan of Charles and all his eco warrior "Look at me I'm so virtuous because my Aston Martin runs on vegetable juice" nonsense. I quite like William and Kate but do not worship them. 

 

Harry is a disgrace. From teasing the disabled school maid, calling his Pakistani colleague a P***, the Nazi uniform, invading other's privacy while demanding his is upheld. Throwing his own flesh and blood under the bus when he couldn't get his own way. An ultra priviliged spoiled brat, not intelligent enough to realize what he had and not strong enough to stand up to his narcissistic wife. A melt of the highest order. 

[RayC]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

I would disagree. I'm not a huge fan of Charles and all his eco warrior "Look at me I'm so virtuous because my Aston Martin runs on vegetable juice" nonsense. I quite like William and Kate but do not worship them. 

 

Harry is a disgrace. From teasing the disabled school maid, calling his Pakistani colleague a P***, the Nazi uniform, invading other's privacy while demanding his is upheld. Throwing his own flesh and blood under the bus when he couldn't get his own way. An ultra priviliged spoiled brat, not intelligent enough to realize what he had and not strong enough to stand up to his narcissistic wife. A melt of the highest order. 

 

Given that - and for once, we are in broad agreement - wouldn't it be so much better if we could register our displeasure by voting them out of public office?

[GroveHillWanderer]

17 hours ago, RayC said:

 

 

Who said anything about It happening "nearly 100 years ago"? The event occurred in 1990 so relatively recent history. 

 

Whether Belgium has "a minor royal family" is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that, like the UK, it has a constitution that allows an unelected Head of State to plunge the country into a constituental crisis.

 

Charles has weekly meetings with the PM where he can offer his opinion and, potentially, influence government policy. Why should an unelected individual be afforded this privilege?

 

It's known that Charles has strong opinions about a number of subjects. If he feels that he isn't being listened to, or taken seriously, he has options which shouldn't exist to make life uncomfortable for the government.

I actually think that the UK would be better off without a monarchy, but I also believe in accuracy and pointing out relevant facts.

 

Royal assent was last refused in the UK in 1708. As far as I'm concerned, what happens with the Belgian monarchy has no relevance to the UK's monarchy, in the same way that what happens in the Belgian parliament has no relevance to proceedings in the UK parliament.

Edited March 19 by GroveHillWanderer

[Denim]

So no ' uncomfortable truth ' disclosed at all.

 

I was expecting a revelation of some sort . Kate is a trans sexual or William likes cross dressing.

 

Instead a load of garbage stating the obvious.  Nothing to see here.....move on tabloids.