The anti-monarchists are no closer to achieving their goals now than they ever have been. The idea that the monarchy is going to be dissoved anytime even remotely soon is ridiculous.
UK's System of Government
- Thread starter Trekker4747
- Start date
The anti-monarchists are no closer to achieving their goals now than they ever have been. The idea that the monarchy is going to be dissoved anytime even remotely soon is ridiculous.
For the President, yes. But if you want to get technical...One year more than you?
Members of the House of Representatives only serve 2-year terms.
Members of the Senate serve 6-year terms. However, the elections are staggered, so about 1/3 of the Senate gets voted in every 2 years.
Camilla doesn't seem to be anywhere near as disliked as she used to be - that was mostly backlash over the inexplicably popular and transparently self-serving Princess Diana. Charles, by rights, should be admired and liked as much as his dead ex-wife, based on the amount of charity work he does and money he gives - he just doesn't shout about it in the same way.
Unfortunately I have heard generally quite sensible people saying "Charles will never be king, he'll pass it over for William." He won't, it's not going to happen, and I doubt William would want him to.
Anti-monarchists are, in general, wasting their time and everyone elses. The Royals exist only as a ceremonial figureheard - a representation of years of history and tradition. Since they cost each tax-payer pennies a year and can't actually affect anything, why would we ever want to go through the effort of dispensing with them and being just like everybody else? Plus they are people who genuinely care. I know they can't actually make the PM do anything he doesn't want to do, but I'm sure there is value in him having a chat every sunday with an informed, impartial, caring individual with a high status.
Even in recent polls about 75% of Britons continue to support keeping the Monarchy intact, it isn't going anywhere any time soon, whether Camilla is with Charles or not.
What's more likely to keep Charles off the throne (still unlikely) is the fact that Elizabeth could very well live to be a very, very old lady, and by the time she croaks Charles might be a very old man. She's only about 75 years old, her mother lived to be 102! It might be in his own best self-interest to simply pass it on to his son who can be on the throne for decades and he can live out the rest of his life relatively quietly with his wife.
What's more likely to keep Charles off the throne (still unlikely) is the fact that Elizabeth could very well live to be a very, very old lady, and by the time she croaks Charles might be a very old man. She's only about 75 years old, her mother lived to be 102! It might be in his own best self-interest to simply pass it on to his son who can be on the throne for decades and he can live out the rest of his life relatively quietly with his wife.
Last edited:
Agreed on all points. Prince Charles isn't liked because he has the audacity to speak up and sometimes comes across as (horrors!) posh. But his charity work and his commitment to environmental causes deserve high praise.
And no, I never really got the obsession with Diana either - I never understood why Charles got such a bad rap while she could do no wrong.
Actually, I take that back, I know exactly why. She was pretty.
^That is true, there is a history of longevity in her family. I think the only thing that could make her step aside would be Charles agreeing to do so too and allowing William to take the throne.
I agree with Bishbot on Diana. I can only express my view on her funeral being covered on every television channel with a
. I don't necessarily feel this was her fault, she has been built up to sainthood since her death.
She wasn't some perfect magical person, and she died in a simple car crash. Mohammed al Fayed had his chance to put up or shut up and he did neither. It's time to let the whole business and Diana herself rest.
Charles gets a bad rap because, alledgedly, he had been cheating on Diana from pretty much day one of their marriage with Camilla. Most of us males would wonder what the hell he was thinking - going out for McDonalds when he's got steak at home, but there you go.
I agree with Bishbot on Diana. I can only express my view on her funeral being covered on every television channel with a
. I don't necessarily feel this was her fault, she has been built up to sainthood since her death.She wasn't some perfect magical person, and she died in a simple car crash. Mohammed al Fayed had his chance to put up or shut up and he did neither. It's time to let the whole business and Diana herself rest.
Charles gets a bad rap because, alledgedly, he had been cheating on Diana from pretty much day one of their marriage with Camilla. Most of us males would wonder what the hell he was thinking - going out for McDonalds when he's got steak at home, but there you go.
The English royal families... (from 774)
House of Mercia
House of Wessex
House of Denmark
House of Wessex (again)
House of Normandy
Angevins
House of Lancaster
House of York
House of Lancaster (again)
House of York (again)
House of Tudor
House of Stuart
Commonwealth
House of Stuart (again)
And then they became monarchs of Britain... (from 1707)
House of Stuart
House of Hanover
House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha
House of Windsor (current)
And as regards this question...
Wikipedia answers that pretty comprehensively at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_succession_to_the_British_Throne, identifying 1596 people in the line of succession.
Wikipedia answers that pretty comprehensively at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_succession_to_the_British_Throne, identifying 1596 people in the line of succession.
That's why I like her, too. I wish she had slapped him too, like the rowdy kid he is.For those not understanding why our Queen is popular and why most of us don't want to get rid of her - Her Majesty to Berlusconi : STFU!
Sometimes, I secretly wish we didn't dispose of the monarchy after WWII, but associating themselves with the fascist regime and letting Italy go to war on the wrong side was just inexcusable. But sometimes, our politicians would really need to be bitch-slapped by an old lady in a pastel dress.
I suppose it comes under the heading "jackass", but since Cromwell didn't groom a successor and ensure that the successor would have a smooth transition to power, then what happened was inevitable.
If he had ensured a successor, then what you have is just another form of monarchy, really.
The Royal family took power (8th century or thereabouts) as a military dictatorship. The King was essentially the owner of the entire country, and everyone else was his tenant. He "allowed" sections to various nobles who supported him. These were areas that they controlled anyway, but they kept control at the King's whim.
Kings and Nobles at that time, and for much of history were comparable to biker gangs or Mafia. They had the arms, they controlled territory, they collected protection money, extortion, loan sharking, etc. There's nothing new in all this we have today. The difference was, there was no one else claiming to be the government.
Wars were fought over territory and the winner owned the land and the people on it.
Since that time they've become marginally more civilized about it, but it all goes back to land that was siezed by force, political control over that land, and then passing that land on to their decendants. Titles are passed on to decendants, or bought and sold, or traded through arranged marriages.
The rise of first the craft guilds, and then the merchant houses meant that money (which was power) was shifting from land owners (nobles) to a new economic class. At first they could be bullied, then they hired their own security, built their own walls around their cities and bribed the men at the top. Eventually they wanted actual say in goverment, so the demanded a house of commoners to act alongside the house of lords.
Cromwell wasn't a democrat, he was just another power grabber who happend to be a commoner and made use of the existing parliament. I'll give him some credit for ignorance, he was living in a world where he had no example of democracy , so he had to make it up as he went along.
Here the Parliament usually elect as President an old politician with a distinguished but not really powerful career, to act as Guardian of the Constitution, C-in-C of armed forces, Chairman of the Superior Judicial Council and formal rubber stamping laws approved by the Parliament and Executive Decrees.
G
Garrovick
Guest
I'm not all familiar with current law in the UK...
But, I bet there is a lot more power available to the "English monarchy" than is apparently believed by the average citizen. There is more to it than just being a "figurehead"
I'm not quite sure what it would be, or even if it would ever come up, but some where in English Law there is a power base for extraordinary circumstances.
Just talking and thinking out loud...
But, I bet there is a lot more power available to the "English monarchy" than is apparently believed by the average citizen. There is more to it than just being a "figurehead"
I'm not quite sure what it would be, or even if it would ever come up, but some where in English Law there is a power base for extraordinary circumstances.
Just talking and thinking out loud...
The only thing I can think of that would come under that heading is the monarch is nominally head of the armed forces, but really the government tells the armed forces what to do. I would like to think that if the government tried to dissolve the monarchy then the armed forces would have something to say about the matter, but I've no idea really.
The President cannot just say "nope" to what the entire Congress has decided. Congress can overrule a veto by a 2/3 majority. There is the pocket veto, but yeah.
Similar threads
