DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
The queen was polling at 75% and Charlie at 42% about the same as Biden, so by popular demand and historical baggage, there you are.
The queen is dead.
- Thread starter Unclebaldrick
- Start date
The flags here are at half staff.
Why did you say what I highlighted?
I consider it's pirate's plunder, no ship.
He's already in male sudden death category. The wrath of Diana would be Camilla, Queen Dowager..let's see how long it takes for karma.How old was Trump when he got his first real job?
Let's hope King Charlie 3 doesn't fuck up as bad as King Trump, or King Charlie 2
I was never a big fan of monarchy, but since Trump I've been reconsidering...
View attachment 5195139
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
He has a elder son and two grandsons and she is a consort. I'm not even sure Harry is Charlie's son, there a rumors...
JamieThePainter
Well-Known Member
In the UK or in some country that doesn't need to doff their cap to her?
zeddd
Well-Known Member
So would I but in the U.K. we live in a monarchy
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
UK
The most popular royalty in the UK | Politics | YouGov Ratings
The most popular royalty in the UK according to YouGov Ratings. Popularity is based on millions of responses from the British public and YouGov's innovative survey methodology.
yougov.co.uk
CunningCanuk
Well-Known Member
Admittedly, I have a chip on my shoulder.
JamieThePainter
Well-Known Member
Wow, I wonder where they got those figures from. They certainly aren't reflective of the society I've grown up in. I do question where they're getting their figures from - is this an actual representation of the nation, or is it just a reflection of the percentage of society who lack the savvy to avoid a bell end with a clipboard in the street?UK
The most popular royalty in the UK | Politics | YouGov Ratings
The most popular royalty in the UK according to YouGov Ratings. Popularity is based on millions of responses from the British public and YouGov's innovative survey methodology.
Dorian2
Well-Known Member
Do you vote for Politicians?
Sativied
Well-Known Member
You take one part out of my post in reply to Sky’s comment about monarchy in general, and then suggest I said Queen Elizabeth is no more than that, then add what you think I think “a Head of State is“… what is this, World Strawman Day? Obviously queen Elizabeth is much more than that. Yes, “is” and will remain to be. A definition does not dictate what something is, Head of State does in practice not mean what you imply, not even close. If you want to argue it should explicitly mean nothing on paper too then yeah, I agree. If you want to subscribe more power to her or pretend she was an obstacle in democracy then nah…
Appearantly, they do. Yet per person they cost close to zero, which does not include the immeasurable portion of indirect income for the UK. Saying the monarchs cost money is never actually about the monarchs costing money.
JamieThePainter
Well-Known Member
It did seem like that's what you were saying when you said that in your mind a monarch was just a mascot for life, but that's not what the UK monarch is.
Strawman, whatever, sure. If you don't think the monarch of the UK is only a mascot for life then my post is not for you, but that's the impression I got from your post.
CunningCanuk
Well-Known Member
I’m surprised so many Americans are sympathetic. Didn’t you guys have a revolution to get away from these inbred freeloaders?
JamieThePainter
Well-Known Member
What more power do I need to subscribe to her? Just because the queen wasn't an obstacle to democracy does not mean that she lacked the power to be one. And if anyone tried to stop her? British Army would always be hers to step in and ensure she got her way.
I wonder how many other countries in the world are just chomping at the bit to get an unelected Head of State who apparently brings in all this money to the country (but we just can't count it). Sounds like a bit of a con to me, mate.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
As an outsider, I somewhat envy the British their Crown. The late monarch (if my conclusions are sound) acted with unswerving loyalty as a governor, in the mechanical sense, on the passions of the electorate and their representatives. While I do not think we did wrong a quarter millennium ago, we could use a steady hand right now, especially when that man’s pernicious jurist appointments are becoming of serious consequence.
Last edited:
CunningCanuk
Well-Known Member
As a citizen of such a country, I can confirm it is most definitely a con.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
We could have an elected president replace the GG with essentially the same powers as other parliamentary democracies do, or they use the existing monarch to fill the roll. Unlike America, all are unicameral legislatures, the brits got rid of the house Lords as an effective legislative body at the beginning of the 20th century.
America copied the British system, but it never evolved like the British system did, the constitution fixed it in place, the King has too much power (partly congresses fault) and executive function and the senate is just horseshit. I oppose an elected senate in Canada, that would give them power and we'd be in the same boat as the Americans. Unicameral parliaments work just fine, unless half the voters are fucking fascist, or support it, all good governments require trust and goodwill. Governments are for the common good and betterment of society, not an instrument to get or make war on citizens you don't like, some Americans have forgotten this simple idea.
CunningCanuk
Well-Known Member
Ozumoz66
Well-Known Member
The red army (Russia) existed between 1918 - 1946. I should of said Imperial Russian Army as that was what they were fleeing in the 1870s. The area then would have been near today's Hamburg, in northern Germany - Prussia we were told.
I was merely conveying that I too spoke low German (Plautdietsch) and may have a similar ancestry. My best friend's Mom was born in Odessa, Ukraine and too spoke low German. It's not that common of a language.
