Yep. Big fan of anyone who thinks they have been given a very easy life because they are 'chosen by god'
The day we get rid of royalty will be a day to be proud of. Sadly i think i'll be worm food.
God to one side I wouldn't say I would like to have their life as I don't see it as easy, they may have wealth but with that does not come ease . Personally I would rather have a monarchy in its current form than a President which would cost as much, as much of the events that surround monarchy such as the pomp and pageantry we would still have as a republic as that pomp and tradition brings in tourism and money
Being Monarch does not actually involve doing anything so there is no need for her to abdicate however old or incapacitated the Monarch becomes. Being alive and being the first born of the previous incumbent is the only requirement.
Are you really saying that Her Majesty has no duties whatsoever.
Are you really saying that Her Majesty has no duties whatsoever.
That is correct. Hereditary Monarchs occupy their position on the basis of their parentage. Are you suggesting there are other criteria? i.e. agreeing to undertake duties?
That is correct. Hereditary Monarchs occupy their position on the basis of their parentage. Are you suggesting there are other criteria? i.e. agreeing to undertake duties?
Your hatred of Royalty appears to have clouded your judgement.
Being Monarch does not actually involve doing anything so there is no need for her to abdicate however old or incapacitated the Monarch becomes. Being alive and being the first born of the previous incumbent is the only requirement.
That is correct. Hereditary Monarchs occupy their position on the basis of their parentage. Are you suggesting there are other criteria? i.e. agreeing to undertake duties?
Whilst they become monarch based on heritage they do have to carry out duties that come with that role it is all part and parcel , if a monarch was to refuse to carry out the official role of monarch I feel they would not be monarch for long
Whilst they become monarch based on heritage they do have to carry out duties that come with that role it is all part and parcel , if a monarch was to refuse to carry out the official role of monarch I feel they would not be monarch for long
Whilst they become monarch based on heritage they do have to carry out duties that come with that role it is all part and parcel , if a monarch was to refuse to carry out the official role of monarch I feel they would not be monarch for long
After Albert's death in 1861 Queen Victoria effectively became a recluse for some 25 years rarely appearing in public. Notwithstanding she remained Monarch and is still celebrated as our longest serving Monarch.
Our current Queen will I am sure remain Monarch even if she becomes incapable of performing any duties. Duties and role are not in this case interdependant.
After Albert's death in 1861 Queen Victoria effectively became a recluse for some 25 years rarely appearing in public. Notwithstanding she remained Monarch and is still celebrated as our longest serving Monarch.
Our current Queen will I am sure remain Monarch even if she becomes incapable of performing any duties. Duties and role are not in this case interdependant.
Queen Victoria may have got away with that , that was 1861 I have a feeling it would not happen these days
Whilst they become monarch based on heritage they do have to carry out duties that come with that role it is all part and parcel , if a monarch was to refuse to carry out the official role of monarch I feel they would not be monarch for long
Whilst they become monarch based on heritage they do have to carry out duties that come with that role it is all part and parcel , if a monarch was to refuse to carry out the official role of monarch I feel they would not be monarch for long
Probably best not mentioned if one's a monarchist...
So as that is the same as a President would do one assumes you just do not want a Head of State, or would it be ok then and one should only laugh at a monarch as that makes one a real republican
Being Monarch does not actually involve doing anything so there is no need for her to abdicate however old or incapacitated the Monarch becomes. Being alive and being the first born of the previous incumbent is the only requirement.
When talking about royalty, my dad used to say that he would live to 100 as well if he had someone to wipe his arse for him too.
So as that is the same as a President would do one assumes you just do not want a Head of State, or would it be ok then and one should only laugh at a monarch as that makes one a real republican
The Queen still has well over a year to go before she has reigned longer than Queen Victoria did. I am sure that the Queen will be eager to beat that record and become the longest reigning British monach.
Comments
There is no need for her to do that if her health fails - she will simply delegate her duties, which is beginning to happen anyway.
She will be Queen for the rest of her life.
God to one side I wouldn't say I would like to have their life as I don't see it as easy, they may have wealth but with that does not come ease . Personally I would rather have a monarchy in its current form than a President which would cost as much, as much of the events that surround monarchy such as the pomp and pageantry we would still have as a republic as that pomp and tradition brings in tourism and money
Are you really saying that Her Majesty has no duties whatsoever.
That is correct. Hereditary Monarchs occupy their position on the basis of their parentage. Are you suggesting there are other criteria? i.e. agreeing to undertake duties?
Your hatred of Royalty appears to have clouded your judgement.
Then it should be no problem to point out the error in my statement.
No arguing with that fact.
Whilst they become monarch based on heritage they do have to carry out duties that come with that role it is all part and parcel , if a monarch was to refuse to carry out the official role of monarch I feel they would not be monarch for long
http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/HowtheMonarchyworks/TheroleoftheSovereign.aspx
You have to be kidding!
After Albert's death in 1861 Queen Victoria effectively became a recluse for some 25 years rarely appearing in public. Notwithstanding she remained Monarch and is still celebrated as our longest serving Monarch.
Our current Queen will I am sure remain Monarch even if she becomes incapable of performing any duties. Duties and role are not in this case interdependant.
Queen Victoria may have got away with that , that was 1861 I have a feeling it would not happen these days
Why are you ?
No I'm not.
That just sounds like she has a lot of parties.
That is really and properly embarrassing stuff.
Probably best not mentioned if one's a monarchist...
The way some people go on, and on you'd think it'd be the worst thing in the world.
I mean, why does it matter? Who cares?
She would look great with a pearl necklace
Yeah, the latest rumour of her abdicating was being reported by yesterday's papers. But the link you posted was from nearly a year ago, not yesterday.
So as that is the same as a President would do one assumes you just do not want a Head of State, or would it be ok then and one should only laugh at a monarch as that makes one a real republican
Indeed it is. Repetitive and patronising drivel.
If I were ER, I'd sack whoever wrote that piece.
When talking about royalty, my dad used to say that he would live to 100 as well if he had someone to wipe his arse for him too.
You'll have to run that one by me again...
The Queen works very hard.
agreed