Act of Settlement - shemale right to succesion in the UK

[Ormorof]

Prince William's daughter could be Queen - Telegraph

so im all for that, dont really see a problem with it (would be kinda unfair to a girl growing up to become queen to have it snatched away by a little brother )

but errrrrrr, wouldnt it be a problem if a catholic become king/queen? then the head of the church of england wouldnt be a member of the church?

maybe its time for the queen to hand over the position of head honcho to the archbishop or somesuch? (a Pope?)

 

[ford prefect]

I think it is a bit of a no-brainer to be honest, but apparently it is hideously complex to do because of the way the Commonwealth is set up.

With regard to defender of the faith ect; again hideously complicated isn't it? I suppose it depends on how modern a modern Monarchy actually is and whether such a thing would ever pass as a catholic Monarch - seems unlikely to me.

 

[Ormorof]

yeah, i mean the head of a protestant church being a catholic seems a bit odd, also says that they would actually have to change the law in 35 commonwealth countries for it to be effective, could that then lead to "splits" of the commonwealth if not all of them push it through?

ie a Queen of GB + others who force the law through, but then the little brother is technically the king of the others who did not push it through?

 

[DaGaffer]

Or maybe we just get rid of State Sponsorship of the Church of England altogether and accept the fact that we're a modern, secular country with little interest in organised religion? God forbid (see what I did there?)

 

[Raven]

Agree, the head of state should have nothing to do with any particular religion unless they want to be.

 

[Tom]

I don't want those evil recusants having any say in the running of this country! NO POPERY!

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Crikey, this couldn't be much more pointless if it tried. Religion and monarchy and the relationship between?

Both are achaic hinderences to human progression. Get rid!

 

[mr.Blacky]

Crikey, this couldn't be much more pointless if it tried. Religion and monarchy and the relationship between?

Both are achaic hinderences to human progression. Get rid!

why? have states without any of them done any better?
not trying to be defending any of them but just looking around I cant see many nations progressing faster especially since lots of people just dont care about either.

 

[Ormorof]

rather a monarchy that effectively funds itself (if you look at the figures the Royal Estates contribute a shit load more to the Treasury than the queen & co spend) and brings in tourists than some trumped up asshole of a president that spends millions on palaces and singing showers (like Sarkozy has done in France )

 

[ford prefect]

rather a monarchy that effectively funds itself (if you look at the figures the Royal Estates contribute a shit load more to the Treasury than the queen & co spend) and brings in tourists than some trumped up asshole of a president that spends millions on palaces and singing showers (like Sarkozy has done in France )

I agree. Over the years, with PR, tourism, trade agreements and ambassadorial duties, the royals have more than paid for themselves. I have to admit though, a few of them are more than a little feckless. All in all though, they are beneficial to the UK.

 

[MYstIC G]

Not interested, leave alone, concentrate on better things. What's the point of having any tradition if none of it is kept?

 

[Wazzerphuk]

It's not a financial or nation-state progression, more a philosophical progression of human kind and development.

Not everything is about money ffs.

 

[Raven]

They don't help or hinder so what's the difference?

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Really? Religion and monarchy have no effect at all on humanity?

 

[Raven]

Religion does, the Monarchy doesn't, not any more.

 

[Jupitus]

Don't care so long as she's fit. /wij

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Religion does, the Monarchy doesn't, not any more.

What an utterly simplistic black and white world you must live in.

 

[Raven]

Ok seeing as you think you are so clever. How do the Monarchy (as in the institution of Monarchy) have any affect on society these days?

Money drives politics and society. Class is long dead.

 

[ford prefect]

As a tool for negotiating and greasing the wheels of trade, the ambassadorial duties they perform and the tourism coffers, the royals are very cost effective. I'm not sure class comes in to it these days. The Church of England is extremely flush too as hardly any of its money goes to the Vatican, so I am sure they get the christian vote too. As I said earlier, it is just a shame that some of them are so feckless, but you can't have everything. They do bring a lot of money in, one way or another.

 

[DaGaffer]

Ok seeing as you think you are so clever. How do the Monarchy (as in the institution of Monarchy) have any affect on society these days?

Money drives politics and society. Class is long dead.

I think that's a bit naive tbh. There's still an elite "club" in the UK that is mostly driven by class; in politics, the legal system and banking, the top jobs are still disproportionately held by public school/Oxbridge types, (30% of MPs are Oxbridge for example). Just because there's less bowing and scraping doesn't mean class is dead, is just not as overt as it was, which in a way is more dangerous.

As for the monarchy itself; I'm less against it than I used to be, mainly because the alternatives aren't particularly appealing (anything that gives politicians MORE power should be regarded as a bad thing), but the deference to royalty that still exists amongst certain sections of the population (working class women; there, I've said it), always leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth. I sometimes think the Royal Family is there entirely because the real powerbrokers use it as a distraction for the proles; "look at the nice people in the shiny carriage, while we nick your house and send your sons off to war".

 

[ford prefect]

Money drives politics and society. Class is long dead.

Bit of an odd statement given that the tory party is almost entirely run by Old Etonians.

 

[Raven]

Not really, it is still private money that drives government and most policy making. Government don't have all that much influence on society either (as in culture) that is also directed by private money. The gimme gimme gimme, want want want society that we now live in is entirely manufactured to generate money for private business.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Royal weddings.

Diana's death.

Queen Mother's Death.

These events have had no impact on the people? I guess I imagined the weeks of public mourning, queuing to sign books etc.

And the notion of monarchy is not just a UK thing, to think so is incredibly insular. I was talking about people, not the British.

 

[Ch3tan]

Trem's been messing with thread titles again.

 

[Raven]

Royal weddings.

Diana's death.

Queen Mother's Death.

What? Seriously?

A couple of weeks headlines in the daily fail does not equal society changing moments.

 

[ford prefect]

If you are going to look at it in terms of money, then the Crown Estate is among the most expensive real estate in the world. The Queen, as monarchs before her, donates a rather large part of the Crown Estate to the government, including some rather large pieces of London, pretty much everything on Regent Street for example. Those parts of the estate are thought to be worth in excess of £4.3billion. In return, the government pay her annual income, which to be fair, although not modest, is pretty reasonable, given where and what the estate is and how much it is worth. Especially now she pays income tax. From that standpoint alone, the Royals are a necessity.

 

[Embattle]

BBC News - Andrew Neil on British political elite documentary

 

[DaGaffer]

If you are going to look at it in terms of money, then the Crown Estate is among the most expensive real estate in the world. The Queen, as monarchs before her, donates a rather large part of the Crown Estate to the government, including some rather large pieces of London, pretty much everything on Regent Street for example. Those parts of the estate are thought to be worth in excess of £4.3billion. In return, the government pay her annual income, which to be fair, although not modest, is pretty reasonable, given where and what the estate is and how much it is worth. Especially now she pays income tax. From that standpoint alone, the Royals are a necessity.

So we're supposed to be grateful because the Queen donates income from lands that are only hers because the state lets her be the monarch in the first place? If there was no monarchy the land would belong to the state anyway, so your argument's a load of bollocks isn't it?

 

[taB]

If there was no monarchy the land would belong to the state anyway

Would it bollocks, Gordon would have sold it for a fiver to some bloke he met in the pub.

 

[ford prefect]

So we're supposed to be grateful because the Queen donates income from lands that are only hers because the state lets her be the monarch in the first place? If there was no monarchy the land would belong to the state anyway, so your argument's a load of bollocks isn't it?

If there had never been a monarchy, yes it would be bollocks, but as there is it is simple common sense. If the monarchy was disolved tommorow - all of that estate would remain with them - SO no, it isn't bollocks. My point is simple - depsite a lot of peoples views to the contrary, the monarchy don't really cost the tax payer a bean, because it would cost a hell of a lot more for the government (nee tax payer) to buy and administer or rent the properties from the Crown Estate, which given that in owns half of central London, would be necessary. If that estate was in other private hands, the governement would have to folk our hundreds of millions of pounds more every year, rather than paying the queen an annual duty. I can't put it simpler than that.