If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   BBC: Aging monarch announces abdication so next generation can take the helm. Prince Charles: Missed it by this much   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 26
    More: Spiffy, kings, Belgium, national language  
•       •       •

5327 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Jul 2013 at 5:20 AM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-07-04 11:15:45 AM
2 votes:

Barricaded Gunman: 2wolves: Queen Mum isn't thrilled with how Chuck turned out. Can't say that I blame her.

Is that really what it is? Can any British Farkers shed any light on exactly why the old gal is still clinging to her throne?

Faddy: fark abdication. If you are going to claim to be a divine ruler then you just don't get to say fark this shiat when you get old.

Pope Benedict XVI disagrees.


I'm not British, but from all appearances, she considers it her duty to reign until she is no longer breathing. It's sort a perk of the job, like being an Article III judge on flashier robes and way more bling. Remember, the British coronation ceremony has had religious aspects for a thousand years and more; in some contexts, it's almost sacramental.

Abdication is fine for those Continental countries, but for quite a while, British monarchs have taken the job seriously. George IV was the last of the rampant nut jobs, William IV cared about doing right, and Victoria was similarly high-minded about her role. Her lengthy depression after Albert's death could have been a disaster, but eventually, her ministers were able to remind her of her duty.

Edward VII liked the high life, but he was conscientious enough when it mattered; George V probably had a guilty conscience over throwing Cousin Nicky to the wolves, but his stamp collection and shooting journals helped him forget. George VI wound up restoring the monarchy's image, thanks in no small part to his Queen. Elizabeth II will be an impossible act to follow, whether it's Charles (prob. as George VII) or Wills who inherits the throne.

Note how I didn't mention Edward VIII. He would have been a disaster, and the Marriage Crisis was a perfect excuse to get him out of the way before he could be crowned. The combination of him with Neville Chamberlain and Lord Halifax would have ensured that the UK never entered WWII, no matter what public opinion said to the contrary.
2013-07-04 09:42:54 AM
2 votes:
FTFA: After he succeeded his brother, King Albert became embroiled in a major royal scandal when he was alleged to be the father of an out-of-wedlock daughter, Delphine Boel, and suffered a crisis in his marriage with Queen Paola.

Amateur!

upload.wikimedia.org
2013-07-04 08:48:27 AM
2 votes:

Actor_au: sendtodave: AverageAmericanGuy: sendtodave: Why do we still have royalty?

What reason do they even have to exist any more?

Tourism.

OK, that, and selling tabloids.

What governmental reason do they even have to exist any more?

Separates the ruler of the country from politics which makes it easier to criticise the political leaders.
Ensures there is a mechanism for dumping a failed unpopular leader, not because it will ever be used but because the threat can keep them honest, slightly honest.
Soft Diplomacy, the Queen knows nearly every leader past and present, its useful to have that kind of connection. Also all those years of political knowledge adds up.
Lastly, the Royal family provides a tradition of service without politics, so they are a stable force in government no matter how turbulent things may get.


This. The separation of the Head of State from the Head of Government is a good thing. Of course there are many ways to do this (systems where you have a President and Prime Minister for instance), but the longevity and continuity can be a good thing. While there are a lot of powers the Queen can technically/theoretically exercise in the UK or other Commonwealth nations where she is also the Head of State, it is an unspoken rule that it would take something really major for that to happen.

Also, there is no real desire to remove the Monarchy in the UK because they aren't a drain on the public coffers. Yes they receive money from the government but the proceeds of Crown Estates enter the public purse. They generate net revenue for the Government and that is even before you factor in tourist dollars entering the general economy.
2013-07-04 08:32:04 AM
2 votes:

sendtodave: AverageAmericanGuy: sendtodave: Why do we still have royalty?

What reason do they even have to exist any more?

Tourism.

OK, that, and selling tabloids.

What governmental reason do they even have to exist any more?


Separates the ruler of the country from politics which makes it easier to criticise the political leaders.
Ensures there is a mechanism for dumping a failed unpopular leader, not because it will ever be used but because the threat can keep them honest, slightly honest.
Soft Diplomacy, the Queen knows nearly every leader past and present, its useful to have that kind of connection. Also all those years of political knowledge adds up.
Lastly, the Royal family provides a tradition of service without politics, so they are a stable force in government no matter how turbulent things may get.
2013-07-04 07:45:39 AM
2 votes:

SamFlagg: Besides 2 and a quarter years or so on the throne and the old girl can catch Queen Victoria!


Bingo.
2013-07-04 07:19:05 AM
2 votes:

AverageAmericanGuy: sendtodave: AverageAmericanGuy: sendtodave: Why do we still have royalty?

What reason do they even have to exist any more?

Tourism.

OK, that, and selling tabloids.

What governmental reason do they even have to exist any more?

It gives the PM a method of clearing Parliament and forcing new elections to realign politics in his/her favor when the winds of change are blowing.


Not only that, it's simply not Great Britain without the Royal Family, I mean without that delightful anachronism, the whole place is less interesting. Besides 2 and a quarter years or so on the throne and the old girl can catch Queen Victoria!
2013-07-04 07:06:35 AM
2 votes:

gadian: That old woman is trying her damndest to outlive Charles.  If the monarchy still had any power at all, I think she'd just make him disappear or shoot himself several times in the back of the head.


Well her mother hit triple digits despite having a liver that hadn't been alcohol free in forty years, I think she's got a shot at burying Chuck.
2013-07-04 10:01:09 PM
1 votes:
For those who advocate the revokation of the British Monarchy...

Why?

"Because it shouldn't be there" isn't an explanation. WHY Shouldn't it be there. "Anachronism" is also not a valid answer, as you would have to explain why a constitutional-democratic/republican monarchy is an anachronism.

And that's not going into stripping the British royal family of their personal titles and lands. I often hear cries of "They stole it". From whom did they steal the lands? The Duchy of Lancaster (where the Royal Family gets most of it's money these days) was added to the Crown by Henry VII at the end of the Wars of the Roses, and he certainly had a legimiate claim to them. Or are you talking about when the Normans invaded England in 1066, displacing the Saxon nobility, who they themselves displaced the Romano-Brythons out of Britannia into Wales, Cornwall, and Armorica (Brittany)? There's no justification for stripping them of their private properties. The Crown stuff, like the crown jewels and Buckingham Palace, there might be claims to that, but certainly not to Lancaster or other non-titled properties.

Quite frankly? There isn't a good reason to disolve this particular monarchy. France had many good reasons to do so (repeatedly during the revolutionary period that ultimately culiminated in the 3rd Republic), but what cause does England have for removing their monarchy?
2013-07-04 04:53:28 PM
1 votes:

cptjeff: Slaxl: netgamer7k: I wonder what European royalty, especially British royalty, would be like if the Catholic church never existed?

I'd imagine far less golden stuff and flashy regalia.

I dunno, it's not like Catholicism or even Christianity made rulers want to accrue ostentatious displays of wealth. Older pagan realms often promoted the ruler as a god themselves, and bedecked themselves in so much gold they make the Pope look poor.

Of course if you want to get right into it then if there was no Catholic church then the entire history of Europe would be completely different from the fall of Rome, and probably before. There might even have been different outcomes to the migrations of the barbarian hordes, as some converted and fought for Rome. The Franks could have gone east, the Angles might have skipped Britain and gone to Spain instead. Well, maybe not, but you see what I'm getting at, such a drastic and huge change would be impossible to really get a good measure of the outcome from.

The formation of modern governments might be an issue- we could very well still be living in tribal societies, led by small time chieftains calling themselves kings. The Catholic church is where we get bureaucratic governance from. China invented it long before, but they didn't share, and it had to be independently derived. But the organization of Canon Law allowed for a structured and hierarchical body of law, which made it possible for any given official to administer routinely. Prior to that, ruling officials would issue edicts and laws, but they weren't organized, and as such, were often contradictory, and enforcement depended on how the judicial proceeding (which was just one guy in most cases) was feeling that day. Very arbitrary, very capricious. Afterwards, the laws were unified, and classified as to which was superior in case of a conflict, offenses categorized by seriousness, ect. That system is the basis for the operations of executive government in the Western world.

Now, if the Catholic church, and thus Canon law, did not exist, we could look at the English Common law, which was arising at a similar time. In that system law evolves based on judicial rulings, which are based on precedent, and then become precedent themselves. Resultantly, the law is constantly being reviewed, refined, and adjusted based on whether the results are equitable. If canon law didn't evolve and provide the basis for administrative enforcement, it's possible the common law, and its judicial process, might have expanded into the roles we now think of as legislative and executive. Which could actually be a really interesting system, and I wouldn't be entirely shocked to learn that a system along those lines has evolved somewhere.


I think you need to read a bit more history. The Catholic Church did not invent those ideas. They were present in numerous societies befor the church was formed, notably Rome from which a lot of the Church emerged. And, by "Catholic Church" I assume you mean Christian Churches, the East was much the same.

Obviously the Catholic Church had an enormous impact on history, not just European, but globally. But the idea that modern beaurocracy and government stems from the Church is simply not true. It is as bad as the people that argue Democracy would not exist without Athens.
2013-07-04 03:46:03 PM
1 votes:

dywed88: And there are concerns how the Monarchy will handle the end of Elizabeth II's reign as there have been serious questions around the public support of the potential heirs.


For quite a bit of the public, she is the Monarchy. They've known no one else. It wouldn't surprise me too much if some of her realms became republics after she's gone, though obviously not GB.
2013-07-04 03:13:07 PM
1 votes:

AverageAmericanGuy: Once the old woman kicks the bucket, Prince Harry will rise up, kill his "father" and half-brother, and take his rightful place on the throne. He will return the British Empire to its rightful place in the annals of history. Today Brittania, tomorrow Gaul!


While a fun thing to imagine, I think Harry likes being where he is. He wouldn't get to have massive orgies in Vegas as king, or in his brother's position. I would happily trade not having a job that I could never quit, that prohibits me from having opinions or from ever relaxing in public, or ever taking a day entirely off*, for a life spent having sex with lots of hot women on every continent of the planet.


*On every single day, the Queen and Prince Charles both read a a box full of state papers, briefs on everything the British Government is involved in- even the ridiculously highly classified stuff. The Queen has a private talk with the PM every week where the PM can draw on her for candid advice on everything- everything- the UK is up to. Prince Charles started reading them a few years ago so he could hit the ground running- the Queen has been gradually increasing his role in recent years in preparation for the eventual transition, and to reduce her workload as she ages.
2013-07-04 02:43:55 PM
1 votes:

Lee Jackson Beauregard: FTFA: After he succeeded his brother, King Albert became embroiled in a major royal scandal when he was alleged to be the father of an out-of-wedlock daughter, Delphine Boel, and suffered a crisis in his marriage with Queen Paola.

Amateur!

[upload.wikimedia.org image 611x768]


Augustus II of Saxony laughs at Louis' feeble loins.
2013-07-04 01:11:45 PM
1 votes:

Barricaded Gunman: Slaxl: Really though there's no reason to abdicate. She's not clinging, she's just sitting comfortably.

Thank you, that makes sense. I hadn't considered the whole "abdication is shameful" perspective. But from a completely-removed Yankee perspective, it just looks like Charles has spent his entire adult life waiting for his chance at the throne, but his grumpy-seeming mother won't let him have it. I didn't realize that there were concerns about his ability to handle the job, either.


LibertyHiller: (lengthy explanation)

Informed replies like that are what keep me coming back here. Thanks.


Charles has been extremely unpopular in the past, the whole Diana thing in particular destroyed his public image. His image has been repaired to a significant degree, but he still is not popular. Will is far more popular and always has been. And there are concerns how the Monarchy will handle the end of Elizabeth II's reign as there have been serious questions around the public support of the potential heirs.

With Kate, the marriage, and the baby, I think Will is in a good position to make a popular King and has brought up a lot of good attention for the Royal Family. This would ease the transition.
2013-07-04 01:03:04 PM
1 votes:

Slaxl: I wonder if she does think, as many do, that Charles will be bad for the monarchy, because of his stupid views on most things, notably his wishes to be more 'involved', which would be disastrous from a constitutional point of view. It's just speculation though


whenitstrikesme.com
2013-07-04 12:42:42 PM
1 votes:
Hey subby, Private Eye magazine has been featuring a hilarious running gag along the same lines.  Prince Charles is listening to the radio in the bathtub, hears a partial newscast, assumes he's going to be king and runs naked to tell Camilla.  They've had the material to do it seven or eight times, and I can't wait to read this one.

Private Eye is the funniest political mag out there.  Spy magazine stole shamelessly from them back in the day.
2013-07-04 12:12:22 PM
1 votes:

Slaxl: Really though there's no reason to abdicate. She's not clinging, she's just sitting comfortably.


Thank you, that makes sense. I hadn't considered the whole "abdication is shameful" perspective. But from a completely-removed Yankee perspective, it just looks like Charles has spent his entire adult life waiting for his chance at the throne, but his grumpy-seeming mother won't let him have it. I didn't realize that there were concerns about his ability to handle the job, either.


LibertyHiller: (lengthy explanation)


Informed replies like that are what keep me coming back here. Thanks.
2013-07-04 11:08:42 AM
1 votes:
An interesting year for abdications.  First Queen Beatrix of the neighboring Netherlands (who would have made a great superhero / supervillain with the name "Queen Bee"), then Emir Hamad of Qatar, now King Albert.  We're all waiting for you, Bashar.
2013-07-04 11:06:03 AM
1 votes:

Barricaded Gunman: 2wolves: Queen Mum isn't thrilled with how Chuck turned out. Can't say that I blame her.

Is that really what it is? Can any British Farkers shed any light on exactly why the old gal is still clinging to her throne?


Abdication is a terrible word to the Royal family. She will probably still remember the events surrounding her uncles abdication and the damage it did. The circumstances may be wholly different today, and an abdication not viewed entirely negatively as it was in the past, but that might be something she considers.

Really though there's no reason to abdicate. She's not clinging, she's just sitting comfortably.

I wonder if she does think, as many do, that Charles will be bad for the monarchy, because of his stupid views on most things, notably his wishes to be more 'involved', which would be disastrous from a constitutional point of view. It's just speculation though.
2013-07-04 10:40:58 AM
1 votes:

2wolves: Queen Mum isn't thrilled with how Chuck turned out. Can't say that I blame her.


Is that really what it is? Can any British Farkers shed any light on exactly why the old gal is still clinging to her throne?

Faddy: fark abdication. If you are going to claim to be a divine ruler then you just don't get to say fark this shiat when you get old.


Pope Benedict XVI disagrees.
2013-07-04 10:26:45 AM
1 votes:

Alphax: Who would use a word like that in polite company?  Really now..

B-lgium..


They don't know what it means, the stupid turlingdomes.
2013-07-04 10:09:53 AM
1 votes:

entropic_existence: Actor_au: sendtodave: AverageAmericanGuy: sendtodave: Why do we still have royalty?

What reason do they even have to exist any more?

Tourism.

OK, that, and selling tabloids.

What governmental reason do they even have to exist any more?

Separates the ruler of the country from politics which makes it easier to criticise the political leaders.
Ensures there is a mechanism for dumping a failed unpopular leader, not because it will ever be used but because the threat can keep them honest, slightly honest.
Soft Diplomacy, the Queen knows nearly every leader past and present, its useful to have that kind of connection. Also all those years of political knowledge adds up.
Lastly, the Royal family provides a tradition of service without politics, so they are a stable force in government no matter how turbulent things may get.

This. The separation of the Head of State from the Head of Government is a good thing. Of course there are many ways to do this (systems where you have a President and Prime Minister for instance), but the longevity and continuity can be a good thing. While there are a lot of powers the Queen can technically/theoretically exercise in the UK or other Commonwealth nations where she is also the Head of State, it is an unspoken rule that it would take something really major for that to happen.

Also, there is no real desire to remove the Monarchy in the UK because they aren't a drain on the public coffers. Yes they receive money from the government but the proceeds of Crown Estates enter the public purse. They generate net revenue for the Government and that is even before you factor in tourist dollars entering the general economy.


Also, many Crown properties are open for public viewing. If the royal family was stripped of their rank they would still, as private individuals, own most of these properties and would not necessarily feel the need to keep them open to the public.

They are essentially caretakers of much of Britain's (and the Commonwealth's) history.
2013-07-04 08:42:45 AM
1 votes:
Belgium shouldn't even be a country. The French in France are willing to annex the French part, same with the Dutch; they are willing to annex the Flemish part. Let Brussels become a Federal district and just be done with this useless country.
2013-07-04 08:37:52 AM
1 votes:

Faddy: fark abdication. If you are going to claim to be a divine ruler then you just don't get to say fark this shiat when you get old.


I sincerely doubt the (now ex-)King of Belgium ever claimed he was a divine ruler.
2013-07-04 06:22:39 AM
1 votes:

sendtodave: AverageAmericanGuy: sendtodave: Why do we still have royalty?

What reason do they even have to exist any more?

Tourism.

OK, that, and selling tabloids.

What governmental reason do they even have to exist any more?


It gives the PM a method of clearing Parliament and forcing new elections to realign politics in his/her favor when the winds of change are blowing.
2013-07-04 05:22:11 AM
1 votes:
Who would use a word like that in polite company?  Really now..

B-lgium..
2013-07-04 01:56:29 AM
1 votes:
That old woman is trying her damndest to outlive Charles.  If the monarchy still had any power at all, I think she'd just make him disappear or shoot himself several times in the back of the head.
 
Displayed 26 of 26 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report