Happy Platty Jubbly Ma'am
-
DAG was very good on the idea of a written constitution:
https://davidallengreen.com/2022/02/the-current-political-drama-and-the-question-of-a-written-constitution/ -
Blocks100 wrote:The only good thing to come out of this whole pathetic Platty Jubbly so far is this:
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1532667634877087749?t=am_ORPwrQUG27tk7YE3_2A&s=19b
AmazingNot everything is The Best or Shit. Theres many levels between that, lets just enjoy stuff. -
davyK wrote:Do you really think I believe the monarchy organises flybys? It gives the occasional reason for one. Why else would be do them?
Iron Maiden had one at Download.
Bruce Dickinson actually did a flyby for one of his own shows at some point as well. -
Impressive to do that while singing.
-
If I was in a jet I’d be warbling like him tbf. -
Blocks100 wrote:Constitutional crisis a go-go.
Not really. While the monarch provides royal assent to legislation, and gives permission to a party leader to form a government, they can’t really say no. Much of the monarch’s power is devolved and performed in their name, and if a monarch refused either of these things, it would conflict with the other processes. We really only pay lip service to being a constitutional monarchy, and when the leader of the majority party asks permission to form the Government, it’s a (pointless) formality.
The reason nobody is calling for her abdication is because it doesn’t remotely matter, even in the slightest, if she is capable of being a functioning head of state, because the ‘functioning’ part hasn’t mattered for some time. Incapable of giving royal assent? There’s not really anything stopping Charles from doing it in her name, because basically ever other function is performed by others in her name.
It’s a ceremonial position these days, and litttle more. -
Diluted Dante wrote:None of the things she does actually matter. You could have a rotating series of actors and it would make no difference.
Yesterday my mum told me it would never be the same without her. I asked her what wouldn’t be the same. What about every day life or even in the broader scheme of things would be different? She had no idea other than to repeat that it wouldn’t be the same. It’s fine, I guess. As old as she is, she hasn’t really known a life where we haven’t had a Queen Elizabeth.
I’m conflicted. On the one hand I cannot stand the class element that the royal family incites—most especially after that utter cunt Andrew’s shenanigans—but appreciate that the brand from outside looking in is important, and not insignificant.Get schwifty. -
Raiziel wrote:What about every day life or even in the broader scheme of things would be different? She had no idea other than to repeat that it wouldn’t
Chuckie’s ugly mug on money and stamps which will make life in the UK at least 1or 2% worse. -
"God save the Queen" is literally the dumbest saying ever -
Diluted Dante wrote:davyK wrote:Do you really think I believe the monarchy organises flybys? It gives the occasional reason for one. Why else would be do them?
Iron Maiden had one at Download.
Bruce Dickinson actually did a flyby for one of his own shows at some point as well.
Excellent..
Holding the wrong end of the stick since 2009. -
Don't wank. Zinc in your sperms
-
IT'S COMING BACK APPARENTLY!Come with g if you want to live... -
...WITH STRACZYNSKI AT THE HELM TOO!Come with g if you want to live...
-
Experiment626 wrote:Blocks100 wrote:Constitutional crisis a go-go.
Not really. While the monarch provides royal assent to legislation, and gives permission to a party leader to form a government, they can’t really say no. Much of the monarch’s power is devolved and performed in their name, and if a monarch refused either of these things, it would conflict with the other processes. We really only pay lip service to being a constitutional monarchy, and when the leader of the majority party asks permission to form the Government, it’s a (pointless) formality.
The reason nobody is calling for her abdication is because it doesn’t remotely matter, even in the slightest, if she is capable of being a functioning head of state, because the ‘functioning’ part hasn’t mattered for some time. Incapable of giving royal assent? There’s not really anything stopping Charles from doing it in her name, because basically ever other function is performed by others in her name.
It’s a ceremonial position these days, and litttle more.
This is all very true, and I'd be hard pushed to disagree with anything you said there. However, if and when Charles has to start giving assent in lieu of the queen, he automatically gets labelled 'not good enough to be King' - a sort of stand in for his mum, who is never going to make the grade. Her refusal to abdicate is undermining his claim on the throne. Our 'constitutional experts' must be recognising this surely?
Of course, I couldn't give a monkeys about the whole damn lot of them. But I do recognise this jubilee charade for what it is: to stop us talking about the royal elephant in the throne room - why hasn't she abdicated yet?It wasn't until I hit my thirties that I realised you could unlock rewards by exploring the map -
His claim to the throne is that he was the first one out of the Queen's Vag. I'm not sure how much more our constitutional experts have to recognise.
-
She's going for gold, clearly. And slowly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest-reigning_monarchs
Best tweet: https://twitter.com/tristandross/status/1532389419801526272 -
Diluted Dante wrote:His claim to the throne is that he was the first one out of the Queen's Vag. I'm not sure how much more our constitutional experts have to recognise.
Exactly.
Escape wrote:She's going for gold, clearly. And slowly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest-reigning_monarchs
As much as I do want us to become a republic, I do become conflicted when I remember that not doing so for a couple more years means that we beat the French at something. -
Would being a republic really make any difference to us?
The big issue for me and how our country is run in the House of Lords. Don't know enough about consitutional law/arrangements - but having that somehow becoming a representative forum would make a great deal more sense to me.Holding the wrong end of the stick since 2009. -
Crown lands being returned to the public (rather than being sold off to the highest bidder) would be good.
It would also be positive to have the possibility of a head of state who isn’t a white toff in order to be able to better represent modern Britain.
As for the Lords, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the non-democratic stuff used to bother me, but I’m changing my mind on it. Generally speaking, I think that the Lords does a pretty good job at knocking out some of the worst aspects of government legislation, and I appreciate the fact that they do so without having to have one eye on re-election.
We should change the selection process so it’s not all just political appointees, I can see an argument for fixed terms too, but other than that, I think they function pretty well. -
It's going to end up abolishing itself through irrelevance. Even the most ardent of kneelers don't give a fuck about Charles. William seems like a pleasant enough man with no charisma. If his son grows up to be anything other than a piece of shit, he'd have done well. From here, it's an unbroken line of Aryan men until we're all dead.
I don't even think the Queen was that popular for a long time. Once she started becoming ancient people started to feel a bit differently about her because of her 'years of service' and 'duty' and whatever else. She gets a pass for stuff now. If Andrew had had his, ahem, legal trouble, 20 years ago and the Queen had paid his way out of it for him, they'd have all got it in the neck. But now it's all "poor Her Maj, having to deal with this in her special year". -
Blocks100 wrote:However, if and when Charles has to start giving assent in lieu of the queen, he automatically gets labelled 'not good enough to be King' - a sort of stand in for his mum, who is never going to make the grade. Her refusal to abdicate is undermining his claim on the throne. Our 'constitutional experts' must be recognising this surely?
I’m pretty certain that, like me, our constitutional experts wouldn’t have the slightest clue what you’re talking about. Monarchs generally reign until they die. Abdication is very rare. This whole notion that Queen Elizabeth II ‘should’ abdicate to give Charles a fair crack of the whip, or that Charles ‘should’ immediately abdicate when she dies so that William can have a lengthy reign, are flights of fancy of people who oddly think that a system in which the head of state is a birth right for one very strange family should have some sort of fairness or popularity contest applied to the time served in the top spot. If anything, it’s abdication that undermines the concept of what a monarch is. -
That’s all well and good but she needs to be able to perform her duties. The nation’s leisure centres aren’t going to open themselves.
-
What a lazy queen
-
g.man wrote:...WITH STRACZYNSKI AT THE HELM TOO!
Yass my son! This is the only one at it could credibly come back. But the OG is still top tier. -
Experiment626 wrote:.I’m pretty certain that, like me, our constitutional experts wouldn’t have the slightest clue what you’re talking about.
Ok, I see I'm going to have to explain this to you with the aid of pictures:
When his Mum sends her hat to essentially open parliament, and the son takes a nervous sideways glance before delivering his government's speech, he must be thinking 'what on earth is it going to take for me to ever be crowned King? - does she have to die first?!'
And whilst people like yourself would answer 'Yes!', that's kind of missing the point:
The Queen is incapacitated and wholly incapable of performing even the basic functions of state. And whilst we can both agree that those functions are largely meaningless, they become 'meaningful' when you have the future monarch looking rather pathetic in parliament, wondering how he's been out done by a bejewelled hat.
The scene depicted in this picture is what we commonly refer to as 'symbolism'.
By refusing to abdicate and sending her hat to do the talking, it's symbolic of the utter lack of faith she has in her son to take over the job, which she can no longer physically perform. Which fatally undermines the succession and his right to crowned King.
While abdication may be a historical rarity, the absence of it in this case imperils the institution.
An 'institution' I don't give a flying fuck for mind you. But what I do care for is the why the national media is burying the abdication issue under a tonne of Jubilee tubthumping.
It wasn't until I hit my thirties that I realised you could unlock rewards by exploring the map
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Discussions2,718
- Games1,881
- Off topic837