BFC_BFC_BFC
Well-known member
Stockholm SyndromeStill here posting though ...... Stockholm syndrome
Stockholm SyndromeStill here posting though ...... Stockholm syndrome
Bit unfair that on Imposter BASIL as they'll only have two members left and one of those is Triggers broomKeep the Royal Family and get rid of all the champagne socialists, hippies, refugees and snowflakes.
And ? Im Fully aware of what it is.
Why the question marks????
Ah OK... It just seemed odd that you chose to reference me being on here with it...And ? Im Fully aware of what it is.
Ha ha ha now I’m oppressed go away you clownAh OK... It just seemed odd that you chose to reference me being on here with it...
It's hardly the same thing as voting in favour of your own oppressors is it?
Good points.Don't understand why those who want a republic are making an issue of this now. The Queen is still very popular but she'll be dead soon. There is no way Charles will command the affection and respect people have for her majesty, more likely I can see him being deeply unpopular. I can also see Canada, Australia and New Zealand getting rid of the monarchy once Elizabeth is gone. It is also possible that this could all be happening in the middle of the break up of the UK.
If an interview with Harry and Meghan by Oprah causes the amount of kerfuffle and questions being asked about the monarchy's future then imagine what things will be like in these circumstances. If you want rid of the royals you need to bide your time.
Of course you are oppressed, you’re a subject of the queen... her bitch as it were. You exist to keep her in the style she has become accustomed to.Ha ha ha now I’m oppressed go away you clown
Hahaha yeah okOf course you are oppressed, you’re a subject of the queen... her bitch as it were. You exist to keep her in the style she has become accustomed to.
Ignorance is bliss....Hahaha yeah ok
Your views are merited but keep it calm x3.Ignorance is bliss....
A fact that the ** gluttons living off your back rely upon
I doubt they would bow to you - Yet you sing songs to glorify them, when they wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire and literally look down on you like you are scum.
Yet... You're not oppressed
Like I said - It's Stockholm Syndrome
I'm always calm 1966....Your views are merited but keep it calm x3.
You seem a touch rattledIgnorance is bliss....
A fact that the ** gluttons living off your back rely upon
I doubt they would bow to you - Yet you sing songs to glorify them, when they wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire and literally look down on you like you are scum.
Yet... You're not oppressed
Like I said - It's Stockholm Syndrome
You are correct about the denial of absolute power to anyone else but, (pedantic point): the Monarch does have Constitutional Power. No legislation can be enacted without the assent of all three parts of Parliament - Commons, Lords and Monarch.There may be a subtle justification for having a head of state who is hereditary but with little or no power constitutionally. The monarch is a figurehead but the main purpose of a monarch who has no constitutional power is to deny absolute power to anybody else. The monarch’s purpose is to deny the rise of a dictator in the UK. It’s one of the reasons the armed forces swear allegiance to the non-political monarch and why many RF members are nominal Colonels-in-Chief of regiments.
That came about a long time ago, when Oliver Cromwell died and in the years that followed up to 1689 when it was formalised. Nowadays with democracy firmly embedded and universal suffrage it seems less crucial. But it was less than 100 years ago that Mosley was jackbooting his way through London in imitation of his hero.
I agree somewhat in terms of notional formalities. But the moment the monarch actually exercised their constitutional power in their own right, according to their own opinion, they would lose it. We came indirectly close to that when HMQ’s representative, the Governor-General of Australia dismissed their PM, Gough Whitlam in 1975. There was a strong rise in Aussie republicanism, as if HMQ was thought to be directly responsible.You are correct about the denial of absolute power to anyone else but, (pedantic point): the Monarch does have Constitutional Power. No legislation can be enacted without the assent of all three parts of Parliament - Commons, Lords and Monarch.
It’s dangerous ground as per the last time the monarchy was removed.I am ambivalent about the royals, I see how they can be helpful at times as the non-political figureheads, but it is a totally anachronistic institution. Barmy and populated by strange people.
However, for us to get rid of them, it might take a very fractious, dangerous and potentially violent upheaval. I don’t think this country has the maturity to do such a thing peacefully. Just look what the Brexit vote brought in the two different camps. An attempt to abolish the monarchy would be 100 or 1000 times worse.
The French had the right idea, they don't put up with class nonsense.
The last time, the monarch was guilty of treasonous behaviour and rightly executed under his own laws. His treason ? Conspiring with a foreign power (Scotland) to send their army into England and also raising an Irish army to overthrow Parliament. It took much treasonous provocation over 7 years from Charles I before he was eventually put on trial. But as ever, the real underlying reason was money and the dispute that the King had in petitioning for large funds, as only Parliament could raise substantial taxes from the people.It’s dangerous ground as per the last time the monarchy was removed.