- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Do the British still love the queen and monarchy?
Posted on 11/19/20 at 9:03 pm
Posted on 11/19/20 at 9:03 pm
I wonder if the younger generation still has the same affection for the crown that generations before them did?
24
Posted on 11/19/20 at 9:04 pm to thadcastle
Appears they still do.
I'm only basing my opinion on a 10 second google search and not a board based in the southern US though.
I'm only basing my opinion on a 10 second google search and not a board based in the southern US though.
This post was edited on 11/19/20 at 9:06 pm
Posted on 11/19/20 at 9:13 pm to thadcastle
I would think most do because that’s all they have ever know, but I don’t think the whole monarchy thing is long for this world.
Posted on 11/19/20 at 9:15 pm to thadcastle
Constitutional monarchies are essentially parliamentary, semi-presidential republics but without the headache of a quadrennial election. The British monarch holds no real power.*
As Head of State, Elizabeth II is still a popular symbol of the British State. When Charles and William ascend to the throne, I imagine there will be greater calls for British Republicanism.
(*I mean technically, the monarch is capable under the (uncodified) British Constitution to dissolve Parliament at her whim. The only thing that keeps her from ever doing it is the realization that it would lead to a mass revolt that would end the monarchy. So, again, the monarchy is effectively in a stable state in which its sole purpose is to act as a respectable and dignified Head of State, which, again, won't last when Charles and William ascend to the throne.)
As Head of State, Elizabeth II is still a popular symbol of the British State. When Charles and William ascend to the throne, I imagine there will be greater calls for British Republicanism.
(*I mean technically, the monarch is capable under the (uncodified) British Constitution to dissolve Parliament at her whim. The only thing that keeps her from ever doing it is the realization that it would lead to a mass revolt that would end the monarchy. So, again, the monarchy is effectively in a stable state in which its sole purpose is to act as a respectable and dignified Head of State, which, again, won't last when Charles and William ascend to the throne.)
This post was edited on 11/19/20 at 9:20 pm
Posted on 11/19/20 at 9:16 pm to thadcastle
I'd say yes considering the queen is apparently fricking immortal
Posted on 11/19/20 at 9:17 pm to soccerfüt
quote:
soccerfüt
YOU MOTHERfrickER
Posted on 11/19/20 at 9:22 pm to UndercoverBryologist
quote:
which, again, won't last when Charles and William ascend to the throne.)
Why? Because they’re men?
Posted on 11/19/20 at 9:22 pm to thadcastle
The Brits have the right idea separating the head of state role away from the head of government.
Prime Ministers come and go and do the dirty work of governing and enacting the political desires a majority of the public wants done but the King or Queen is the never changing face and symbol of the country that unites all tribes whether it be political, class, religious or ethnic. They unite behind that.
I wish something like that was possible here in America. The "not my President nonsense" in 2016 is a great example of how giving both roles to POTUS can be problematic.
Prime Ministers come and go and do the dirty work of governing and enacting the political desires a majority of the public wants done but the King or Queen is the never changing face and symbol of the country that unites all tribes whether it be political, class, religious or ethnic. They unite behind that.
I wish something like that was possible here in America. The "not my President nonsense" in 2016 is a great example of how giving both roles to POTUS can be problematic.
Posted on 11/19/20 at 9:25 pm to jlovel7
quote:
Why? Because they’re men?
Well, in the case of Charles, it's because he's a clown show.
William I might be a little too hard on. He might not be as clownish as his dad. But Elizabeth II's death is likely to be the beginning of a fervent push amongst people allied with British Republicanism (Labour, Liberal-Democrats, etc.) to push for the abolition of the monarchy.
Posted on 11/19/20 at 9:27 pm to thadcastle
No they love Muhammed and Allah now
Posted on 11/19/20 at 9:28 pm to UndercoverBryologist
From what little I know, they are okay with that. Money is no issue, and I was reading the Queen is having a hard time finding someone who wants it.
Posted on 11/19/20 at 9:30 pm to thadcastle
Yep. They do.
I have no issue with this.
The parliament makes the decisions and the king and queen and just figure heads.
I have no issue with this.
The parliament makes the decisions and the king and queen and just figure heads.
Posted on 11/19/20 at 9:33 pm to thadcastle
What's budgeted for the Royal family?? 50 million pounds?? That's chump change in the grand scheme of things to have a distraction from the shitty life of a typical Brit.
Posted on 11/19/20 at 9:34 pm to UndercoverBryologist
quote:
Well, in the case of Charles, it's because he's a clown show.
Right.
If the British monarchy is to sustain itself and survive, it's important that Charles' reign is as short as it possibly can be.
Charles is too political to serve as King.
quote:
William I might be a little too hard on. He might not be as clownish as his dad.
That's selling him short.
IIRC, he's way more popular than Charles and people actually would prefer if Charles abdicates in favor of William but that's not going to happen as abdication is taboo as far as the British royals are concerned and they're nothing like the Dutch and Spanish who are comfortable with abdication.
William is just less popular than Elizabeth II which is something.
Posted on 11/19/20 at 9:37 pm to Sentrius
Maybe Charles fricks around and gets himself beheaded like his namesake did
Posted on 11/19/20 at 9:40 pm to Sentrius
I don’t really care. None of these people affect my life. I’m not into royalty and that BS. Must be nice to have money though just for being born.
Posted on 11/19/20 at 9:40 pm to Trout Bandit
quote:
the shitty life of a typical Brit.
Ha, whut? Have you ever spent any time the the UK?
Posted on 11/19/20 at 9:44 pm to lazy
Unrelated, has anyone ever had a proper English breakfast?
This post was edited on 11/19/20 at 9:53 pm
Posted on 11/19/20 at 9:45 pm to thadcastle
The royals now ain't edward 1. They ant shite
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News