Time for a Republic?
 

Why are and the media (and we?) so obsessed with all this royal crap? There are so many bigger issues, cost of living, climate change, nhs, war in Ukraine.

Yet many papers and news channels, not just tabloids, keep leading with Harry's book and the latest Royal self-indulgent twaddle.
E.g. the Torygraph has led on it for several days, despite their commentators saying ignore Harry! Hypocritical or what? Trying to distract from the real issues going on the country maybe?

Just another example why this country is going down the pan.

I never used to be particularly a republican or royalist. Used to think on balance they were worth it to the country , but that time has gone. We'd be better off without them, particularly now the only worthwhile Royal has gone.

Re: Time for a Republic?
 

President Fishi Rishi?????? Think I'd rather have acupuncture with 6" nails.

Re: Time for a Republic?
 

Good point, maybe we could have a separate president/pm like Ireland.

Re: Time for a Republic?
 

Doesn't follow that we'd automatically need a president, other countries get by just fine with a pm in charge

Re: Time for a Republic?
 

Such as?

Re: Time for a Republic?
 

We could start a trend, others like South Africa get by with a president and no pm so why not vice versa.

Re: Time for a Republic?
 

Chile, Mexico, Switzerland and the United States have only president. No prime minister (googled it)

Re: Time for a Republic?
 

How will it make a difference? I do think having a monarchy makes more than it costs

https://www.investmentmonitor.ai/fea...%2012%20months.

Re: Time for a Republic?
 

There are two essential tasks performed at the top of any modern nation state - head of state and head of government. These positions may or may not be held by the same person and one or other of them may be partially or entirely ceremonial in nature, as executive functions may be located in one sphere or the other. Exactly what you call the roles is a secondary issue. Kim Jong Un is styled ‘Supreme Leader’ rather than ‘king’ but nonetheless he is a hereditary monarch with absolute power not unlike some former European kings (notably in France, and that ultimately didn’t end well for them). The powers of the President of the USA are not unlike those of a British constitutional monarch of the 18th century, though they are defined by a written constitution rather than a millennium of tradition and precedent.

Re: Time for a Republic?
 

And how many of them are non-political in nature and would fit in with our current system of having a Parliament.

Having different Executive and Legislative branches of government would mean a big upheaval and shift in power.

Re: Time for a Republic?
 

I do wish the media would just ignore Mr & Mrs Bratt.
However, just because some spoilt brat, full of his own (apparent) self importance, is whinging about how "poorly" he was treated, I dont really think we need big changes to the way the country functions.

Re: Time for a Republic?
 

We talking about Harry or Boris? ;)

Re: Time for a Republic?
 

Harry is giving out intimate details of the inner goings on of an institution of the sort that is very rarely seen or heard. There’s no way they’re going to ignore it, especially not when there’s a market for it.

As for his self importance, well there we disagree - he’s suffered serious childhood trauma (divorce, death of a parent, public glare, weight of expectation and a frequently distant father). No amount of nice dinners or palaces can remedy that. He has needed, and has clearly not had, serious input from mental health professionals.

What we’re seeing now is the self-destructive behaviour of an adult with unresolved juvenile trauma. If he’d grown up in depravation the manner of his self-destruction would probably have been drugs and crime. A ‘respectable’ middle class upbringing would probably have helped keep a lid on overt bad behaviour but it might eventually have manifested itself in a series of abusive adult relationships. As it is, his tendencies have been kept locked away for as long as he was within the family fold or away on military service and under military discipline. Now he’s married to someone with a purely Hollywood-inspired outlook, you see the results. Not that this is Megan’s fault; just that his marriage to an American actress inevitably moulds the way in which his damaged psyche finds voice.

These are all generalisations of course but this is what happens to the children of broken, abusive homes, time and time again.

Re: Time for a Republic?
 

As long as the public are interested it is clickbait heaven for the media. It will continue until the public lose interest.

Re: Time for a Republic?
 

I am not a Republican but one of the better arguments for it is for the family itself. The institution really seems to do a number on many of them, Prince Harry is far from the first Royal that has struggled with the role and the attention that comes with it.

They're typically thought of as being incredibly privileged but it's a weird privilege where you get all the wealth you'll ever need but your life has been decided for you, you have to perform to the whims of an entire nation and it Government while all your transgressions are national news.

Re: Time for a Republic?
 

There's lot of people in the country that struggle more than the Royals. However we don't always hear about all their issues....

The royals could resign and lead a quiet life. Few do and those that tend to give tv interviews/ write books, then complain about privacy. Harry's no worse than the rest of them , and the abuse and racial hatred and media campaign against his wife is obscene, but they aren't totally blameless.

The whole lot of them are irrelevant to the issues facing Britain today. Get rid and move on. Call it 'taking back control' if you like. Where' s Oliver Cromwell when you need him ?

Re: Time for a Republic?
 

Charles has said he wants to cull the royal family even more, which is a good thing IMO.

I think that Charles realises that the appetite for the monarchy is waning (especially now that the Queen has died), so looks to be trying to look to be dealing with this by having a lower key Coronation, getting rid of more of the hangers on etc.

Re: Time for a Republic?
 

Those in the direct line of the throne can't easily resign, especially not multiple ones. It causes chaos and they know it. They must be under incredible pressure, maybe even guilt, to do the task they're told they're born to do.

I think it's the case that neither George VI nor Elizabeth II initially relished the prospect, as far as we can tell anyway.

Re: Time for a Republic?
 

Even more reason to get rid of the monarchy of its too much stress for the poor poppets. A nice job in Poundland and the minimum wage will be a great relief to them.

Re: Time for a Republic?
 

Mate - get over it.

Kate’s taken…

Re: Time for a Republic?
 

The Palace of versailles gets many, many more visitors than Buckingham Palace, millions more and there's sod all in it, certainly no royals, people don't come here to catch a glimpse of a royal, well a few oddballs aside maybe, they come here in spite of them not because of them

It's much more complicated than just abolishing the royal family and tbh I could stomach them if they were trimmed right back, it's the class system they sit at the top of that I would like to see gone, old school ties and knowing lord blah is so 18th century

It's not Kate he's after it's Fergie :Yikes:

Re: Time for a Republic?
 

Well, he’s up for it… ;)

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...7&d=1673170428

Re: Time for a Republic?
 

Looking at the republics around the globe I pass.Might as well stay with what we know.

Re: Time for a Republic?
 

There are so many reasons why the Monarchy should go. The construct is an historical anachronism. If you hold it up and apply a moral, ethical and societal analysis, it quickly falls apart. Why is it still here you might ask? Well, most people, for a variety of reasons, do not challenge its right & validity to exist and so it lives on, primarily through inertia.

Why might many not challenge the status quo? Well, as a context, we are brought up in a country that sells the monarch as a benign, benevolent and harmless entity. We are groomed to think that this is a necessary part of our society and so why would we challenge it? There is no education through our childhood that discusses the pros & cons of monarchy and encourages us to think objectively on the subject. Moreover, the PR machine that has been refined over centuries does a very good job. It is a well oiled machine which only in recent years, have the wheels started to come off it. The spin of the monarchy being a necessary presence in our lives, painted onto a backdrop of rose-tinted Empire nostalgia, simply encourages the majority not to even question things or ask the important questions.

So to the moral, ethical and societal issues:

- no one has the right to demand and receive deference from their fellow citizens. You could get away with it when you were a feudal overlord, ruling over indentured serfs but I would like to think we have moved on from this position.
- no one is born, appointed by God, to reign over a democratic society. You might have that personal delusion but tolerating it from such an individual is just ridiculous
- no one should have the power and privilege to intercept proposed laws before that are put to the Commons and make changes beneficial to the Crown
- no one should literally own the coastal seafloor so that they receive money from allowing the installation & use of wind power turbines
- the Crown is the keystone in the arch of our very real, and powerful, class system. It binds the system together and formalises the various tiers of society that engineer wealth, privilege and advantage for a small minority. This then perpetuates the "glass ceilings" that so many encounter when trying to rise through society. As long as you go to the "right" school, go to the "right" university and, ideally, comes from the "right" family, your prosperous future, and that of your children, is virtually guaranteed. The very opposite of a free meritocracy.
- I personally think that an individual whose personal wealth is approaching £1 billion should not assume the position of head of a Christian church whose primary teachings abhor obscene wealth.
- the demand we have to insist that children are born into a life where that must live in a privileged & gilded cage where they cannot not openly express opinions or defend their decision is perverse. Of course, when you do, as in Harry's case, you are hounded & demonised by the Right Wing press operating as a proxy for the "system"
- lastly, the current incarnation of the royal family is fast approaching a freak show: we have Andrew the nonce who, as far as we know, had his victim paid off by tax payer's money. It turns out that the Commons is not allow to debate the question of who paid off his victim. You then have the very weird spectacle of people who have queued for hours at Balmoral when the Royal Family walks past them as if they do not exist. What motivates people to do this?

In terms of replacing the head of state, let not perfection be the enemy of the good ...

Re: Time for a Republic?
 

So, your not a fan then.

Re: Time for a Republic?
 

Harry certainly has hit the self-destruct button.

Re: Time for a Republic?
 

The whole lot of them have been pressing self destruct for the last 30 years. Kiddy fiddler Andrew, adulterers Charles and Di, Racist Philip, toe licking Fergie, Nazi dressed Harry, countless failed marriages/affairs.... Its as if they haven't got enough to do and are accountable to nobody.

Yet we love all this and are glad to pay for it. Endless books, gutter press, TV series etc... What a waste of time and money.

Meanwhile the real issues in the country have to take a back seat. We are starting to become the laughing stock of the world.

Re: Time for a Republic?
 

Nonce's victim was only gagged for a year, there's a big brown storm gathering right now that even James Hewitt's son can't compete with.

---------- Post added at 14:55 ---------- Previous post was at 14:53 ----------

The man's obsessed with her


Will's made him do that