Originally Posted by Hom3r (Post 36184622)

Sorry but the people are idiots.

He is your King and will remain you King while you live in this country or are a member of a Commonwealth country.

If you emigrate to another non commonwealth country and become a citizen and renounce the original only then can you say "Not my King"

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36184624)

What if you steal that country from a people who have lived there for 65,000 years

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36184624)

What if you steal that country from a people who have lived there for 65,000 years

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36184638)

Only a matter of time. Unfortunately for the monarchy, Australia is a democracy.
Might only be a matter of time here too.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36184624)

What if you steal that country from a people who have lived there for 65,000 years

Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36184652)

Who has lived anywhere for 65,000 years ?

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36184638)

Only a matter of time. Unfortunately for the monarchy, Australia is a democracy.
Might only be a matter of time here too.

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36184638)

Only a matter of time. Unfortunately for the monarchy, Australia is a democracy.
Might only be a matter of time here too.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36184647)

Be worth it to topple the class system they sit on top off.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36184657)

To imagine that the social networks of the braying toffs who inhabit places like the Henley Regatta and Ascot will somehow topple in the absence of the royal family is … naive.



She has been condemned by a good few Aboriginal leaders as well.

Leaving aside the semantics of whether Charles is king of the people or the country, Australia has, inconveniently for her, held a referendum on this issue well within the last generation. The country remains, by democratic choice, a constitutional monarchy. Charles is King of Australia and that’s all there is to it.

Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36184658)

Slightly stacked against the aboriginal population by a ratio of 26-1.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36184657)

To imagine that the social networks of the braying toffs who inhabit places like the Henley Regatta and Ascot will somehow topple in the absence of the royal family is … naive.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36184663)

There's nothing naive about wanting people to get ahead on merit rather than because of what school they went to, the problem isn't with yachting and horse racing

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36184663)

There's nothing naive about wanting people to get ahead on merit rather than because of what school they went to, the problem isn't with yachting and horse racing

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36184664)

So true.

If you remove the monarchy, the system that it is the keystone of will not crumble overnight. It will, however, degrade over time. The removal of the structures e.g. titles, honours, etc. that the monarchy underwrites will eventually lead to a society where you progress more through your own efforts rather that the fortune (or otherwise) of your ancestors.

The other benefit is the decoupling of the church and state. Imposing a chosen theological norm on a modern democracy is so outdated.

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36184664)

The removal of the structures e.g. titles, honours, etc. that the monarchy underwrites will eventually lead to a society where you progress more through your own efforts rather that the fortune (or otherwise) of your ancestors.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36184666)

Which I didn’t say. ;)

What I said was, assuming that that system of informal patronage enjoyed by the upper echelons of the class system would crumble *just because* of the absence of the monarchy is naive, because it is. This isn’t Bridgerton, social life for toffs and aristos doesn’t revolve around, or depend upon, life at court.

---------- Post added at 16:17 ---------- Previous post was at 16:09 ----------



The World Economic Forum disagrees with you. ;)

6 of the top 10 countries in their global social mobility index are constitutional monarchies. The UK stands at 21 in the global rankings; the USA, which notably fought a war to remove itself from British Crown influence, is 27th.

https://www3.weforum.org/docs/Global...ity_Report.pdf

All of these countries, including the USA, have formal systems of patronage as well as a multitude of unseen, informal social networks through which the rich and powerful keep the wealth and the power amongst themselves and those they approve of.

Remove the monarchy and watch how it makes absolutely zero difference to any of that, in 5, 10 or 50 years.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36184678)

Can’t remember … after a decade or so they decided it wasn’t such a great idea after all and invited the monarchy back. ;)

Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36184680)

The points you fail to address are ones of principle & fairness. These goals are ones we should strive for as well as wealth & success.

Originally Posted by thenry (Post 36184810)

I believe people are just sad there's no Queen Diana. The stunning lady made hearts skip a beat, a powerful lady. Neither King Charles nor Queen Camilla possess such power.