Are you a Royalist ?

Well look to Europe to see some of the worst examples of Presidents .So many accusations of corruption,licentiousness and greed..
Yes the Royal Family are not perfect but their peccadilloes are nothing in comparison to say Silvio Berlusconi.

[LondonRoad]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

.So many accusations of corruption,licentiousness and greed..
Yes the Royal Family are not perfect .

Sorted that for you

Originally Posted by LondonRoad

Sorted that for you

My assumption therefore would be that you are not one?

[Ramrod]

That royal barge was an embarrassment.......looked like a gilded floating bathtub

[LondonRoad]

Originally Posted by jempalmer

My assumption therefore would be that you are not one?

A perfectionist? You assume wrongly, that's whey I edited

[georgepomone]

I vote in favour of the Monarchy only because they keep the position of Head of State occupied. This prevents some numpty being voted in as President. Sadly this goes wrong with our next step. I can't help feeling there are going to be problems with Charles stepping into position.

[AdamD]

The monarchy these days seems little more than a novelty for this country, but it does have crowd pulling potential, which can only be a good thing for tourism and the economy

Plus the high profile status of the royals and their support for charities, does seem to help with fund raising and whatnot.

So it might as well be kept.

My oath stands as much to me now as it did when i took it so yes i am in complete favour of them. We often see as a means of attack on the royals "what do they do" and the answer is they do a hell of a lot for this country but don't shout it from the rooftops our economy has benefited a lot from the personal interventions of senior royals over the years and they continue to work in the countrys interest now. Hell if our politicians took the same attitude we might actually solve some of our problems.

[alferret]

No I am not a Royalist. But I will take the extra day off of work. Thank you ma'am.

Originally Posted by georgepomone

I vote in favour of the Monarchy only because they keep the position of Head of State occupied. This prevents some numpty being voted in as President. Sadly this goes wrong with our next step. I can't help feeling there are going to be problems with Charles stepping into position.

Can I ask why you dislike Charles so much?What in particular has he done to make so many suspicious of his ability to be a good king?

Originally Posted by LondonRoad

A perfectionist? You assume wrongly, that's whey I edited

No, a Royalist haha

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Can I ask why you dislike Charles so much?What in particular has he done to make so many suspicious of his ability to be a good king?

The British monarchy has survived into the 21st century by transforming itself from a political leader of the nation to being a moral leader. Elizabeth II is an exemplar of hard work, service and devotion (which is why all the republican whingeing bounces off her, and the institution she heads, like arrows off tank armour). Charles will no doubt perform his constitutional duties perfectly well, but he is not held in the same esteem as his mother because he is judged to be the villain of the piece so far as his marriage to, and divorce from, Diana is concerned.

Personally I have no doubt that he should be king when Elizabeth eventually dies because that is how the system works. If we select a monarch on a short-term measure of public popularity, we no longer have a hereditary monarchy, just some awful constitutional x-factor contest. But he will have to work doubly hard to earn the same respect his mother has ( except in Scotland, oddly, where the notion of the crown passing directly to William attracts less support in opinion polls than it does in England).

Originally Posted by Chris

The British monarchy has survived into the 21st century by transforming itself from a political leader of the nation to being a moral leader. Elizabeth II is an exemplar of hard work, service and devotion (which is why all the republican whingeing bounces off her, and the institution she heads, like arrows off tank armour). Charles will no doubt perform his constitutional duties perfectly well, but he is not held in the same esteem as his mother because he is judged to be the villain of the piece so far as his marriage to, and divorce from, Diana is concerned.

Personally I have no doubt that he should be king when Elizabeth eventually dies because that is how the system works. If we select a monarch on a short-term measure of public popularity, we no longer have a hereditary monarchy, just some awful constitutional x-factor contest. But he will have to work doubly hard to earn the same respect his mother has ( except in Scotland, oddly, where the notion of the crown passing directly to William attracts less support in opinion polls than it does in England).

Well it takes two to make or break a marriage.Some people would do well to reflect that someone should have taken a good long look at the pair of them before commending the pairing.They were pretty incompatible in many areas.She hated all the activities that the Royal Family enjoy such as horses and fishing/hunting and country activities.He wasn't that keen on ballet and nightclubs.She was not his first choice as we all know but the desperate need for an heir led to him having to choose a younger woman to ensure an heir to the throne because of pressure from all sides.Sadly she could not shake off an unhappy childhood due to her parent's divorce.Yes his affair perhaps wasn't wise but the heart wants what the heart wants and he is not the first member of the family who didn't marry wisely and he won't be the last.Diana wasn't a paragon of virtue by any means and she should never,never have married a man almost twice her age.I wonder who was giving her any advice at the time because if they encouraged her they did her a disservice.

Now where did I put that flame retardant suit?

I have no doubt, Maggy, not least because I used to work for someone who was directly involved with the Royal household at the time, was in a position to know, and, despite being very discreet whenever we tried to get anecdotes out of him, would say that "when she was good, she was very, very good - but when she was bad, she was very, very bad."

I have no doubt that modern royals are not the exception ,i daresay that past royals got up to similar shenanigans but wasn't widely publicized A) because of the status of the royals in those times and B) because it was easier to keep your private life private