Police to investigate Prince Charles' charity over honours

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Replace it with nothing, we don't need a President and we've neglected the commonwealth so long in favour of the EU that they no longer need us and with the monarchy gone the Lords and outdated class system/ old school tie can sod off with them

I think we might need some sort of Head of State. The Prime Minister isn't one and the Monarch's role may be ceremonial but the actions she takes would need to be taken by someone.

Most likely scenario if we ever did get rid of the Monarchy is an elected ceremonial head of state as Ireland does.

Back to the thread generally, I don't see how this is 'nothing to do with Charles' as some have suggested. He may have nothing to do with it after the investigation is done but it's his charity and he is connected to the honours system. There is obviously something to be looked at there.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Replace it with nothing, we don't need a President and we've neglected the commonwealth so long in favour of the EU that they no longer need us and with the monarchy gone the Lords and outdated class system/ old school tie can sod off with them

Very thoughtful…

---------- Post added at 13:45 ---------- Previous post was at 13:43 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

I think we might need some sort of Head of State. The Prime Minister isn't one and the Monarch's role may be ceremonial but the actions she takes would need to be taken by someone.

Most likely scenario if we ever did get rid of the Monarchy is an elected ceremonial head of state as Ireland does.

Back to the thread generally, I don't see how this is 'nothing to do with Charles' as some have suggested. He may have nothing to do with it after the investigation is done but it's his charity and he is connected to the honours system. There is obviously something to be looked at there.

As I said, Prince Charles will have to apologise on behalf of the charity. I doubt very much that he would have been personally involved.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Very thoughtful…

More thoughtful than kowtowing and cap doffing, I bet you love all that stuff, knowing your place, never questioning their authority over you no matter how abhorrent their behaviour

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

More thoughtful than kowtowing and cap doffing

What century are you living in

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Paul

What century are you living in

Exactly, what century are we living in where a class system and what school you go to matter more than ability and aptitude

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

More thoughtful than kowtowing and cap doffing, I bet you love all that stuff, knowing your place, never questioning their authority over you no matter how abhorrent their behaviour

No, I am comparing systems, and antiquated though it may seem in the present day, it just works.

You’d have to bring in something pretty special to replace it. President Farage? Now there’s a thought!

---------- Post added at 17:07 ---------- Previous post was at 17:06 ----------

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Exactly, what century are we living in where a class system and what school you go to matter more than ability and aptitude

Well, it’s the voter who decides who to vote for, not ‘the system’.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

No, I am comparing systems, and antiquated though it may seem in the present day, it just works

It works for those who benefit from it that is, the wealthy and privileged. Monarchy is a construct that belongs in the past. No-one is born to be a ruler of others. I am surprised that you cannot see this?

---------- Post added at 18:38 ---------- Previous post was at 18:33 ----------

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Exactly, what century are we living in where a class system and what school you go to matter more than ability and aptitude

You have put your finger of the issue: the Monarchy is the keystone of the class system. Without it, the advantage through who you know, who you are born to and where you went to school/college would slowly dissipate.

The irony is that those who support the system are just shilling for the privileged & wealthy who literally do not know and do not care that they even exist.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by ianch99

It works for those who benefit from it that is, the wealthy and privileged. Monarchy is a construct that belongs in the past. No-one is born to be a ruler of others. I am surprised that you cannot see this?.

Bloody hell, ianch, when we’re you ever get suppressed by the Royal Family?

You talk nonsense. The monarchy is benign as far as the general population is concerned, but it is very beneficial to us all in smoothing relations with countries who may have issues with the government of the day and is constitutionally responsible for our Armed Forces, who can be ordered to bring the government to heel if it exceeds its authority.

It is a delicate balance and we interfere with it at our peril.

---------- Post added at 20:42 ---------- Previous post was at 20:39 ----------

Originally Posted by ianch99

You have put your finger of the issue: the Monarchy is the keystone of the class system. Without it, the advantage through who you know, who you are born to and where you went to school/college would slowly dissipate.

The irony is that those who support the system are just shilling for the privileged & wealthy who literally do not know and do not care that they even exist.

Every society has its upper, privileged tier. It was ever thus, even with Soviet Russia. It is the same with Communist China. It’s there because it works.

It tends to be those who fail to achieve who tend to revolt against the system. They would do better if they just tried harder. This is not Victorian times. Everyone has opportunity. At least in this country.

Be careful what you wish for.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Bloody hell, ianch, when we’re you ever get suppressed by the Royal Family?

You talk nonsense. The monarchy is benign as far as the general population is concerned, but it is very beneficial to us all in smoothing relations with countries who may have issues with the government of the day and is constitutionally responsible for our Armed Forces, who can be ordered to bring the government to heel if it exceeds its authority.

It is a delicate balance and we interfere with it at our peril.

---------- Post added at 20:42 ---------- Previous post was at 20:39 ----------




Every society has its upper, privileged tier. It was ever thus, even with Soviet Russia. It is the same with Communist China. It’s there because it works.

It tends to be those who fail to achieve who tend to revolt against the system. They would do better if they just tried harder. This is not Victorian times. Everyone has opportunity.

I wish to retain the monarchy for constitutional reasons. The basis of our common law resides therein.

I will treat Charlie's reign as a dumbed down version of Boris in the sense that he'll spout off on his various obsessions. But the institution is valuable as OB has described.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I wish to retain the monarchy for constitutional reasons. The basis of our common law resides therein.

I will treat Charlie's reign as a dumbed down version of Boris in the sense that he'll spout off on his various obsessions. But the institution is valuable as OB has described.

It's value is subjective and is seen through a lens of historical conditioning. There is no objective merit in proposing a system where an individual is appointed by God to rule. The construct belongs to the past.

There is no "value" to the ordinary citizen, quite the opposite. The class system that the Monarch underwrites is the vehicle that actively limits the ability for people to progress on merit.

The Yanks saw through this charade 250 years ago but we still pretend ..

---------- Post added at 22:07 ---------- Previous post was at 22:05 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It tends to be those who fail to achieve who tend to revolt against the system. They would do better if they just tried harder. This is not Victorian times. Everyone has opportunity. At least in this country.

Be careful what you wish for.

Are you saying I have "failed to achieve"?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Bloody hell, ianch, when we’re you ever get suppressed by the Royal Family?

You talk nonsense. The monarchy is benign as far as the general population is concerned, but it is very beneficial to us all in smoothing relations with countries who may have issues with the government of the day and is constitutionally responsible for our Armed Forces, who can be ordered to bring the government to heel if it exceeds its authority.

It is a delicate balance and we interfere with it at our peril.

---------- Post added at 20:42 ---------- Previous post was at 20:39 ----------



Every society has its upper, privileged tier. It was ever thus, even with Soviet Russia. It is the same with Communist China. It’s there because it works.

It tends to be those who fail to achieve who tend to revolt against the system. They would do better if they just tried harder. This is not Victorian times. Everyone has opportunity. At least in this country.

Be careful what you wish for.

Yes, why can’t they do as well as someone whose parents could send them to private schools, then used connections to get them into Oxbridge/Durham/Exeter/Russell Group Unis, then the same connections/influence to launch/progress their careers - if only if they had tried harder, they could have had these parents…

How about we get back to the subject.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by ianch99

The Yanks saw through this charade 250 years ago but we still pretend ..

You think there is no class system in the US?

Getting rid of the monarchy would not change anyones life in the U.K. for the better, and could possibly make some lives worse.

Don’t get me wrong the monarchy can, and should, be continuously scrutinised and reformed. I don’t know what the civil list is nowadays, or even if there is one, but lesser royals should only be renumerated based on the amount of civil duties they perform.