God save the King

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
plodder
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2981
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: God save the King

Post by plodder » Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:21 pm

sheldrake wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:01 pm
I think it can be done peacefully if a government that had it in their manifesto was elected. Just pass laws that take away all of the residual power, civil list, crown property etc..

You'd be left with a wealthy private family wih houses in Balmoral, Sandringham etc.. that some people would doubtless continue referring to as the monarchy, but I think they'd stop being the head of state in any legal sense.

eta: you could of course confiscate the private wealth too if so minded and it was in the manifesto.
The monarch signs the legislation to make it law. It's easy to imagine a situation where a cowering venal Charles refuses to hand over his baubles and power, where he's protected by loyal moron Beefeaters and James Bonds, where the disgusting prime minister refuses to force the issue because he's a c.nt, and where an angry mob of reasonable people finish the job off.

plodder
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2981
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: God save the King

Post by plodder » Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:21 pm

El Pollo Diablo wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:09 pm
It would require popular support for the monarchy to plummet to depths they haven't seen for a long time, and for a decent duration as well. There are over three times more monarchists than republicans in the UK at the moment, and of European monarchies, only Spain have any problems at present with the popularity of theirs.
So what?

plodder
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2981
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: God save the King

Post by plodder » Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:23 pm

Tessa K wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:19 pm
Chaz would have less influence as king than he currently does. The monarch generally has to keep their trap shut on anything vaguely political.

If Her Maj is anything like my mum, she'll keep going for ages, bouncing back from many health scares before she dies (at 91 in my mum's case). That generation just won't give up. And Betty is going to get much closer medical attention than my mum; what doctor would dare say 'oh she's fine, it's just a sniffle, give her a paracetamol and she can be on her feet all day, no probs' about HRH? They'll keep her going until her Platinum Jubilee no matter what.
They don't "have" to do anything. It's just convention and personal preference. They are in charge of us, not the other way round. Learn your place, subject.

User avatar
Tessa K
Light of Blast
Posts: 4707
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:07 pm
Location: Closer than you'd like

Re: God save the King

Post by Tessa K » Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:25 pm

plodder wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:23 pm
Tessa K wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:19 pm
Chaz would have less influence as king than he currently does. The monarch generally has to keep their trap shut on anything vaguely political.

If Her Maj is anything like my mum, she'll keep going for ages, bouncing back from many health scares before she dies (at 91 in my mum's case). That generation just won't give up. And Betty is going to get much closer medical attention than my mum; what doctor would dare say 'oh she's fine, it's just a sniffle, give her a paracetamol and she can be on her feet all day, no probs' about HRH? They'll keep her going until her Platinum Jubilee no matter what.
They don't "have" to do anything. It's just convention and personal preference. They are in charge of us, not the other way round. Learn your place, subject.
The monarchy is not in charge of us, the law is and those who enforce it. Technically the government is made up of public servants but ha ha ha.

plodder
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2981
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: God save the King

Post by plodder » Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:27 pm

Yeah but technically they can just refuse to grant royal assent to whatever laws they like and there is no law in place that says we can throw them out. The Queen is the Head of State. It's a functional role that will soon be performed by Dickie McDickhead.

edited a bit, sorry

sheldrake
After Pie
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: God save the King

Post by sheldrake » Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:30 pm

plodder wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:21 pm
sheldrake wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:01 pm
I think it can be done peacefully if a government that had it in their manifesto was elected. Just pass laws that take away all of the residual power, civil list, crown property etc..

You'd be left with a wealthy private family wih houses in Balmoral, Sandringham etc.. that some people would doubtless continue referring to as the monarchy, but I think they'd stop being the head of state in any legal sense.

eta: you could of course confiscate the private wealth too if so minded and it was in the manifesto.
The monarch signs the legislation to make it law. It's easy to imagine a situation where a cowering venal Charles refuses to hand over his baubles and power, where he's protected by loyal moron Beefeaters and James Bonds, where the disgusting prime minister refuses to force the issue because he's a c.nt, and where an angry mob of reasonable people finish the job off.
I think if public sentiment was ever openly against them enough to elect a government that had this in their manifesto, they'd probably loot everything they could and retire to Mustique.

User avatar
JQH
After Pie
Posts: 2141
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:30 pm
Location: Sar Flandan

Re: God save the King

Post by JQH » Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:19 pm

sheldrake wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:03 pm
I agree that Charles would be an awful King. I like archaic ritual and arthurian legend so my vote is that we keep a powerless, low cost monarchy but just invite the australian farmer who is a direct descendant of King Alfred back to the UK once a year for a big drinking festival around stonehenge then send him back to his farm.
Works for me ...


f.cking hell, I've just agreed with Sheldrake.
And remember that if you botch the exit, the carnival of reaction may be coming to a town near you.

Fintan O'Toole

User avatar
Troubled Joe
Sindis Poop
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2021 8:42 am

Re: God save the King

Post by Troubled Joe » Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:16 pm

When I was about 16, so about oh my goodness is that the time years ago, I suggested as part of a school project that we should keep the royal family, they could keep their land, castles, titles and nominal positions of power but that we just stop paying them. They would have to live on their not inconsiderable resources - as hereditary landlords, hobby farmers, racehorse owners, writers of borderline plagiarised books about anthropomorphic helicopters etc. If they f’d up that was on them and they could just sell a chunk of Cornwall or something to pay the bills.

I see no reason to change this opinion much.
Tarantella

User avatar
Stranger Mouse
After Pie
Posts: 2346
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 1:23 pm

Re: God save the King

Post by Stranger Mouse » Wed Oct 20, 2021 7:01 pm

Must say I’m quite fond of Queenie.
I’ve decided I should be on the pardon list if that’s still in the works

IvanV
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2659
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: God save the King

Post by IvanV » Wed Oct 20, 2021 8:04 pm

bob sterman wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:03 am
Troubled Joe wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:59 am
Is it right they can choose what name they are known by once the become monarch - like the pope? I seem to remember that he is Prince Charles but would become King George.
But apparently his full name is Charles Philip Arthur George
George VI was born Albert Frederick Arthur George and known as Prince Albert, or Bertie to his friends, when younger. This appears to be the only example of an English monarch choosing a regnal name different from the name they were known by prior to their coronation, at least from the Conquest onwards. There was no necessity for the regnal name to be one of their given names. George VI chose it to suggest continuity to his father, given the crisis over his elder brother's abdication, and the (correct) perception that he himself was in poor health. And of course his father's name would be one of his given names.

Presumably it didn't worry Charles' family, when they chose the name, that he might later become King Charles III. Nevertheless it is sometimes speculated that he might choose a different regnal name, on the suggestion that Charles is an unpropitious name for an English king. One had his head chopped off. The other had no legitimate children, resulting in the throne passing to the King of Scotland. And there was also "Bonnie Prince" Charles Edward Stuart who was a failure in his attempt to get the throne.

Does it matter very much, these days, if England has a "bad king"? Similarly does it really matter very much for Spain the various scandals over their monarchy? Or in the Netherlands where Willem-Alexander isn't viewed with the same respect as his mother?

But other places, bad kings matter a lot more:

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Sultan "MbS" of Saudi Arabia isn't even formally king yet, but is regent and so acting king. We all know the kind of misdeeds he has been up to that go rather beyond what the previous Saudi kings' unpleasantnesses.

Vajiralongkorn, the present king of Thailand, was the subject of much speculation that he would be a "bad king", as his accession approached. He has done much of what was predicted. He has reserved to himself many powers that the former king chose not to. He has taken personal control of many of what were accounted state assets under the previous king. That makes him the wealthiest monarch on the planet, some feat given the relative modesty of Thailand's economy, and the vast wealth of "oil kings" like in Brunei and the Gulf. He lives in Bavaria most of the time, apparently to be close to his youngest son who is at school there. He got the constitution changed so that he does not have to appoint a regent when out of the country. (The Germans aren't very happy about having the ruler of another country operating from their territory.) He is maintained in power by a pro-monarchist military government that took power in a coup. All of the recent non-monarchist governments, not that any of them sought to overthrow the monarchy, were deposed in some kind of a coup or revolution.

Gyanendra, the last king of Nepal, came to the throne following the shooting of the previous king Birendra and 7 other members of the royal family, apparently by the crown prince Dipendra, who additionally shot himself. That is the official version, and it isn't an obvious cover-up. There are surviving eye-witnesses. The beneficiary of the massacre, Gyanendra, 2nd in line, was at the other end of the country at the time. International comment did not see his accession as propitious. Unlike Birendra and Dipendra, he wasn't much liked and seemed to have had little sympathy for the down-trodden, whose poor condition tended to promote insurgency. He repeatedly dismissed prime ministers for (undoubted) misbehaviour or incompetence, and twice imposed direct rule. If anything, this worsened the deep divisions in the country. So it is perhaps unsurprising that this led to a revolution and overthrow of the monarchy during his second period of direct rule.

Mswati III is the king and absolute ruler of Eswatini, formerly known as Swaziland. He is seen as a bad king in comparison to his predecessor King Sobhuza, and has imposed a more authoritarian rule than his predecessor. He has a large personal stake in the economy. His large wealth and lavish lifestyle in such a very poor country is a huge embarrasment. Local discontent is effectively discouraged.

But you don't have to be a king to behave like that, as the rulers of places like Equatorial Guinea and Gabon demonstrate. Though it is perhaps not a coincidence that the present ruler is the son of the previous ruler in each of those places, and indeed in other places like North Korea. Though perhaps we should consider them quasi-kings.

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7526
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: God save the King

Post by dyqik » Wed Oct 20, 2021 8:12 pm

IvanV wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 8:04 pm
Does it matter very much, these days, if England has a "bad king"? Similarly does it really matter very much for Spain the various scandals over their monarchy? Or in the Netherlands where Willem-Alexander isn't viewed with the same respect as his mother?
That very much depends on what the Government and Parliament are up to at that particular time.

Anger from the palace does have some effect on the government of the day, and the unlikely but possible threat of a public denouncement of the Government might be a moderating influence.

That's also the only rational argument for keeping the monarchy in any kind of constitutional role.

User avatar
lpm
Junior Mod
Posts: 5944
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: God save the King

Post by lpm » Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:26 pm

Charles is 72 already, his reign will be a handful of years before he sinks into vague confusion like Elizabeth is now.

It all depends on William, who is all set for a mega reign of 30+ years. And the good news is he's a c.nt.
⭐ Awarded gold star 4 November 2021

WFJ
Catbabel
Posts: 648
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2021 7:54 am

Re: God save the King

Post by WFJ » Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:05 pm

lpm wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:26 pm
Charles is 72 already, his reign will be a handful of years before he sinks into vague confusion like Elizabeth is now.

It all depends on William, who is all set for a mega reign of 30+ years. And the good news is he's a c.nt.
If Charles reaches the same age as his father, and Britain still a monarchy, a still-alive William would be 66 when he became king.

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7526
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: God save the King

Post by dyqik » Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:10 pm

Important question about the thread title: What's the updated lyrics of the Sex Pistols track when we have a King instead of Queen? The regime rhyme won't work any more.

sheldrake
After Pie
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: God save the King

Post by sheldrake » Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:15 pm

WFJ wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:05 pm
lpm wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:26 pm
Charles is 72 already, his reign will be a handful of years before he sinks into vague confusion like Elizabeth is now.

It all depends on William, who is all set for a mega reign of 30+ years. And the good news is he's a c.nt.
If Charles reaches the same age as his father, and Britain still a monarchy, a still-alive William would be 66 when he became king.
By then the medical technology to extend life to 150 or beyond may be available for those who can afford it. And he will be able to afford it.

plodder
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2981
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: God save the King

Post by plodder » Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:19 pm

sheldrake wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:30 pm
plodder wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:21 pm
sheldrake wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:01 pm
I think it can be done peacefully if a government that had it in their manifesto was elected. Just pass laws that take away all of the residual power, civil list, crown property etc..

You'd be left with a wealthy private family wih houses in Balmoral, Sandringham etc.. that some people would doubtless continue referring to as the monarchy, but I think they'd stop being the head of state in any legal sense.

eta: you could of course confiscate the private wealth too if so minded and it was in the manifesto.
The monarch signs the legislation to make it law. It's easy to imagine a situation where a cowering venal Charles refuses to hand over his baubles and power, where he's protected by loyal moron Beefeaters and James Bonds, where the disgusting prime minister refuses to force the issue because he's a c.nt, and where an angry mob of reasonable people finish the job off.
I think if public sentiment was ever openly against them enough to elect a government that had this in their manifesto, they'd probably loot everything they could and retire to Mustique.
they might do, they might not, but there’s not a damn thing anyone can do if they’re not prepared to sharpen a pitchfork, because there are no non-violent means of forcing the issue.

sheldrake
After Pie
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: God save the King

Post by sheldrake » Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:04 pm

plodder wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:19 pm

they might do, they might not, but there’s not a damn thing anyone can do if they’re not prepared to sharpen a pitchfork, because there are no non-violent means of forcing the issue.
1) Shutting off the plumbing to all their residences so the toilets no longer flush
2) Specially trained foxes that lure them into disguised police vans when they're out hunting.

I'm a solutions guy

User avatar
Martin_B
After Pie
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:20 pm
Location: Perth, WA

Re: God save the King

Post by Martin_B » Thu Oct 21, 2021 4:52 am

noggins wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 12:20 pm
El Pollo Diablo wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:16 am
Wishing execution on someone isn't in the spirit of the forum. None of that please. I don't care if it's meant to be a joke.
I hope Boris Johnson is gored to death by a unicorn. Is that in spirit?
El Pollo Diablo wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 12:29 pm
Arguably, but it's certainly off-topic, so if it continues it's off to the pit.
A pit of aggressive unicorns?
"My interest is in the future, because I'm going to spend the rest of my life there"

User avatar
Martin_B
After Pie
Posts: 1614
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:20 pm
Location: Perth, WA

Re: God save the King

Post by Martin_B » Thu Oct 21, 2021 5:04 am

IvanV wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 8:04 pm
George VI was born Albert Frederick Arthur George and known as Prince Albert, or Bertie to his friends, when younger. This appears to be the only example of an English monarch choosing a regnal name different from the name they were known by prior to their coronation, at least from the Conquest onwards. There was no necessity for the regnal name to be one of their given names. George VI chose it to suggest continuity to his father, given the crisis over his elder brother's abdication, and the (correct) perception that he himself was in poor health. And of course his father's name would be one of his given names.
Erm:

George VI's grandfather, Edward VII was born Albert Edward, and also known as Bertie.
His great-grandmother, Queen Victoria was born Alexandrina Victoria and (according to QI) was known as Alexandrina all the way until she became monarch.
"My interest is in the future, because I'm going to spend the rest of my life there"

plodder
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2981
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: God save the King

Post by plodder » Thu Oct 21, 2021 8:22 am

sheldrake wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:04 pm
plodder wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:19 pm

they might do, they might not, but there’s not a damn thing anyone can do if they’re not prepared to sharpen a pitchfork, because there are no non-violent means of forcing the issue.
1) Shutting off the plumbing to all their residences so the toilets no longer flush
2) Specially trained foxes that lure them into disguised police vans when they're out hunting.

I'm a solutions guy
I don’t quite how you’re stopping hordes of James Bonds abseiling in to stop your plumbers. Some c.nt in a bearskin hat will stab your foxes with his bayonet. The Royals are armed to the teeth. Solutions that.

secret squirrel
Snowbonk
Posts: 551
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 12:42 pm

Re: God save the King

Post by secret squirrel » Thu Oct 21, 2021 8:57 am

dyqik wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:10 pm
Important question about the thread title: What's the updated lyrics of the Sex Pistols track when we have a King instead of Queen? The regime rhyme won't work any more.
I mean, we are talking about a band who rhymed 'antichrist' with 'anarchist', so presumably you just say 'regim'.

User avatar
Troubled Joe
Sindis Poop
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2021 8:42 am

Re: God save the King

Post by Troubled Joe » Thu Oct 21, 2021 9:08 am

secret squirrel wrote:
Thu Oct 21, 2021 8:57 am
dyqik wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:10 pm
Important question about the thread title: What's the updated lyrics of the Sex Pistols track when we have a King instead of Queen? The regime rhyme won't work any more.
I mean, we are talking about a band who rhymed 'antichrist' with 'anarchist', so presumably you just say 'regim'.
“He poked Camilla with his thing” ?
Tarantella

User avatar
Sciolus
Dorkwood
Posts: 1313
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:42 pm

Re: God save the King

Post by Sciolus » Thu Oct 21, 2021 9:13 am

El Pollo Diablo wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:09 pm
It would require popular support for the monarchy to plummet to depths they haven't seen for a long time, and for a decent duration as well. There are over three times more monarchists than republicans in the UK at the moment, and of European monarchies, only Spain have any problems at present with the popularity of theirs.
I suspect that's largely because no-one has ever bothered to figure out what to replace them with. Any suggestion of abolition is met with "yeah but President Blair". Given that a PM with a decent majority is already all-powerful and can, if they choose, rig the constitution to consolidate that power further (see current government), simply transferring HM's powers to the PM would indeed be a terrible idea. Rather, abolition should be part of an overhaul of the constitution, entrenching key principles and requiring a supermajority to change them, and providing for effective oversight of the executive. That's all difficult, and much less popular than the British approach of just muddling through allowing wannabe tyrants to take total control unchecked.

plodder
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2981
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: God save the King

Post by plodder » Thu Oct 21, 2021 9:22 am

There's always popular support for all sorts of dreadful sh.t, just look out of your window.

Millennie Al
After Pie
Posts: 1621
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: God save the King

Post by Millennie Al » Sat Oct 23, 2021 12:43 am

Sciolus wrote:
Thu Oct 21, 2021 9:13 am
abolition should be part of an overhaul of the constitution, entrenching key principles and requiring a supermajority to change them, and providing for effective oversight of the executive. That's all difficult, and much less popular than the British approach of just muddling through allowing wannabe tyrants to take total control unchecked.
Considering that any such change would have to be done by Parliament, controlled by the government of the day, can you really see the politcians effectively giving up a lot of their own power?

Post Reply