Would You Vote For A British Republic?

[trastrick]

15 minutes ago, crookesey said:

The line of succession is interesting, if say Charles and Camilla had a grand royal bash that was infiltrated by terrorists, killing all and sundry, would the following apply. The next in line being a 16 years old child who was unknown to practically everyone prior to this event, should he/she be given the keys to Buck House?

 

Just a thought. 

  Reveal spoiler

 

Shuffling the deck if you are not happy with the cards you are dealt, is no guarantee of a better hand.

 

It's been done throughout history.

 

Chopping off their heads, and and lining them up before firing squads, with mixed results. Even with today's more "intelligent" ways of fomenting revolution.

 

With Charles 1 you got Cromwell

With Louis 14 you got Robespeare and Napoleon,

With Czar Alexander you got Stalin

With the Sha of Persia, you got the mad Mullah's of Iran

Invading Afghanistan you got the Taliban

With Saddam, Khadaffi, and you got Iraq and Libya

And you got South Africa, formerly a rich World power, now a basket case.

 

Now they are trying to depose Putin, we'll see how that one works out!

 

 

[Rockers rule]

7 minutes ago, crookesey said:

I’ll try again.

 

If Charles and Camilla were to have a grand royal bash at Buck House  that was attacked by terrorists, killing all and sundry, could the following apply? The next in line being a person so far down it that even the best royal watchers had never heard of them, would the succession be finite, even if they were totally unsuitable? 

Only with Dyer consequences 

 

 

 

 

Keep safe Crookesey

Enjoy the Christmas period & have a Happy New Year 

 

Rocker 

[crookesey]

1 minute ago, Rockers rule said:

Only with Dyer consequences 

 

 

 

 

Keep safe Crookesey

Enjoy the Christmas period & have a Happy New Year 

 

Rocker 

Cheers, and the same to you and yours. 👍

[m williamson]

8 hours ago, *_ash_* said:

What a nonsense post. 

 

You ask a question, then blast your personal views without waiting for an answer first. 

This type of argument was worked out as logical nonsense over 2000 years ago. 

 

 

 

 

What an ignorant post, displaying your complete lack of intelligence and comprehension. I asked a question of hobinfoot because I'm genuinely interested in his response.

In explaining my point of view I was simply saving time, it allows him to not only answer the query but explain why he holds that particular view.

This is a forum, not the Oxford Union debating society so your effort to look clever failed miserably. Starting a post with an insult when it is addressed to someone who you haven't commented with on the subject before is classless. Replying to such a post with an insulting but factual retort is deserved.

[Rockers rule]

9 minutes ago, m williamson said:

What an ignorant post, displaying your complete lack of intelligence and comprehension. I asked a question of hobinfoot because I'm genuinely interested in his response.

In explaining my point of view I was simply saving time, it allows him to not only answer the query but explain why he holds that particular view.

This is a forum, not the Oxford Union debating society so your effort to look clever failed miserably. Starting a post with an insult when it is addressed to someone who you haven't commented with on the subject before is classless. Replying to such a post with an insulting but factual retort is deserved.

And yet you constantly hanker for a debate and lead with insults.

 

Keep safe out there  

[Padders]

3 minutes ago, Rockers rule said:

And yet you constantly hanker for a debate and lead with insults.

 

Keep safe out there  

Calm down Rocker mi old pal,

And stay away from Aldi.

[cressida]

1 hour ago, trastrick said:

Shuffling the deck if you are not happy with the cards you are dealt, is no guarantee of a better hand.

 

It's been done throughout history.

 

Chopping off their heads, and and lining them up before firing squads, with mixed results. Even with today's more "intelligent" ways of fomenting revolution.

 

With Charles 1 you got Cromwell

With Louis 14 you got Robespeare and Napoleon,

With Czar Alexander you got Stalin

With the Sha of Persia, you got the mad Mullah's of Iran

Invading Afghanistan you got the Taliban

With Saddam, Khadaffi, and you got Iraq and Libya

And you got South Africa, formerly a rich World power, now a basket case.

 

Now they are trying to depose Putin, we'll see how that one works out!

 

 

What I've thought for ages but I only got half of those,  some people would say 'better the devil you know'

[m williamson]

2 hours ago, trastrick said:

Twisted strawman logic!

 

When was the last time you were forced to show " your deference and obedience" to the Royal family?"

 

Did they shut down the economy, force you to have an experimental vaccine for a condition you never had?

 

You can change your real leaders every 4 years, or so!

 

And everybody likes that, in a democracy.

 

Symbols like flags, Royalty, postage stamps, coinage, are to remind a population of how they got where they are!

 When was the last time I was forced to show deference and obedience to the royal family? I haven't been forced to because I'm neither loyal to them or in any way deferential to them.

However, that being the case it has debarred me from certain opportunities and certain careers hasn't it? I could not join the police force, the armed services, the judiciary, become an MP or serve as a magistrate among other occupations. All of them require an oath to the crown,  that means that if you are someone who believes in keeping a sworn oath you are excluded. On two separate occassions I was encouraged by serving magistrates to apply to become a JP, I would have done so but couldn't because of the oath.

 

In this country the Prime Minister has taken an oath of allegiance to the monarch, every tuesday when parliament is in session the PM travels to visit them in order to keep them informed. The sovereign isn't supposed to interfere with the governance of the country but it is admitted they have ' influence '.  https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/32081/why-does-the-british-pm-meet-the-queen-every-week

I'd imagine that faced with the person you have sworn to obey that ' influence ' is quite a lot. This country isn't a true democracy in the real sense.

 

23 minutes ago, Rockers rule said:

And yet you constantly hanker for a debate and lead with insults.

 

Keep safe out there  

Do I? Or do I retort in kind as happened on this occasion?   ' Constantly hanker for a debate '  Remind me again what is the purpose of this forum?

[Mr Bloke]

40 minutes ago, m williamson said:

  Remind me again what is the purpose of this forum?

Hmmm...

... I think I know the answer to that one!

The forum provides a valuable outlet for sad, bitter people to relieve themselves from their mundane lives for a few minutes/hours/days by providing a place for them to dump the random contents of their noggins...

... while totally disregarding any sensible/rational/logical ideas put forward by others who may disagree with them.

Am I correct?

[m williamson]

25 minutes ago, Mr Bloke said:

Hmmm...

... I think I know the answer to that one!

The forum provides a valuable outlet for sad, bitter people to relieve themselves from their mundane lives for a few minutes/hours/days by providing a place for them to dump the random contents of their noggins...

... while totally disregarding any sensible/rational/logical ideas put forward by others who may disagree with them.

Am I correct?

You are indeed Mr Bloke, and what I want to know is why won't they listen to the two of us?  🤨