Queen to abdicate?

TTony

dafuzz said:

but they should have to work for their money (no, travelling the world getting entertained by dignitaries is not work,

Oh, it absolutely is.

Bloody hard work.

I used to think that people at work who were forever jetting off to different places for meetings, presentations, conferences (etc) were really lucky - what a life!  And then I got to do it for a while, and it's shit.  You're forever jet-lagged, trying to sleep on planes, and eating shit airline food.  You get to see the inside of an airport, a taxi, the hotel, another taxi, an office, a taxi, the airport with little chance of seeing anything of the country you're actually in.  And when you get back to the office, no-one else has done your work for you as they all think you're off on a jolly and they resent you for it.

The royals have to do it whilst smiling, trying to engage in polite and informed conversation with people that I'm sure even they would rather not be anywhere near, without any chance of going on a bar crawl when the meeting's over.  Because the meeting is never over for them.

And, to finish it off, everywhere smells of paint.

Whatever else people say/think about the royal family, what they do is definitely work.

CabbageCat

Gassage said:

CabbageCat said:

Gassage said:

Here's a thought: If we did what we did in the 1700's and 1800's we'd be seen as worse than the Taliban and Isis.

Seen by who? I suspect the Taliban and Isis already think we're worse than them.

Gassage said:

We are were we are; to suggest what we did was 'fair' in those days doesn't mean that things shouldn't change through humanitarian and intellectual process now.

Indeed it doesn't. It doesn't mean it should either. I'm not suggesting that hereditary rule is right - indeed, I'm not suggesting that any sort of inheritance is right - I'm arguing that it isn't absolutely wrong as you seem to believe.

I want to be clear on this.

I support equality and equal opportunity.

So, if the royal family were elected, I'd support it.

My gripe isn't actually with the pomp and ceremony, it's the concept of inequality.

There. I won't argue with that. Much better than, "Morally, it's the only right thing to do."

Gassage

TTony said:

dafuzz said:

but they should have to work for their money (no, travelling the world getting entertained by dignitaries is not work,

Oh, it absolutely is.

Bloody hard work.

I used to think that people at work who were forever jetting off to different places for meetings, presentations, conferences (etc) were really lucky - what a life!  And then I got to do it for a while, and it's shit.  You're forever jet-lagged, trying to sleep on planes, and eating shit airline food.  You get to see the inside of an airport, a taxi, the hotel, another taxi, an office, a taxi, the airport with little chance of seeing anything of the country you're actually in.  And when you get back to the office, no-one else has done your work for you as they all think you're off on a jolly and they resent you for it.

The royals have to do it whilst smiling, trying to engage in polite and informed conversation with people that I'm sure even they would rather not be anywhere near, without any chance of going on a bar crawl when the meeting's over.  Because the meeting is never over for them.

And, to finish it off, everywhere smells of paint.

Whatever else people say/think about the royal family, what they do is definitely work.

Yes, the food on those Royal Flights is trash.

Fretwired

For me whether the monarchy survives is down to what they do for Joe Public. The present mob are pretty good. For example, why did the Saudi's buy Tornado and Typhoon jets? A big part was the Royal family. The French and the Yanks tried to bribe them (BAe did a bit of that) but ultimately randy Andy and HMQ did their bit. No planes no Royal enclose at Ascot. People underestimate the Queen - she can do things that politicians can't when it comes to diplomacy. Then there's the charity work ..

not_the_dj

TTony said:

dafuzz said:

but they should have to work for their money (no, travelling the world getting entertained by dignitaries is not work,

Oh, it absolutely is.

Bloody hard work.

I used to think that people at work who were forever jetting off to different places for meetings, presentations, conferences (etc) were really lucky - what a life!  And then I got to do it for a while, and it's shit.  You're forever jet-lagged, trying to sleep on planes, and eating shit airline food.  You get to see the inside of an airport, a taxi, the hotel, another taxi, an office, a taxi, the airport with little chance of seeing anything of the country you're actually in.  And when you get back to the office, no-one else has done your work for you as they all think you're off on a jolly and they resent you for it.

The royals have to do it whilst smiling, trying to engage in polite and informed conversation with people that I'm sure even they would rather not be anywhere near, without any chance of going on a bar crawl when the meeting's over.  Because the meeting is never over for them.

And, to finish it off, everywhere smells of paint.

Whatever else people say/think about the royal family, what they do is definitely work.

It's covered quite well in this documentary I saw a while back:

fatherjack

Back to the original post - whatever you think of the monarchy, Queenie's not going to abdicate.  Part of the coronation involves taking an Oath, and she takes that sort of thing very seriously.  I can't imagine the circumstances in which it could happen.  Even if she were to get Alzheimer's or something like that, Chas would probably act as regent rather than her abdicate.

Just not gonna happen.

Phil_aka_Pip

I find it slightly amusing that there are people who view one political system as more "moral" than another, when you can find immorality and corruption in any of them.

I have no objection whatsoever to anyone who says "I personally prefer this, or that", even if I have reasons for disagreeing with their preference. I'd prefer it though if when there's disagreement, it stays as just that, without escalating to animosity or worse still, violence.

VimFuego

clearly all political systems have failings, however I think it would be fair to say that liberal democracy, for all its failings, is far more moral than, say tyrannic despotism. Morality is a sliding scale, not a binary state, it is possible to be more or less moral.

EricTheWeary

Have we had a Paul Rogers to be next monarch joke yet?

Phil_aka_Pip

VimFuego said:

clearly all political systems have failings, however I think it would be fair to say that liberal democracy, for all its failings, is far more moral than, say tyrannic despotism. Morality is a sliding scale, not a binary state, it is possible to be more or less moral.

an absolute monarch could be a very fair and moral person, or he could as you imply be a right bastard. I think the "morality" of the system depends on the morality of the people in charge of it.

not_the_dj

EricTheWeary said:

Have we had a Paul Rogers to be next monarch joke yet?

Nope not yet, but didn't he abdicate his potential abdication to some aussie karaoke show winner?

VimFuego

yup, except that doesn't actually address what I wrote, which is that morality is a sliding scale and not an absolute.

Phil_aka_Pip

VimFuego said:

yup, except that doesn't actually address what I wrote, which is that morality is a sliding scale and not an absolute.

but you made it more of an attribute of the system than of the people who operate or control it.

VimFuego

well, it is as some systems are inherently more moral than others. The more open and democratic a system is, the lower likelihood there is of open corruption and tyranny.

Snap

I'm pro republic, don't agree with the concept of royalty at all. It's anachronistic.

But, they do put a shift in, and I bet its absolute crap being a mainline royal.

Couple of things though:

William's comb over, that's bad. Get it shaved lad.

Charles' suits - now there's a stylish chap, he wears good threads.

The QUeen  - she's very dignified, and looks well for an old dear.

Prince Phillip- he's mental.

Grunfeld

Snap said:

I'm pro republic, don't agree with the concept of royalty at all. It's anachronistic.

So's our drummer.

digitalscream

Phil_aka_Pip said:

VimFuego said:

yup, except that doesn't actually address what I wrote, which is that morality is a sliding scale and not an absolute.

but you made it more of an attribute of the system than of the people who operate or control it.

The more people who are involved in a system, the less chance there is of it being fair. With a single dictator, you've basically got a 50/50 chance; with a large representative democracy, you start at 50/50 and it goes downhill from there...

CabbageCat

VimFuego said:

well, it is as some systems are inherently more moral than others.

Nah. Some systems inherently match your morals better than others, but saying one system is fundamental more moral than another is like saying metric measures more accurately than imperial.

Gassage

Actually, the one redeeming royal is Philip.

He creases me up.

Phil_aka_Pip

Gassage said:

Actually, the one redeeming royal is Philip.

He creases me up.

He's brilliant. I'd like to go drinking with him, it would be a real gas