Gordon Brown's assault on the traditions of the monarchy.

Jack_McHammocklashing said:
finknottle said:
Roberts says, The news that Gordon Brown has opened talks with Buckingham Palace over altering the 1701 Act of Settlement, which bars members of the Royal family from succeeding to the throne if they marry Roman Catholics, has profound implications for the long-term future of this country'.

He fails to explain in his opinion just what these implications might be? He then goes on to say it is not bigoted, well it is in my opinion when all it did was secure the future of the Germans Protestants on the throne.

Anyway you can expect nothing else from an article in the Torygraph and no doubt written by a right wing monarchist.

The implications are HRH Tony Bliar, and his missus Cherrie would be unable to take the throne, unless the rules are changed
Why be a president of the EU when you could be KING AND QUEEN of the UK

Jack McH

Sorry but I have no idea what you are talking about?

If we were to get rid of that lot the new head of state would be elected by the people, much more in line with democracy don't you think?

Kevin Rudd is busy at the moment but he will get round to holding a referendum on getting rid of Windsor as the Australian head of state and this time I think she will be out on her cranium fins and we should be doing the same I mean get rid of the anachronism that they are once and for all.
 
Dear Finkie

I think before you ask the question as to whether or not we should dispense with the monarchy we should first determine what the monarch should be replaced with. Do we wish to follow the Froogy path and elect some one with almost absolute powers, or perhaps the septic way and elect a constitutional monarch but with powers similar to our monarch in the 18th C or should we follow the Irish model and elect some one to be a titular head of state who does the PR bit allowing the Paliamentary government to get on with the governing bit. The range of options for powers for an elected head of state is considerable, and where on the scale is pretty important when it comes down to deciding on the benefits or not as the case may be of regicide.
 

come_the_day

Lantern Swinger
Re: Gordon Brown's assault on the traditions of the monarchy

The current Monarch introduced a new respectability to the institution and I don't believe that anybody would wish Her Majesty any ill-will. Unfortunately, her offspring are not worthy of carrying on the dynasty, with the exception of the one who could not be considered for the role because of primogeniture.
 

Jack77

War Hero
Re: Gordon Brown's assault on the traditions of the monarchy

With all this carry on about changing the law to allow the British monarch to marry a Catholic, I must point out that the Church of England is a Catholic church. The only thing that changed when Henry VIII got pissed off with the Pope was who ran the church in England, not the basic church structure itself.

Protestant churches are those created by Martin Luther, John Knox etc. who created entirely new church doctrine.
 
Re: Gordon Brown's assault on the traditions of the monarchy

Ah yes; we really need one of these;

Cowen+2.jpg
 
finknottle said:
Jack_McHammocklashing said:
finknottle said:
Roberts says, The news that Gordon Brown has opened talks with Buckingham Palace over altering the 1701 Act of Settlement, which bars members of the Royal family from succeeding to the throne if they marry Roman Catholics, has profound implications for the long-term future of this country'.

He fails to explain in his opinion just what these implications might be? He then goes on to say it is not bigoted, well it is in my opinion when all it did was secure the future of the Germans Protestants on the throne.

Anyway you can expect nothing else from an article in the Torygraph and no doubt written by a right wing monarchist.

The implications are HRH Tony Bliar, and his missus Cherrie would be unable to take the throne, unless the rules are changed
Why be a president of the EU when you could be KING AND QUEEN of the UK

Jack McH

Sorry but I have no idea what you are talking about?

If we were to get rid of that lot the new head of state would be elected by the people, much more in line with democracy don't you think?

Kevin Rudd is busy at the moment but he will get round to holding a referendum on getting rid of Windsor as the Australian head of state and this time I think she will be out on her cranium fins and we should be doing the same I mean get rid of the anachronism that they are once and for all.

Nope Tony and Cherrie would be in there like a rat up a drain pipe, with GOGS Brown as pres in waiting, then they would rule that the pres stands for thirty years minimum
 
finknottle said:
Personally I would opt for replicating the Irish way of selecting a head of state.

Oh dear, missed the point haven't we, the Irish select their president much the same way as every one else, the have an election. I would expect that if we ever became a republic we would do the same though I suspect the likes of Mr Blair or Mr Brown would prefer to appoint a complicit president rather than trust the fickle electorate.

No the real question is the powers and role that any President of the UK would have/fulfil. This is always the problem with changing tradition, it is never quite as easy as it looks. There is a very strong need right at the beginning to be very precise on the route one is going to take.
 
finknottle said:
I am elated that I have not disappointed you and I have no recollection of ever being a member of the Communist Party or of being a Communist.

You right wingers do have some very bizarre ideas. :)

Wots in a name?

Fundamental Liberal Winger Nutty
 
thingy said:
Roberts' interpretation of many historical events remains novel and intellectually stimulating, if not perhaps a little idealistic. But that's historians for you, unlike scientists who are infallible. If the Church can accomodate an adulterer as its titular head then in can accomodate a left footer, right hooker or the PO Stoker resplendant in his ovvies wielding a cutlass instead of the Rod with the Dove, a hand grenade to replace the Orb and a wheel spanner to replace the Sceptre. With Nutty as Prime Minister, Hig as Chancellor, SPB as Home Secretary, UA as Defence Secretary and Type 42 as Papa 42, next Pope,we can't go far wrong. Finknottle can be the next Chancellor of the Dutchy of Lancaster and GR as Foreign Secretary.

All this fuss over one person. What a waste of Parliamentary time. None of this fantasy can take place without the ratification of the Parliaments of the Commonwealth countries who retain The Sovereign as their Head of State, under the Statute of Westminster 1931. No spin or posturing can change that legal and geopolitical fact. Personally I want a Queen as our next Head of State, be they female or male! :razz:

Thingy

Possibly the best idea in all this thread.

Nutty
 

buggerit84

Lantern Swinger
finknottle said:
If we were to get rid of that lot the new head of state would be elected by the people, much more in line with democracy don't you think?

I'm sorry, did I miss the point where Britain became a democracy that elects the head of Parliament?

If I may extract your head from your red ar$e, Gordon Brown wasn't elected so you're talking bollox!

We all know the only thing that works is enlightened dictatorship ;)
 
Top