The problem being it is utterly dependent on the Monarch not using the actual power they have. They are basically just a figurehead. So of little use to political process. However they actually could do a lot more by the actual rule of law. Who is to say what anyone in the future will do.
Or yeah, those 2 days the F.A felt it right to cancel games as a mark of respect.......even that upset a few people too
It was unnecessary as other sporting events went ahead. I would say it upset more than a few people as no doubt much money was lost in wages and business transactions alone. What happened in the midweek games and this weekend could’ve happened similarly last week end
I'd agree on the house of lords bit. Two pluses of a monarchy. They help project soft/ diplomatic power and provide continuity. But two massive issues with an elected head of state replacing a monarchy. First off, who would we choose? Tony Blair, ant and Dec, David Beckham, Priti Patel? The British public gave us boatymcboatface and Boris Johnson. The second is that it would cost billions to upgrade all the laws (current estimate is that each time a government department changes its name it costs £100million) and would give the incumbent party an opportunity to change our Constitution. Let's face it, we wouldn't come out with more rights as citizens.
If they're likely to be divisive then there's really no point in having a head of state at all. It's just more fuel to the fire. I'm no Royalist. My views on their future role are purely transactional. They should undoubtedly be trimmed back, ensured to be paying fair taxes etc but if it's shown that they are a net benefit financially, are a unifying influence and remain a wielder of soft power then I'd keep them. Sorry, but your vision of just another politically appointed and controlled hack doesn't work for me.
Did you see all them Brown People yesterday? That service sure was diverse. I bet The Queen loved all the BAME in attendance. Has Charles paid any Inheritance Tax? I'm sure there won't be any loopholes for him to avoid this simply because he fell out of the right womb? Did you see Andrew and Edward? One in full military garb for his long and tough 3 months. And wasn't it lovely to see Andrew? Seems that the millions of pounds of hush money that was paid out wasn't worth a sweat. It wasn't "the time or the place yesterday". So is it now?
If you want? Fill yer boots mate. As per point 2, I think the queen changed the law before it went through, so inheritance tax doesn’t apply to them. (I may be wrong though)… I’m expecting lots of anti and pro royal comments especially as we are steaming towards a coronation….
I'd love a Monarch to get involved politically. I think they're quite up to date with humanitarian issues. Some issues more than most politicians in spite of their huge privilege. Can't see King Charles sitting quiet.
Are they? Such as the Queen exempting her estate from green laws, Charles excluding his tenants from the right to buy, Prince William banging on about the threat of overpopulation whilst churning kids out. Rules for thee but not for me, as it ever was with that lot. Charles did lobby for NHS funding for homeopathy, so I think he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer either.
I'd forgot about that! Didn't he suggest testing doing on different homeopathic treatments? Hopefully somebody had pointed out that had already been done and the things that worked were now called medicine.
I think clinical trials have been done on most "alternative" therapies some really do work such as acupuncture some dont such as homeopathy - which logically cant work anyway it makes no sense.
Charles, a man who has someone to brush his teeth for him? Yeah he’s got his finger on the pulse of issues effecting ordinary people….
By definition, alternative medicine has either not been proved to work, or has been proved not to work. You know what they call alternative medicine that has been proved to work? Medicine. One of my favourite Tim Minchin quotes!