Jump to content

 

 

Prince Philip has died aged 99, Buckingham Palace announces


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Scott7 said:

The system has worked well in my lifetime. How much is that due to the system or to the individual who happens to be head of state? If the choice for head of state is between someone like the Duke or someone like Blair or Major, the choice is easy. But who replaces the Queen? There don’t seem to be any characters like the Duke in the offing. Prince Charles is a very different man but he deserves the chance. His wife will probably keep him steady. After that.....?

She's a hard act to follow 

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, RANGERRAB said:

The Duke of Edinburgh’s death for me highlights the difference between having a monarchy and a republic.

A man who gave decades of service to his country (albeit as a consort) compared to a president who serves just a few years.

I genuinely wonder if the U.K. was a republic whether a president would achieve more than the monarchy. And how each republic differs. When I look at France where the president selects the PM(often of a different political persuasion)I think there’s always difficulties. Or Ireland where the president has very little power. Then there’s the USA where the president seems to think he(or she) is also a world leader.

I actually think the elected government and its PM in the UK works very well alongside its consensual monarchy 

 

You forget that the monarchy is retained as a last resort; the monarch has the power to dismiss a democratically elected parliament if it suits the powers-that-be. A fact often overlooked. The Queen actually did this with the Whitlam government in Australia. I share your misgivings about a republic though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Bill said:

This really is painful for you. I think it was the “beloved” bit that gave away just how much you resent the status and respect being received by the late prince. Even Corbyn understood he’d made a mistake and withdrew his initial bad grace. It seems to be instinctive for leftists to reach for poison. 

It's really just a question of proportion. I wouldn't want to see them treated like the Romanovs. Perhaps a status like the Dutch Royal family: they all have day jobs but are called upon to perform certain ceremonial and ambassadorial duties?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, alexscottislegend said:

the monarch has the power to dismiss a democratically elected parliament

In theory, yes but in the UK it doesn’t happen. The Australian example needs to be qualified by the fact that the dismissal of GW was carried out by the Governor General, an Australian rather than by HM. I’m not sure many Australians were unhappy about it.

 

I’m not familiar with the French and Italian constitutions but their Presidents seem to be dismissing Prime Ministers every other month.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Scott7 said:

In theory, yes but in the UK it doesn’t happen. The Australian example needs to be qualified by the fact that the dismissal of GW was carried out by the Governor General, an Australian rather than by HM. I’m not sure many Australians were unhappy about it.

 

I’m not familiar with the French and Italian constitutions but their Presidents seem to be dismissing Prime Ministers every other month.

The Governor-General is the direct representative of the monarch, Scott so he would have had the Queen's authority. I think a lot of Aussies were unhappy at the time including my Rangers-supporting uncle and his family! Re the French and Italian examples, I think the people should have the final say - always.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, alexscottislegend said:

The Governor-General is the direct representative of the monarch

That is true but I doubt that Her Majesty decided one day that she was fed up with Whitlam and ‘phoned the G-G to give him the boot. The instigation came from within Australia. No doubt he told the Queen through the UK government what he intended to do and there being no objection went ahead and did it. Slightly different from the arbitrary exercise of power by a monarch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ian1964 said:

 

The despair of Scotland summed up in one pompous little tramp. In a race to the bottom, Harvie would be waiting at the finishing line to greet the winner.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I stumbled accidentally into the broadcast of the SP sitting. I missed Sturgeon and Davidson and only heard the last of Sarwar which didn’t sound too bad and then the  Green Gestapo boss came on. As Bill says the absolute worst of niggardly, mean-minded, censorious, pompous, know-all, Scottish posturing. He should have stay away. At least that would have been honest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.