- Pronouns
- He/Him
The Queen tests positive for Covid | Queen Elizabeth II | The Guardian
Monarch, 95, experiencing ‘mild cold-like symptoms’ but expects to continue carrying out light duties
amp.theguardian.com
The monarchy is never goingIf she pops her clogs maybe we can actually have a conversation about getting rid of this parasitic noncing family for good.
Nah, who am I kidding, knowing this country they'll probably make it illegal to not weep at the mere mention of her.
Of course it is lol, nothing lasts foreverThe monarchy is never going
Too many people in support of it, if Labour put it in a manifesto, that's a sure fire way to lose the election and you can bet the tories and the media would make a massive deal out of it.Of course it is lol, nothing lasts forever
The only question is when
You said the monarchy was "never going". That's what I disputed. Of course this strawman is wrong because I never claimed anything of the sort.Too many people in support of it, if Labour put it in a manifesto, that's a sure fire way to lose the election and you can bet the tories and the media would make a massive deal out of it.
The monarchy isn't going anywhere in our lifetimes, is that better??You said the monarchy was "never going". That's what I disputed. Of course this strawman is wrong because I never claimed anything of the sort.
Not really. A lot can happen in ~55 years. I'll grant you it is very very unlikely in the next 20.The monarchy isn't going anywhere in our lifetimes, is that better??
true, that would be kind of annoyingBeing 95 is a bit of a worry. Covid will be the worst thing to die of because people will never shut up about how it killed the queen as we are in needless lock down 95.
Unless the media and the public perception radically changes, they aren't leaving. Which is my whole point and I highly doubt that happeningNot really. A lot can happen in ~55 years. I'll grant you it is very very unlikely in the next 20.
If it survives King Charles, then we will be long dead before it's gone.Tbh if the prospect of King Charles doesn't turn the British public against the monarchy I'm not sure what will.
I doubt things will be as politically stable here this century as many assume.Unless the media and the public perception radically changes, they aren't leaving. Which is my whole point and I highly doubt that happening
That doesn't necessarily mean the end of the monarchyI doubt things will be as politically stable here this century as many assume.
It doesn't and I never claimed it did. I think there is a significant though still quite low chance that the monarchy will end by 2080. I just disagreed with you first when you said it would never end and then when you said it wouldn't end in our lifetimes.That doesn't necessarily mean the end of the monarchy
Then your comment about political stability is irrelevant and pointless to this convo about the end of the monarchy.It doesn't and I never claimed it did. I think there is a significant though still quite low chance that the monarchy will end by 2080. I just disagreed with you first when you said it would never end and then when you said it wouldn't end in our lifetimes.
Being 95 is a bit of a worry. Covid will be the worst thing to die of because people will never shut up about how it killed the queen as we are in needless lock down 95.
Only it isn't. If I were to believe that political stability in the UK was going to be similar to the recent past I'd say the end of the monarchy by 2080 would be vanishingly unlikely. But I don't believe that.Then your comment about political stability is irrelevant and pointless to this convo about the end of the monarchy.
Queen ElizardbethI had no idea lizards could catch Covid.
I had no idea lizards could catch Covid.
But I don't get how being politically unstable relates to the end of the monarchy, as the way I see it is that we would have to have a referendum on the matter and so would have to be on party's manifesto, which none would do.Only it isn't. If I were to believe that political stability in the UK was going to be similar to the recent past I'd say the end of the monarchy by 2080 would be vanishingly unlikely. But I don't believe that.
So it effects my estimation of the end of the monarchy so it is relevant.
But I don't get how being politically unstable relates to the end of the monarchy, as the way I see it is that we would have to have a referendum on the matter and so would have to be on party's manifesto, which none would do.
Is there another way I am not seeing??
Why do you think a referendum is neccesarry? Or a manifesto? None of these are required by our constitutional law which can be changed at parliament's will anyway.But I don't get how being politically unstable relates to the end of the monarchy, as the way I see it is that we would have to have a referendum on the matter and so would have to be on party's manifesto, which none would do.
Is there another way I am not seeing??
170,001 so it was so, so close but sadly just missed out.I'm sure I've asked this before, but how many dead people would it have taken for the lock downs to not be "needless".
Clearly 170,000 wasn't enough for you, did it need to get to a nice round million to be worth saving a bunch of lives?
Without a referendum, the government would basically be saying to the public, 'We don't give a fuck about how you feel about this enormous change, we don't want the monarchy anymore, so we are getting rid it and there's fuck all you can do to stop us.'Why do you think a referendum is neccesarry? Or a manifesto? None of these are required by our constitutional law which can be changed at parliament's will anyway.
But yes, no parliment elected today would ever attempt to abolish the monarchy, if it even can.
But A. Opinions can change or be changed over time. It is not inconceivable that within our lifetimes even if the basic political structures were to survive that a parliament might be elected that is willing to attempt to abolish the monarchy. And B. You seem to be assuming that current political structures won't (or even can't) themselves be abolished or transformed to an extent that they won't be familiar to us today. This isn't necessarily true either.
This is pretty much correct for the near future.Without a referendum, the government would basically be saying to the public, 'We don't give a fuck about how you feel about this enormous change, we don't want the monarchy anymore, so we are getting rid it and there's fuck all you can do to stop us.'
That's undemocratic and quite frankly the work of a dictator.
Who's to say that the current system of parties or the convention of parties producing manifestos before elections even exists in fifty years? You are taking a view of this as if you are talking about abolishing the monarchy within five years but you initially stated "never" and then "within our lifetimes".A referendum on the monarchy is something that would need to be on a party's manifesto so the public can vote for that party or against them.
So this is a departure from our previous conservation about what is possible into what should happen. I disagree.As much as I want the monarchy to be abolished, if its not done through a referendum that the public can vote, so we can see if they truly want it gone, then it should stay.
Well too late and we can expect other, unrelated threads to go down this way more and more.Welp I was hoping this wouldn't go down the same toxic way as Resetera
Polls can be wrong, so a referendum can show how people actually feel about the monarchy, or we could have a wrong view on how the public actually feelsThis is pretty much correct for the near future.
Though hypothetically consider in 30 years it is revealed that the royals of the future are all Prince Andrews in some undeniable way and that the public turns completely against them. Is it not concievable that parliament would attempt to abolish the monarchy?
Who's to say that the current system of parties or the convention of parties producing manifestos before elections even exists in fifty years? You are taking a view of this as if you are talking about abolishing the monarchy within five years but you initially stated "never" and then "within our lifetimes".
So this is a departure from our previous conservation about what is possible into what should happen. I disagree.
That's correct. But it doesn't relate to the fundamental argument point that I believe there is a significant chance that the monarchy could be abolished within our lifetimes and you do not.Polls can be wrong, so a referendum can show how people actually feel about the monarchy, or we could have a wrong view on how the public actually feels
Elections being done away with whether by an revolution of some kind, an invasion of some kind, or even by the breakdown of society due to some disaster is in fact a way the monarchy might be abolished in our lifetimes.Unless elections are done away with, we will still have individuals that need to be elected and will need to make pledges to get elected by a leader.
Also keep in mind that people can be against the people the monarchy consists of and also against the UK becoming a Republic.
This video explains that becoming a Republic means more than just not having a monarchy.
OK, I don't see the UK being invaded and being taken over in our lifetime and thus elections being done away in our lifetimes and so the monarchy being abolished.That's correct. But it doesn't relate to the fundamental argument point that I believe there is a significant chance that the monarchy could be abolished within our lifetimes and you do not.
Elections being done away with wether by an internal revolution of some kind, an external invasion of some kind, or even by the breakdown of society due to some natural disaster is in fact way the monarchy might be abolished in our lifetimes.
This is also correct but here you are focusing on one single example of a possible future in which parliament might attempt to abolish the monarchy. The thing we are supposed to be arguing is whether or not there is significant possibility of the monarchy "going anywhere in our lifetimes".
As you keep going away from this argument without resolving it I think I'm going to stop here.
I am more thinking that I am against the whole 'Good she should suffer as much, evil fucking bitch go straight to hell!!'Can someone ELI5 saying bad things about the monarchy is toxic or should be frowned upon? Is it because the damage done by the royal family is less "direct" than say, a fascist politician or billionaire CEO?
Like if someone is graphically describing how the queen should die that might be one thing but I'm trying to understand why "fuck the royalty" is bad.
You immediately jumped to moaning about toxicity as soon as one single poster said 'fuck royalty', which is a good deal less aggressive than your strawman, so let's not pretend that this is about anything other than you wanting to tone police.I am more thinking that I am against the whole 'Good she should suffer as much, evil fucking bitch go straight to hell!!'
Yeah I was way too rash on that. That was terrible stupid mistake on my part, Idk why I said it, I have no excuse for it and I deeply apologise for that.You immediately jumped to moaning about toxicity as soon as one single poster said 'fuck royalty', which is a good deal less aggressive than your strawman, so let's not pretend that this is about anything other than you wanting to tone police.
Girl is funding the defense of her pedophile son, I'll save my sympathies for someone else.I am more thinking that I am against the whole 'Good she should suffer as much, evil fucking bitch go straight to hell!!'
I am not saying be sympathetic to her but actively want her to suffer as much like wishing she would be torturedGirl is funding the defense of her pedophile son, I'll save my sympathies for someone else.
Good thing no one said thatI am not saying be sympathetic to her but actively want her to suffer as much like wishing she would be tortured
Where did I say someone did?Good thing no one said that
I wish she'd catch guillotine. The sooner we remove these paedophile-enabling chinless parasites the better.
There's a lot wrong with this miserable little island, and the fish rots from the head.
Oh sure. Sure. What I think Johnson and his gang of murdering horse-diddlers deserve is, frankly, unsuitable for public broadcast. And, yeah, removing the inbred bag of bones is unlikely to result in any material change for real people.(1) The Queen is at best a figurehead. Johnson is the head of the state, not her.
(2) The island brought most of the things wrong with it on itself and the existence or not of the Royal family will change precisely nothing about the vast majority of self inflicted problems the UK has.
Oh sure. Sure. What I think Johnson and his gang of murdering horse-diddlers deserve is, frankly, unsuitable for public broadcast. And, yeah, removing the inbred bag of bones is unlikely to result in any material change for real people.
But it's worth a punt though, isn't it?