Queen steps down to aid Prince Philip

Erm....the article says she is "stepping back" not stepping down.
She has been stepping back and handing over more of her Royal duties as Monarch for quite some time.
Just saying

Rainbows
Jane

a reply to: angelchemuel

yeh I made a mistake there spotted , there is a big difference between reducing her role as monarch and stepping down completely !

a reply to: putnam6

Everytime I want to take you Brits seriously for a moment, then you have some BS with the "Royals".

And we in turn look at Trump and think that maybe after all we got the lesser of two evils!

Liz isn't stepping down, she's stepping back and other senior Royals are taking more prominent roles.
Understandable in any family business.

Liz has been a good Head of State and has led the UK and The Commonwealth through some difficult times.
But when she finally does pass away maybe it is time to finally do away with The Royal Family?
But I'd like to see The Commonwealth continue but I don't know if that would be possible without The Monarchy.

But what are the alternatives for a Head of State?
Few alternatives seem to compliment our current Parliamentary system.

a reply to: Freeborn

At least we had no choice in the queen being thrust upon us unlike....

a reply to: UpIsNowDown

Well, there is that.

But then there is this.

a reply to: andy06shake

What's he doing in that pic? Chucking an apple at the Queen's noggin?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

With Boris its always a guess.

Concentrating on using a tool would be my bet.

If you look closely you may see the steam coming out his lugs.

a reply to: andy06shake

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Come on Andy tell Augustus the truth he is playing wiff waff

a reply to: sapien82

She may step down, but when Philip, the old bafoon she calls husband pops his clogs, she'll be back.

Jobsharing I imagine with Charlie.

a reply to: sapien82

The Queen has already delegated most of her official duties so I guess shedding the rest is a natural next step , I wish them well in their retirement.

‘He Knows His Days Are Numbered’

He's 99 of course he knows his days are numbered.

a reply to: gortex

if he reaches 100 will he get that commemorative card from her maj, like joe public does?

a reply to: UpIsNowDown

At least she won't have to post it.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: ufoorbhunter

Now as an ageing adult who's seen it since I can honestly see where the Yanks got rid of our royalty. Shame can't manage it

We did get rid of The Monarchy between 1649-1660, before the Yanks even.

However we didn't like being a republic ( Commonwealth Of England ) so Parliament asked The Monarchy to return.

Errr............................ You make a very good point there ADL and I forgot about that brief experiment with democracy At the same time when you refer to "we" one has to see that us commoners never really had any say in it, I mean the average man in the fields or mills wasn't exactly part of the planned rebellion etc

originally posted by: UpIsNowDown

*WOW*

Where did you get that? Is it yours?

Congratulations on reaching your centenary!

a reply to: eletheia


whomever it was would be 112 now, her signature looks odd though what is the letter after the i, its a funny looking z.....its a fake from camden market

originally posted UpIsNowDown

whomever it was would be 112 now.

I know ......and I bet you dont look it!!

Her signature looks odd though what is the letter after the i, its a funny looking z.....

Her handwriting is poor ..... it is a very sloppy z , you'd think she would have

brushed up on her handwriting the number of things she has to sign.

Its a fake from camden market

Much business in forgeries in Camden market then?

a reply to: crayzeed

The Duchess of Cornwall will not become Queen.

When Charles married Camilla in 2005, it was made known that, when he ascended, or if he ascended, to the throne she would not take the title of Queen.

She will be a Princess Consort at best for whatever that's worth and not that it matters much.

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: ufoorbhunter

Now as an ageing adult who's seen it since I can honestly see where the Yanks got rid of our royalty. Shame can't manage it

We did get rid of The Monarchy between 1649-1660, before the Yanks even.

However we didn't like being a republic ( Commonwealth Of England ) so Parliament asked The Monarchy to return.

Errr............................ You make a very good point there ADL and I forgot about that brief experiment with democracy

At the same time when you refer to "we" one has to see that us commoners never really had any say in it, I mean the average man in the fields or mills wasn't exactly part of the planned rebellion etc

The Brits would be insane to ditch the monarchy. I am half Greek half American and though that should suggest I would be big on democracy, I aint. I'm fact it's a sha!e your monarch's power is so limited.

We read about a bunch of studies in cpllege where they took the highest quality of I've civilizations for the last 3500 years to see what things Egypt 3500 years ago, Benelux during the enlightenment, Sweden or Norway up until ten years ago, and everything in between and it wasn't compulsory education, it wasn't running water, it wasn't access to medicine...the one absolute that they all share is monarchy. And I don't think it's coincidental.

It's the very problem in America today. It will just never be possible to hand people 're!piracy power and expect so!e of them won't sell out or rape the nation and their resources to better their lives after they get out. I mean, what was agreed to be the greatest nation the world had yet seen, the United States, is dreading having to admit it but you gotta face reality. Since 1931 when the economy itself was sold to the highest bidder, the door to central banking on a system of fractional reserve lending, aka the most evil corrupt disgusting and hopeless thing on earth sent us spiraling toward failure and for the last four or five decades we have seen the democratically elected representatives one after another become the !pat depraved criminals no matter how saintly they seem entering politics.

And so here we are, a.country of such wealth and power...so rich we don't blink when 21 trillion goes unaccounted for in one session of Congress...a thousand times richer than country#2. And are we living that way? Nope. Indistinguishable if not looking like the lesser country to Norway or Denmark. That tells you about the kind of !money we are talking about the democracy and its reps raping from us. Or look at the incarcwrations. Not only are we doing the most sick and barbaric sign of an uncivilized society and incarcerating substance abuse, victimless crime, and with e!harassing puniahments, but overcro!finalization is just impossible to fix now and it would take the fall of the U.S. At this point to scale down government reach.

Why are these things so easy to do here? Because the countries positions, even the very highest, are temporary situations which in no way give a sense of ownership to its responsibilities which is a big deterrent of reckless behavior. The point of a monarch is the one how we would need to survive this but alas we don't have one like the UK can put its hopes in when the NOW comes a knockin. The !monarch acts under the very delicate reality of the nation being the family legacy, the king or queens previous tea and beloved subjects who in return are the only source giving their power validation. Each move made risks losing the throne or strengthens their place on it so if things reached the level of failure and corruption the U.S. Is in the process of being destroyed and eaten from the inside out as all its rotten porous holes left by 100 years of 4 year opportunists give way. This is exactly when a monarch needs to step in and say, "no!" We will preserve a!erica culture, the people will not have another 1 00 years enslaved by central banking, and if I don't step in now them even should the nation survive, my dynasty will be humiliated and I will be the complicit one who stood by. In fact, I have nearly piled my hair out these last ten years when I would expect the queen to say enough is enough so many times for !any things but she stays quiet. I have a feeling of not for the hostile attitude of a third of the nation to the royal family and the many ways it !makes it terrifying for the queen to flex any muscle at all outside being a ribbon cutter, she would have spoken up by now and has wished she could but idiots would have seen her head roll for it.

Your monarch is NOT an obstacle Brits, Canadians, Australians, NZers, Bahamians, and so on. The monarch is your asset and if allowed to be so, your savior in theory when your desperate hour is at hand...stop seeing it as something behind the other nations, everything in history and in theory says it is part of the best societies.

a reply to: AlexandrosTheGreat

When you said you were half Greek I thought we'd got big ears or Prince Andrew on ATS

Wowzers that's one well written article btw and you make some excellent points. You have a really interesting view of things here and it's gonna give us some thought on it over the next few hours.

On a personal level what I do like about the Royals is the continuity in our system, we'vebeen on a political track of very gentle change for a thousand years. Secondly I like the way the Commonwealth still bonds the British / ex Imperial people around the world. Those bonds are very recent too and mean something in this unstable world today. At the same time the Monarchy means little on a personal basis, it might bring in the tourists to London etc, but from my dirty engineering pit in the bleakest part of the Midlands to me personally I can't see what's so good about it apart from the order book goes up a bit when there's a Royal wedding / birth

a reply to: ufoorbhunter

I make no secret of the fact that my preferred UK of the future would be devolved power to ALL the regions within some sort of Federal framework.....ideally without a Monarchy.

But none of that is going to happen any time soon.

And as I said earlier, if anyone can convince me of a more suitable form of Head of State I guess we are stuck with The Royal Family for the foreseaable future.
I'm sort of ok with that as long as they don't cost us much money - the latest figures estimate that The Monarchy cost each individual tax payer approximately 69 pence for the year - and that they don't interfere and meddle with our politics and the running of the country.

Like you I like the idea that The Commonwealth is based on some sort of common bond between nations and shared core values.
It means far, far to me personally than any enforced Union with our continental neighbours and I think it should be given a much higher and prominent profile than it gets at present.

There are numerous misconceptions surrounding our previous dalliance with Republicanism.
None more so than the portrayal of Cromwell as some sort of hero of the people.
He was a religious bigot who sold out and betrayed many of his former friends and allies once he gained power.
He was authoritarian by nature and passionately oppossed universal sufferage and believed only the wealthy elite should be able to vote and stand for Parliament.
Yes, he turned down The Crown when offered it but to all intents and purposes he was King......just with a different name.

Maybe a Democratic Federal Republic is the way forward?

One thing about The Royal Family though; holidays and days on the drink for weddings, funerals and coronations!