It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

British PM and Palace 'discussed reform'

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 04:03 AM
link   

British PM and Palace 'discussed reform'


news.bbc.co.uk

Gordon Brown and Buckingham Palace have discussed plans to change the rules of succession to the throne, including giving royal women equal rights.

Downing Street said the scrapping of the ban on heirs to the throne marrying Roman Catholics was also discussed.

Mr Brown told the BBC that people living in the 21st Century expected discrimination to be removed.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 04:03 AM
link   
Interesting. Brown seems to be trying to get into every single aspect of British politics.

I understand that male heirs were given precedence in the past due to fighting in battle but how has that changed since Prince Harry was out fighting for his country ... granted Princes/Kings are no longer at the front line but Harry was still fighting in the war.

I am intrigued to know that when "equal rights" are established for heirs to the throne how will the decision be made? Age? Achievements? etc

What are your thoughts on this and the monarchy in general as 76% of Brits want the monarchy to continue...

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 04:08 AM
link   
Oh f*** off, Gordon Brown. What right does he have to change an institution that dates back to the very founding of England as a country, and beyond?

The monarchy are a tradition. I don't think any of the royals were saying "well, it's not fair that succession is patrilineal!", for christ's sake, and its not like it affects any members of the general public.

If I were the Queen, I'd explain to him who is in charge here, and that he should keep his moldy old face in parliament where David Cameron can consistently rip the piss out of his bull# policies.

Not one person in Britain supports you, Dour Brown, so just f*** off.

I mean, hell, we've had a Queen for the last 50-plus years. It's not like women don't have their fair shot at the throne!

I wonder if this is just a way of skanking Charles out of what he is rightfully entitled to?

[edit on 27-3-2009 by The Last Man on Earth]



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 04:21 AM
link   
There's a reason why Catholics are banned from becoming monarch ... they consistently dance to the tune of Rome & fail to put the interests of the United Kingdom first.

The day the Pope becomes a Protestant is the day we should consider that particular change.

Some of the best monarchs, however, have been female. Elizabeth I defeated the Spaniards & established the first English settlements in North America, after whom the state of Virginia is named. Victoria's reign was marked by the establishment of the British Empire, with major advances in science & industry. Elizabeth II has been a good monarch too, under whose reign the UK has been transformed from colonial power to modern European state. I see no reason why women can't inherit the throne before their younger brothers.

The legislative changes are onerous, requiring new legislation to be passed in each of the countries of which Elizabeth II is . of state. It might simply prove too difficult to do.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 04:27 AM
link   
The monarchy is a playground for tyrants and is a modern day dictatorship. It should be abolished immediately, an institution based on undemocratic principles.

"Prince" Charles, who violates the constitution by publicly displaying political beliefs, should be denied the throne. It is obvious Parliament wishes to weaken the Crown in order to prevent "King" Charles III becoming another tyrant.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by george_gaz

What are your thoughts on this and the monarchy in general as 76% of Brits want the monarchy to continue...

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)


I'm a socialist but, in all honesty, I have no problem with a monarchy. They have no real power as such. It's arguable how much influence they have on politics or society - cue bizarre posts from Americans who portray Britain has having a mediaeval relationship with the monarchy "ZOMFG! The Brits curtsey and bow to the Royalz! This is a historical sign of acquiescence acknowledging the Royal right to eat the first-born of every household in the Kingdom! Prince Charles once saw a snake in London Zoo, snakes are reptiles, which Charles is a Reptilian who killed Princess Diana of Wales with his own cold-blooded hands as she was about to reveal all!!!!1"

Yes, they're by-and-large supported by tax-payers but, for 60-odd pence a year they cost me as an individual, they're probably more value for money than the overwhelming majority of politicians. I'm pretty sure by the time all the 'John Lewis lists' &c. are totted-up an compared to what the Royals cost us (minus what they contribute to tourism &c), it's the non-Royals in positions of power that are the real issue.

At least the Royals don't try and create this idea that they're 'just like us' - see the careers of Blair and David 'Call Me Dave' Cameron - and pretend they're on our side and are 'only trying to help' and 'want what's best for us all'.

Ultimately, it's Jacqui 'Big Sister' Smith and her cronies that wants control and spy on every aspect of your life, not Prince Andrew or some other buck-toothed clown who doesn't know the price of milk. Similarly, it's non-Royal fat cats and bankers that have ensured the place of the proletariat under the yoke for decades to come, not over-paid village fete attendants asking 'and what do you do?'

As for succession, given that the 3 of the most well-known and well-thought of British Royals in history are Elizabeth I, Victoria and Elizabeth II, I don't see that much of an issue with succession including women.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Lass
There's a reason why Catholics are banned from becoming monarch ... they consistently dance to the tune of Rome & fail to put the interests of the United Kingdom first.


This is one of the things I find peculiar in 'The Evil British' type of threads, how historically they've 'oppressed' particular demographics in these islands. There's a reason for that, as you've pointed out: if they weren't throwing their hat in with Rome, Spain and France, they're wouldn't have been a need.

I agree with your point about female Royalty too. I wish I'd read your post before I wrote mine as it would have saved me making the same point!



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
The monarchy is a playground for tyrants and is a modern day dictatorship. It should be abolished immediately, an institution based on undemocratic principles.

"Prince" Charles, who violates the constitution by publicly displaying political beliefs, should be denied the throne. It is obvious Parliament wishes to weaken the Crown in order to prevent "King" Charles III becoming another tyrant.


I do think you are quite the only person who think Charles is going to become a tyrant.

And the monarchy really does not dictate policy, any more.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 04:56 AM
link   
Is the issue about catholics something to do with Camilla?

I've lost track - did she renounce her catholicism before she married Charles?

It seems there's been a bit of 'rule-bending' going on already over those two. They weren't even married in public, but behind closed doors.

As a catholic, was her divorce considered legal by her Church?

Thirty odd years ago she wasn't considered acceptable because she was a catholic and 'had a past'. Now, one marriage, two kids, an adulterous affair and a divorce later, she's married to the heir to the throne.

She's known as the Duchess of Cornwall but she is, as I understand it, rightfully the Princess of Wales since she takes on the status of her husband. Apparently, if he ever becomes king she will actually become the queen, even if she doesn't use that title.

Honestly, I don't know what to make of the monarchy. I can see the argument for both sides BUT with the current shower running the UK (which I suppose it isn't United any more) I suppose it's a blessing none of them can become President. At least at the moment they can't rise above Petty Dictators.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 05:11 AM
link   
What exactly has the monarchy done in recent years to appear dictatorial to people here? It seems you are looking at the historical role of the monarchy, rather than the modern role.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by The Last Man on Earth
 


Sorry if my post wasn't clear. When I referred to the 'current shower running the UK' I meant the government.

I do think they act like petty dictators.


[edit on 27-3-2009 by berenike]



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 05:35 AM
link   
Mr Brown told the BBC that people living in the 21st Century expected discrimination to be removed.

Wow really some logic from mr moron?
Perhaps he might even go as far to see that, living in the 21st century.
WE DON'T DAMN NEED A ROYAL FAMILY!!



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by aLiiEn
Mr Brown told the BBC that people living in the 21st Century expected discrimination to be removed.

Wow really some logic from mr moron?
Perhaps he might even go as far to see that, living in the 21st century.
WE DON'T DAMN NEED A ROYAL FAMILY!!


Yes, great, lets be a republic and get our own Bush followed by Barak "Mr Promises" Obama. How exactly do you feel the situation would have been improved? Perhaps a French Playboy would be a better . of state?

The US is virtually a monarcy anyway...how many Bush's have been in power, so far? And what is Bush Jr Jr up to these days?

And have you not noticed that almost every republic in history, including the US now, have always utterly feared the prospect of one man siezing absolute power and becoming a tyrant - well, we have side-stepped that issue neatly. There is no option for one person to control the UK's power, because that place is already filled and they have been relegated to a virtually ceremonial position, and thus cannot wield any power without the public being severely against it.

We have a great balance of cool historic attitude and a modern democracy - why change that?



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Last Man on Earth
We have a great balance of cool historic attitude and a modern democracy - why change that?


How are we a democracy? Our Head of State is unelected and only one family is entitled to rule. It's not our government - it's Her Majesty's government.

Pure anti-democracy.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 06:36 AM
link   
I think it is a bit ridiculous Gordon saying "equality for women heirs" when we currently have a Queen ... but I guess he is looking to the future. He is probably trying to marry into royalty and take the throne


[edit on 27-3-2009 by george_gaz]



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 06:38 AM
link   
Charles only has sons, so does it matter. Also nowadays these people can probably choose the sex of there baby, so they can have a boy, etc...

Does it really matter.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite

Originally posted by The Last Man on Earth
We have a great balance of cool historic attitude and a modern democracy - why change that?


How are we a democracy? Our Head of State is unelected and only one family is entitled to rule. It's not our government - it's Her Majesty's government.

Pure anti-democracy.


If the . of state had any legislative influence, then yes, I would agree with you. However, I can't think of a law that the Queen has introduced, and IIRC the last time this happened was in the 1700s.

What you don't seem to understand is that the monarch is the . of state in name alone. They don't make laws, they don't pass judgements and they don't have an active affair in government any more.

What is the problem? Are you saying that the UK doesn't democratically elect the people who make it's laws?



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite

Originally posted by The Last Man on Earth
We have a great balance of cool historic attitude and a modern democracy - why change that?


How are we a democracy? Our Head of State is unelected and only one family is entitled to rule. It's not our government - it's Her Majesty's government.

Pure anti-democracy.


To be fair, even without an unelected Head of State, we're not that much of a democracy. I don't remember voting for Gordon Brown - do you? Our 'first past the post' voting system leaves a lot to be desired. There's anomalies such as the 'West Lothian Question'. We don't really have much in the way of say or representation once a party is elected, even at local level.

Since when has it ever been "our government"?



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 07:38 AM
link   
And more to the point, doesn't the term "President Brown" make you shudder?



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

To be fair, even without an unelected Head of State, we're not that much of a democracy. I don't remember voting for Gordon Brown - do you?


Hello,

I think that is because, to my knowledge, in the UK we do not elect a leader, but a party. So if Gordon chose to, he could put his pet dog at the forefront of the party to become the PM




top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join