posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 12:24 PM
reply to post by Jukiodone
I have to agree. I feel there's more here than initially meets the eye.
If i get a chance I'll do some digging but earlier today I saw a Dr Andrew Blick (I think) on some news channel discussing the UKs 'unwritten
constitution'. He explained that 'precedence' is a very powerful tool in relation to this subject. He stated that the Queens attendance could be a
precedence setting action which could then become a problem when jug ears sits on the throne. As most people know he's much much much more political
than the queen.
People who say the monarchy is just ceremonial are in need of doing some due dilligence. As an example apparently the government has to consult
charles whenever there is some tax legislation to pass that could affect his earnimgs. He has veto over it though luckily he's thus far not used it.
I believe this is a strategic move to set a precedent for charles, because Brits would be far more accepting of a dictatorship under the royal family
than any government.
Also I may be wrong but aren't all the palaces and castles actually owned by the country not the monarch? She's not bringing in income the buildings
are. I've also argued for many years with royalists that if the queen was kicked out and we became a republic I believe royal related tourism would
rise. There'd be a massive buzz about going to the country with the most recently ousted royal famly and possibly getting to take a tour of the
ex-queens private rooms.
Republic for the win!
edit on 17-12-2012 by merkins because: Addendum