| |
obliolait
BucketHead
PeaNut 550,788
April 2012
Posts: 856
Layouts: 0
 |  Posted: 1/21/2013 8:29:01 AM
oh well she is still a crazy bitch hack lawyer | |
|
scrappower
Allons-y Alonso
PeaNut 174,150
October 2004
Posts: 13,005
Layouts: 0
 | Posted: 1/21/2013 8:32:21 AM
Posted: 1/21/2013 8:22:13 AM
Is ANY royal family relevant today? I'm a republican, and very vocal about it, and I'm definitely a minority, so it seems a lot of people still believe royality is important.
Huh??  |
 
Blessed Be! | |
|
|
Dalai Mama
La Pea Boheme
PeaNut 49,641
September 2002
Posts: 24,171
Layouts: 85
Loc: Drunk on the lawn in a nuclear dawn
 | |
scrappower
Allons-y Alonso
PeaNut 174,150
October 2004
Posts: 13,005
Layouts: 0
| Posted: 1/21/2013 8:39:27 AM
It just doesn't make any sense to me, what does being a republican have to do with the royal family and how does that make her in the minority? I must be missing something.  |
Blessed Be! | |
|
|
KikiNichole
HandSlapPea Pea
PeaNut 69,597
February 2003
Posts: 27,039
Layouts: 2
Loc: Follow the Yellow Brick Road
| Posted: 1/21/2013 8:41:17 AM
scrappower - what is your confusion about her post?
I think she was thinking in terms of an American republican rather than British republicanism. It gave me pause for a moment too. |
|
|
Dalai Mama
La Pea Boheme
PeaNut 49,641
September 2002
Posts: 24,171
Layouts: 85
Loc: Drunk on the lawn in a nuclear dawn
| Posted: 1/21/2013 8:41:35 AM
Small 'r' republican as in preferring a republic over a monarchy.  |
Jo Mama
***********************************
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight. - Bruce Cockburn
The knack of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. - Douglas Adams
   | |
|
|
JBeans
Tampons. Not just for Xmas ornaments anymore.
PeaNut 200,953
April 2005
Posts: 8,208
Layouts: 157
Loc: Between Diaperland and Snotsville
| Posted: 1/21/2013 8:59:36 AM
Sure she's symbolic. Following our own news, there are some that feel she is still as relevant in our government as she was over 200 years ago. Doesn't make it so, but she's still making political headlines.
I find it funny how some on this board don't think that foreign politics and business have no residual effects on their country.  It perplexes me, every time I see it. |
Well Peas, I believe this thread has gone Thrusday.
"The Pot has not just met the Kettle, they are getting jiggy on the top of the stove." -Lanus | |
|
|
scrappower
Allons-y Alonso
PeaNut 174,150
October 2004
Posts: 13,005
Layouts: 0
| Posted: 1/21/2013 9:05:43 AM
Ahhhh I see. Lol.  |
Blessed Be! | |
|
|
~Lauren~
Original Pea #1803
PeaNut 246,606
January 2006
Posts: 29,619
Layouts: 16
Loc: right here...even if some don't like it. ;)
 | Posted: 1/21/2013 9:13:28 AM
Following her mental collapse where she posted lies and racist comments, Lauren rises from the ashes like the sphinx.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uh, I think the word you were looking for Oblio is Phoenix.
I'll take being a hack divorce lawyer over a pot-head college drop out sitting in a basement who is so uneducated he thinks that the sphinx rose from ashes. |
Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian - Henry Ford | |
|
|
Flat Four
PeaNut
PeaNut 241,216
January 2006
Posts: 299
Layouts: 0
Loc: Somewhere in England
| Posted: 1/21/2013 10:22:54 AM
I think his boys are doing a fine job. I always wonder when they go into the military, are they a pain in the butt? I mean, are they coddled and kept away from dangerous situations or really in the thick of things? I know at the time of WWII the family showed amazing bravery by staying in the city during the bombings. I always admired them for that.
Prince William is a search and rescue pilot so while he's not 'in the thick of things' it still has its dangers.
I would imagine Prince Harry does as much as he is allowed, he doesn't seem the sort to want to be molly-coddled does he?
Also Prince Andrew served in the Falklands conflict, supposedly flying decoy helicopters ('supposedly' as some people think his role was over-played). |
| ....Wasted days and sleepness nights.... | |
|
|
dottyscrapper
PeaAddict
PeaNut 311,985
April 2007
Posts: 1,076
Layouts: 0
Loc: UK
 | Posted: 1/21/2013 2:40:08 PM
I don't think they are- their roles aren't what they once were
The role of the Monarch, as a part of the British Constitution has not changed since the end of the 17th centuary.
While they don't have the political relevance they once had, I do believe they are wonderful for tourism. The only one I can't stand is Prince Charles and I think the Queen will hang on as long as she can so as not to give up the crown to him
Do you actually have any knowledge of how the Monarchy works ? I don't think you do.
The Queen doesn't have the option of hanging on as you put it. On the Queens death the crown will automatically go to Prince Charles - no if or buts...that's how it works! I don't think that she has any control as to when she dies !
I think his boys are doing a fine job. I always wonder when they go into the military, are they a pain in the butt? I mean, are they coddled and kept away from dangerous situations or really in the thick of things?
No neither of them are given any special treatment in the military and both of them would be the first to object if they were.
Prince William is an active search and rescue pilot carrying out the same rota as all the other members of his team at his RAF base.
Prince Harry is just coming up to the end of his 4 month tour of duty as an apache helicopter pilot in Afghanistan, right in the front line. As an Apache Pilot he couldn't be any more in the thick of things than that.
Neither his regiment in Afghanistan or William's in the RAF have the inclination or time for carrying " passengers" both have far too important a job to carry out.
I'm a little surprised at the lack of knowledge that some posters, including the OP have regarding the position of the Monarchy in relation to the Government in the UK.
The Queen is far from just a tourist attraction . She's a very important part of the historical constitution of the way the Parliament of the UK works. A lot of it might look symbolic but many of her " parliamentary" duties are important legal procedures.
| |
|
*maureen*
Bad Wolf
PeaNut 191,892
February 2005
Posts: 5,307
Layouts: 0
Loc: Wheaton
| Posted: 1/21/2013 2:51:35 PM
Dotty or Gar or any other English pea, my son and I were talking about something the other day while studying for his world history final and I hope you would indulge me a question. We were wondering what would happen to the monarchy if the Queen became incapacitated but didn't die. For instance if she had a stroke that left her unable to participate in the process of government completely, what would happen? Is there a contingency for that situation?
| |
|
Dalai Mama
La Pea Boheme
PeaNut 49,641
September 2002
Posts: 24,171
Layouts: 85
Loc: Drunk on the lawn in a nuclear dawn
| |
gar
Whoopea!
PeaNut 172,235
October 2004
Posts: 12,483
Layouts: 0
Loc: England UK
| Posted: 1/21/2013 3:12:23 PM
Maureen, If the Queen was to become incapacitated she would still be the reigning monarch but Prince Charles would take over her constitutional duties. |
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Stephen Roberts
| |
|
|
dottyscrapper
PeaAddict
PeaNut 311,985
April 2007
Posts: 1,076
Layouts: 0
Loc: UK
| Posted: 1/21/2013 3:15:27 PM
 Gar
| |
|
*maureen*
Bad Wolf
PeaNut 191,892
February 2005
Posts: 5,307
Layouts: 0
Loc: Wheaton
| Posted: 1/21/2013 3:17:33 PM
Thanks Gar! And just for the record we weren't wishing her ill! | |
|
Roundtwo
BucketHead
PeaNut 473,695
July 2010
Posts: 833
Layouts: 0
 | Posted: 1/21/2013 3:18:36 PM
t/j
I don't agree only the heir should benefit by an accident of birth.
I always wonder about the logic of this kind of thinking - it is afterall, an accident of birth that I was born Canadian and not in a country that doesn't have the luxuries I have access to - it isn't a particularly valid arguement against the throne, imho.
|
| I'm not really a new pea but am an anonymous pea who doesn't remember my original screen name before going anonymous. I don't want to be anonymous anymore but really I guess I am still anonymous since no one knows me anyway! | |
|
|
JBeans
Tampons. Not just for Xmas ornaments anymore.
PeaNut 200,953
April 2005
Posts: 8,208
Layouts: 157
Loc: Between Diaperland and Snotsville
| Posted: 1/21/2013 3:20:12 PM
The reason I call the monarchy symbolic, at least here in Canada, is because I can't remember the monarchy ever not following the will of Parliament.
I don't know if you were directing part of that to me, but I agree. When i posted, I was ever so vaguely referring to the Idle No More Movement's/Teresa Spense's pleas for the Governer General and/or the Queen to intervene/ be represented in Canada's governmental affairs.
Won't open that can of worms on this thread, but indeed, the Queen office has even stated in writing that it has nothing to do with her.
Actually, I think if more peas actually paid more attention to foreign politics, I could see an INM thread being long and very interesting in pea land. |
Well Peas, I believe this thread has gone Thrusday.
"The Pot has not just met the Kettle, they are getting jiggy on the top of the stove." -Lanus | |
|
|
dottyscrapper
PeaAddict
PeaNut 311,985
April 2007
Posts: 1,076
Layouts: 0
Loc: UK
| Posted: 1/21/2013 4:31:43 PM
JBeans and Dalai Mama - I wasn't diecting the symbolic bit at you, not at all.
I just find it strange that some others on the thread think that she has no reason to be there apart from being a "celebrity" or a glorified charity worker that they read about in gossip mags/online website, who more often than not make up most of the stories they write about.
As for the OP asking the question she did, same applies to her, she obviously doesn't know the constitutional reason of her position otherwise she wouldn't ask if she was relevant today.
| |
|
katybee8
AncestralPea
PeaNut 421,136
April 2009
Posts: 4,945
Layouts: 8
Loc: Chicago NW burbs
 | Posted: 1/21/2013 5:51:49 PM
While they don't have the political relevance they once had, I do believe they are wonderful for tourism. The only one I can't stand is Prince Charles and I think the Queen will hang on as long as she can so as not to give up the crown to him.
Do you actually have any knowledge of how the Monarchy works ? I don't think you do.
The Queen doesn't have the option of hanging on as you put it. On the Queens death the crown will automatically go to Prince Charles - no if or buts...that's how it works! I don't think that she has any control as to when she dies !
Um, she could step down and let him be King if she chose to do so. That's what I meant by that statement. I apologize for not being more clear. Certainly, if you know how a monarchy works, you would know she could choose to abdicate at any time. | |
|
Dalai Mama
La Pea Boheme
PeaNut 49,641
September 2002
Posts: 24,171
Layouts: 85
Loc: Drunk on the lawn in a nuclear dawn
| |
dottyscrapper
PeaAddict
PeaNut 311,985
April 2007
Posts: 1,076
Layouts: 0
Loc: UK
| Posted: 1/21/2013 6:07:13 PM
Um, she could step down and let him be King if she chose to do so. That's what I meant by that statement. I apologize for not being more clear. Certainly, if you know how a monarchy works, you would know she could choose to abdicate at any time.
In that case you would also know that this Queen would NEVER abdicate under any circumstance.
So it will never happen.
| |
|
Dalai Mama
La Pea Boheme
PeaNut 49,641
September 2002
Posts: 24,171
Layouts: 85
Loc: Drunk on the lawn in a nuclear dawn
| |
I-95
It's all just nonsense anyway!
PeaNut 97,456
July 2003
Posts: 19,549
Layouts: 0
Loc: California, NY & Orlando
 | Posted: 1/21/2013 6:16:32 PM
I'm surprised to hear people say the Royals are just a bunch of rich spoiled brats. The Royals work HARD. They work long hours, they're expected to be polite, engaging, be up to speed on everything from world politics to what the best vegetables being shown at the county fair are this year.
They don't get to complain, they show up to open hospitals and launch ships, no matter what the weather, or whether they feel like it or not. They put up with having cameras shoved in their faces 24/7, and unkind things printed about them in the papers. They live their lives in a fish bowl, and they do it all for God and country. Long live the Queen! | |
|
JBeans
Tampons. Not just for Xmas ornaments anymore.
PeaNut 200,953
April 2005
Posts: 8,208
Layouts: 157
Loc: Between Diaperland and Snotsville
| Posted: 1/21/2013 6:17:11 PM
Um, she could step down and let him be King if she chose to do so. That's what I meant by that statement. I apologize for not being more clear. Certainly, if you know how a monarchy works, you would know she could choose to abdicate at any time.
Oh FFS. <shaking my head>  |
Well Peas, I believe this thread has gone Thrusday.
"The Pot has not just met the Kettle, they are getting jiggy on the top of the stove." -Lanus | |
|
|
lucyg819
pearl-clutching nitpicker
PeaNut 201,774
April 2005
Posts: 14,375
Layouts: 15
Loc: gone to chemo with BethAnne
| Posted: 1/21/2013 7:54:02 PM
Um, she could step down and let him be King if she chose to do so. That's what I meant by that statement. I apologize for not being more clear. Certainly, if you know how a monarchy works, you would know she could choose to abdicate at any time.
There isn't the teensiest, tiniest chance in hell that the Queen would ever give up her crown. Abdication is not part of the British royal vocabulary. King Edward VIII's abdication was a fluke, based on much more complicated reasons than just wanting to marry Mrs. Simpson, and a source of great humiliation to the royal family to this day.
I'm not a Brit, but I know that much.
ETA I don't think you know enough about the monarchy to take that tone you used in speaking to British and Commnwealth peas. |
LUCYG
northern california
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
--Bertrand Russell
 | |
|
|
fairycakes
PeaNut
PeaNut 451,951
January 2010
Posts: 288
Layouts: 0
Loc: devon uk
 | Posted: 1/22/2013 3:04:19 AM
It has happened in history that an heir has reigned whilst their father was incapacitated.
King George 3rd went doo lally and his son George {later King George 4th] was Prince Regent. hence the Regency period.
Also i think you only have to look at the thousands of British 'subjects' who turned out to see the jubilee celebrations last year in the worst summer on record to gauge the countrys feelings!
I am proud to have a Royal family, and I think some countries are a teeny bit envious of them! | |
|
gar
Whoopea!
PeaNut 172,235
October 2004
Posts: 12,483
Layouts: 0
Loc: England UK
| Posted: 1/22/2013 4:55:22 AM
Just for your interest, my American friends...
Total engagements, both in the UK and abroad, during 2011 by the Royal Family
The Queen - 370
Duke of Edinburgh - 330
Prince of Wales - 601
Duchess of Cornwall - 250
Duke of York - 455
Earl of Wessex - 374
Countess of Wessex - 191
Princess Royal - 568
Duke of Gloucester - 251
Duchess of Gloucester - 155
Duke of Kent - 211
Princess Alexandra - 118
Prince William undertook 90 engagements, despite also working full time. Catherine has undertaken 34 engagements since appearing in the Court Circular for the first time on 4 June. Prince Harry undertook 16 engagements while also working full time.
The Queen undertook 62 fewer engagements than in 2010, while the DoE undertook 26 fewer.
The Queen also reviews her mail (200-300 letters per day), meets with her Private Secretaries to go over official papers and documents, reads Commonwealth documents and state papers, meets with ministers, dignitaries, ambassadors etc, has lunch with guests, undertakes public engagements (often 3 before lunch) for which she will brief herself on the relevant information of the institution/organisation/person, she may then meet the Prime Minister in the early evening, read a report of the day's parliamentary proceedings that day, more public engagements, read and when necessary approve and sign more documents......and so on.
This doesn't include state visits, investitures, worldwide tours and visits that may take up the whole day meaning her other duties have to be fitted around that.
Not bad at 80
|
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Stephen Roberts
| |
|
|
GrinningCat
Proudly Canadian
PeaNut 43,061
July 2002
Posts: 31,570
Layouts: 2
| Posted: 1/22/2013 6:14:38 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Um, she could step down and let him be King if she chose to do so. That's what I meant by that statement. I apologize for not being more clear. Certainly, if you know how a monarchy works, you would know she could choose to abdicate at any time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There isn't the teensiest, tiniest chance in hell that the Queen would ever give up her crown. Abdication is not part of the British royal vocabulary. King Edward VIII's abdication was a fluke, based on much more complicated reasons than just wanting to marry Mrs. Simpson, and a source of great humiliation to the royal family to this day.
Exactly. Of all the monarchs, this one in particular will never abdicate for exactly that reason.
The abdication crisis is a fascinating piece of history to research.
Some people need to do some research on the monarchy and find out how it actually works and how it actually impacts the Commonwealth. | |
|
SuPeaNatural
PeaAddict
PeaNut 412,905
February 2009
Posts: 1,643
Layouts: 5
Loc: Queensland, Australia
| Posted: 1/22/2013 7:04:06 AM
To answer the original question - maybe to England they're relevant, and if they keep the tourist $$ coming in, then I guess they serve some purpose. But they're not relevant to Australia (IMHO anyway).
As an Australian I believe we should become a republic and break away from the Queen being our head of state.
There has been much debate about this over the years and was even a referendum a few years ago over this. The model proposed was very flawed (the reason I believe it did not pass).
I will happily drink a toast to the Queen of England, read the gossip, enjoy the history and pomp that goes with it all. I will not drink a toast to the Queen of Australia.
here here Sally - my sentiments exactly. Australia has grown up and those apron strings need to be cut. |
They're all crazy. They're all crazy except you and me. Sometimes I have my doubts about you! Martin - Dracula, 1931 | |
|
|
katybee8
AncestralPea
PeaNut 421,136
April 2009
Posts: 4,945
Layouts: 8
Loc: Chicago NW burbs
| Posted: 1/22/2013 7:39:25 AM
Um, she could step down and let him be King if she chose to do so. That's what I meant by that statement. I apologize for not being more clear. Certainly, if you know how a monarchy works, you would know she could choose to abdicate at any time.
In that case you would also know that this Queen would NEVER abdicate under any circumstance.
So it will never happen.
You're right! What's the procedure if she becomes incapacitated? Why do some people there think the royal family is a suck on the nation (Banish the monarchy!) if they only cost each person 70p? That doesn't make sense. Surely in good works alone they more than make up for that? | |
|
gar
Whoopea!
PeaNut 172,235
October 2004
Posts: 12,483
Layouts: 0
Loc: England UK
| Posted: 1/22/2013 7:43:49 AM
What's the procedure if she becomes incapacitated? Why do some people there think the royal family is a suck on the nation (Banish the monarchy!) if they only cost each person 70p? That doesn't make sense. Surely in good works alone they more than make up for that?
As said a few posts up, she remains monarch and Prince Charles takes over her duties.
Some people are against us being a Monarchy and would rather we became a republic. It's not just about the money.
|
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Stephen Roberts
| |
|
|
katybee8
AncestralPea
PeaNut 421,136
April 2009
Posts: 4,945
Layouts: 8
Loc: Chicago NW burbs
| Posted: 1/22/2013 7:46:39 AM
ETA I don't think you know enough about the monarchy to take that tone you used in speaking to British and Commnwealth peas./quote]
I apologize if I seemed to be rude. I certainly did not mean to be. Well, except for the fact that Prince Charles promotes alternative medicine not based in science. That I will not apologize for because it is true.
You're right. I really don't give a crap about the monarchy. They've made money off the blood of others for centuries. The money they have belongs to the British people. But you'll get nothing but defense from the British peas.
Don't even get me started on their treatment of the Irish for the past 400+ years. | |
|
*maureen*
Bad Wolf
PeaNut 191,892
February 2005
Posts: 5,307
Layouts: 0
Loc: Wheaton
| Posted: 1/22/2013 7:47:49 AM
I think Katy's question might be more along the lines of, how does it happen? Does it take an act of Parliament? | |
|
gar
Whoopea!
PeaNut 172,235
October 2004
Posts: 12,483
Layouts: 0
Loc: England UK
| Posted: 1/22/2013 8:10:46 AM
I think Katy's question might be more along the lines of, how does it happen? Does it take an act of Parliament?
Oh sorry, yes ok...actually I don't know the answer to that. If I can root out the info I'll post it
Well, except for the fact that Prince Charles promotes alternative medicine not based in science. That I will not apologize for because it is true.
He's free to believe in what he likes and he's not alone in believing in the power of alternative medicine.
|
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Stephen Roberts
| |
|
|
jodster70
To the right, To the right
PeaNut 51,257
October 2002
Posts: 5,567
Layouts: 28
Loc: Usually NSBR, an un"pea"dictable place :)
| Posted: 1/22/2013 8:36:59 AM
I love all things British...my dream is to one day go over there for a few months and tour the whole island. (It probably will never happen, but it doesn't hurt to dream.) I was in England for 3 days once, not near enough.
The monarchy to me is one characteristic that makes Britain unique. (Yes, I know there are other monarchies, but they have a singular British sensibility.) When I think of Britain, the monarchy comes to mind, tea & biscuits, quaint historical villages, castles, white cliffs of Dover, bagpipes & kilts of Scotland, green rolling hills of Ireland, unique sense of humor, I could go on & on.
I think it's really cool. They play a huge symbolic role in England, and I would hate to see that cease. |
**Jody**
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
Patrick Henry | |
|
|
dottyscrapper
PeaAddict
PeaNut 311,985
April 2007
Posts: 1,076
Layouts: 0
Loc: UK
| Posted: 1/22/2013 8:58:26 AM
I think Katy's question might be more along the lines of, how does it happen? Does it take an act of Parliament
It's covered in the Regency Act of 1937. Maureen.
The Regency act was brought up to date in 1937 to cover that kind of event. At the time when the present Queen's father became king, Princess Elizabeth, as she was then, was under the age of 18. Rather than cover that alone it was written in such a way that it would cover all future incapacitation or the minority ( by age) of any future monarch.
Regency act of 1937
ETA there's an explaination of further changes
here
| |
|
*maureen*
Bad Wolf
PeaNut 191,892
February 2005
Posts: 5,307
Layouts: 0
Loc: Wheaton
| Posted: 1/22/2013 10:38:51 AM
Dotty, thank you! I'm totally geeking out after reading the act of 1937, can't wait to share it with with my son when he gets home from school.  | |
|
katybee8
AncestralPea
PeaNut 421,136
April 2009
Posts: 4,945
Layouts: 8
Loc: Chicago NW burbs
| Posted: 1/22/2013 11:00:35 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think Katy's question might be more along the lines of, how does it happen? Does it take an act of Parliament
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's covered in the Regency Act of 1937. Maureen.
The Regency act was brought up to date in 1937 to cover that kind of event. At the time when the present Queen's father became king, Princess Elizabeth, as she was then, was under the age of 18. Rather than cover that alone it was written in such a way that it would cover all future incapacitation or the minority ( by age) of any future monarch.
Regency act of 1937
ETA there's an explaination of further changes
here
Thank you. That was very informative. | |
|
dottyscrapper
PeaAddict
PeaNut 311,985
April 2007
Posts: 1,076
Layouts: 0
Loc: UK
| Posted: 1/22/2013 12:32:50 PM
You're welcome Maureen
Here's an official link to The act of Settlement that might also be of interest to you and your son.
| |
|
JoanneW
BucketHead
PeaNut 81,992
April 2003
Posts: 680
Layouts: 21
Loc: Jersey
| Posted: 1/22/2013 2:41:46 PM
Crikey this topic has got people hot under the colour.
I am not particularly wowed by the royal family, but lots of people thrive on it, and they do unite the people and are probably the biggest factor in Britain having a tourist industry. I don't think there are many in britain that have strong feelings about getting rid of them, they are part of being british after all, along with warm beer, bad food and hilarious films | |
|
