Reply to: After the deep fried snicker bars were done

[Mich the Tester]

The one time I saw Diana was in slightly less than glamorous circumstances. We were lining the drive adoringly when she came to visit our school. I was standing next to a speed bump. Her specially-security-trained driver was driving at a defensively high speed; took the speed bump too quickly; and just as HRH came level with me, her head was whacking against the ceiling.

Yes, driver problems were a recurring theme in Diana's life.

[thunderlizard]

She'll cross the health-and-infirmity bridge when she crosses it, but she's tough as old boots. Makes a point of changing the wheel on a Land Rover every day before breakfast apparently. And Edward VIII is universally understood to have acted in shockingly bad form. I think he's the only king ever to abdicate without an army chasing after him.

I have seen Diana in the flesh once, and Camilla never.

The one time I saw Diana was in slightly less than glamorous circumstances. We were lining the drive adoringly when she came to visit our school. I was standing next to a speed bump. Her specially-security-trained driver was driving at a defensively high speed; took the speed bump too quickly; and just as HRH came level with me, her head was whacking against the ceiling.

But my point is maybe the camera adds in one case and takes away in the other.

[shaunbhoy]

Mainly because in order to "give him the reigns of power", protocol dictates that she has to die. I expect that side of things doesn't appeal.

Protocol also suggests she could abdicate on the grounds of failing health/infirmity etc. or any other old reason like the whole Edward & Mrs Simpson malarkey.

as Queen? Camilla by a country mile. She seems like a great laugh and would be well up for the challenge. Lady Di was all very lovely but would have had a rubbish time of it.

No, not as Queen...........I mean who in God's name (that was not blind!) would have chosen that old trufflehunter over Diana? Only someone whose judgment was seriously impaired I would suggest. No wonder the Queen is not too keen on letting him loose on us as King. The man has raisins for a brain...........clearly.

[thunderlizard]

If even his own Mother will not give him the reigns of power, why should anyone else trust him?

Mainly because in order to "give him the reigns of power", protocol dictates that she has to die. I expect that side of things doesn't appeal.

I mean................Diana or Camilla?

as Queen? Camilla by a country mile. She seems like a great laugh and would be well up for the challenge. Lady Di was all very lovely but would have had a rubbish time of it.

[shaunbhoy]

Prince Charles must have had the longest period to train for a job in the history of the world. How can he be anything but fantastic as a King?

If even his own Mother will not give him the reigns of power, why should anyone else trust him?
I mean................Diana or Camilla?

[thunderlizard]

Prince Charles must have had the longest period to train for a job in the history of the world. How can he be anything but fantastic as a King?

[d000hg]

FWIW,
I think the Queen has done a pretty decent job. However, I do NOT believe that Charles will ever be properly accepted by the majority of the Public after the whole Diana/Camilla fiascos. It would make more sense to simply skip a generation and go to William, but constitutionally they would never agree to that. So I say, when the Queen passes away, we should simply allow it to phase out quietly.

I'd like Phillip to be King (I know it can't happen)

I DON'T have a say in such matters. Nor does anyone else. Therein lies a large part of the problem.

Apart from the obvious problems, a leader unencumbered by having to constant keep everyone happy could get a lot more done. Hard to lay any longer-term plans if everyone screams at the short-term changes... though it seems Cameron is sticking to his guns.

[thunderlizard]

further information on the royal train provided quite suprisingly by the daily mail !!

The Duke of Edinburgh is another innovator in this area. In his tiny bathroom, his magnified shaving mirror is placed at face level to the right of the lavatory so he can sit and shave at the same time.

[Troll]

When Liz passes away (not long & I think she's done an OK job) we'll have a referendum on whether to continue the monarchy.

seems fair..

[Mich the Tester]

Anyway, I don't like those chairs with matching curtains. Not my taste at all.

[Mich the Tester]

Mob rule might have served us very well under NL.


Would have been a refreshing alternative to KNOB rule!!

I´m struggling to find a weakness in this argument, but give me time.

[shaunbhoy]

I actually agree that a monarch is an anachronism, but it´s an anachronism that can be a protection against mob rule in turbulent times.

Mob rule might have served us very well under NL.


Would have been a refreshing alternative to KNOB rule!!

[Mich the Tester]

I DON'T have a say in such matters. Nor does anyone else. Therein lies a large part of the problem.

Ah, well you see my old chap, I would rather like to have a say in these matters, and I'm sure that you're an erudite fellow who deserves to have a say, but you must remember that under the current constitutional arrangements of most, if not all parliamentary democracies that have a monarch as head of state, the right to vote after the age of 18 is granted to the plebs as part of their birthright, and not gained by merit. A worthy, educated, hard working immigrant has no right to vote, even though he might use his vote in a most sensible fashion, while layabouts, scoundrels and cads may vote by virtue only of the rather narrow legal definition of 'citizenship'. This, to my mind, creates a monarchy of the masses, at the expense of a meritocratic democracy.

In other words, as long as dimwitted chavs have the vote, I'll support keeping the monarchy.

Move to a meritocratic system of ´citizenship´ and voting instead of a nationalistic system, where the merits of the individual are tested in some politically neutral fashion, such as intelligence testing or tests of reasoning, and I would feel happier entrusting power to the plebs.

I actually agree that a monarch is an anachronism, but it´s an anachronism that can be a protection against mob rule in turbulent times.

[shaunbhoy]

What on earth makes you so presumptuous as to think that you should have a say in such matters?

I DON'T have a say in such matters. Nor does anyone else. Therein lies a large part of the problem.

[Mich the Tester]

FWIW,
I think the Queen has done a pretty decent job. However, I do NOT believe that Charles will ever be properly accepted by the majority of the Public after the whole Diana/Camilla fiascos. It would make more sense to simply skip a generation and go to William, but constitutionally they would never agree to that. So I say, when the Queen passes away, we should simply allow it to phase out quietly.

What on earth makes you so presumptuous as to think that you should have a say in such matters?

Anyway, I think Harry would be more of a laugh.