Breaking the Vow of Monarchial Silence

[Garrigan]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5162710.ece

This idea has several advantages and disadvantages in my mind. Advantages being that it would create a President-esque postion, from which the occupant could give his views withput fear of losing office. It would also act as a possible check on a Govt.'s power.

However there are disadvantages, Charles is quite a Conservative man, and the position of Monarch is a permanant one. Is it wise to have someone with solid political beliefs to have a position of power till death?

[Каие]

No Charles, stay quiet and happy or we'll simply remove you.

The only time I could see the King having the legitimacy to 'speak out' would be if the country is going to war [after all as Commander in Chief].

[Scar Face]

No Charles, stay quiet and happy or we'll simply remove you.

The only time I could see the King having the legitimacy to 'speak out' would be if the country is going to war [after all as Commander in Chief].

No, you will not, as the majority of the country supports his role in politics, and the vast majority support the monarchy.

And your not even British, so why do you pretend we care what your view is? Edit.Noble Savage

[Каие]

No, you will not, as the majority of the country supports his role in politics, and the vast majority support the monarchy.

Who says the people would do it? Do a little bit of learning about British history [not that far back, only 80 years] and you'll find the process of removing the King is pretty easy.... as long as the justification is there. Last time the 'justification' was pretty pathetic, something like this where the King attempts to directly influence the political process and get involved.... is far more serious.

Also considering it will actually be my generation which will be holding the reign of power upon his coronation [If that comes].

However I remain a Conservative, thus a Monarchist.

And your not even British

Erm.....yes I am. But out of interest what makes you think I am not British?

so why do you pretend we care what your view is?

This coming from.... a recycled Brit? A [non] white nationalist? A racist and a Bigot? Puh-lease I could care about what you think as much as I care what the neighbourhood cat thought.

Edited out quote.Noble Savage

[Carach]

No Charles, stay quiet and happy or we'll simply remove you.

personally i think its a great thing that charles would make his opinion clear to government; thats how it was, and how its meant to be.

a monarch with interests in the country is essential to influencing government policy as much as it possibly can (which admittedly isnt great tbh, but in this day and age with retard parties like labour absolutely destroying the country, i think its bloody well necessary), when the monarchy is in such a weakened state as at present, it would help its case to be more vocal - bring in a view that isnt bias to a party.

and tbh kb8, no u wont remove him, u cant and u wont.

We will have a republic over my dead ing body

[Syron]

We will have a republic over my dead ing body

It was an interfering monarch that nearly brought about a British Republic......

[MaximiIian]

It was an interfering monarch that nearly brought about a British Republic......

No, it was idiot peoples' opposition to it that nearly brought a republic about.

I think Charles and the monarchy should have a right to voice a view. It's not like he's mandating policy, just stating his opinion and viewpoint. It might influence things, it might not.
But it's a damn sight better than the monarch doing nothing and wasting away as a mere figurehead. A ruler should be a ruler.

[Carach]

It was an interfering monarch that nearly brought about a British Republic......

nowhere near to the extent that we're talking about here (our lad back then didnt just say what he was feeling...), and u know that... and what came after him wasnt exactly the greatest period of english history either..

[Fianóglach]

"I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me."

[King Edward III]

Labour supporters of scrapping the act believe the move is vital to prevent large-scale Catholic defections to the nationalist cause in a referendum, but other senior party figures fear it would damage relations between Catholics and Protestants in Scottish cities.

What a joke of an excuse.

[Каие]

What a joke of an excuse.

Not really, as Charles is not that popular in Scotland and since their goal is Independence a politically active unelected [and anti-catholic] Head of State would be a good point to being around Scottish Catholics to the Independence side in a referendum.

[Stalins Ghost]

I find this a very worrying idea. People with such entrenched political views are a dangerous influence on the public. His very position as an unelected head of state essentially makes him immune from backlash. And that's a very dangerous thing when he's in such a high profile place.

What right does he have to effectual political immunity where an elected politician does not? Why should the fact that he was born into a particular family give him the right to such an unshakable position of rhetorical significance?

[Musthavename]

I hate Charles. I don't mind the Monarchy so much, I just hate Charles... I honestly don't know a definite reason why, I just hate him.

[King Edward III]

I find this a very worrying idea. People with such entrenched political views are a dangerous influence on the public. His very position as an unelected head of state essentially makes him immune from backlash. And that's a very dangerous thing when he's in such a high profile place.

What right does he have to effectual political immunity where an elected politician does not? Why should the fact that he was born into a particular family give him the right to such an unshakable position of rhetorical significance?

Because as established during the English Civil War the monarch is untouchable by us unwashed peasants..

Seriously..

[Stalins Ghost]

Because as established during the English Civil War the monarch is untouchable by us unwashed peasants..

Seriously..

Can you really see the British people of today rising up in arms because they don't agree with what Charles has to say? That doesn't stop what him saying being pervasive and damaging.

Though I would find it somewhat amusing having the monarchy deposed with another Charles. Kinda like how Rome ended on a Romulus.

Fair point. Would you support a change to a Republic? With the same principle of a Leader who doesnt change with the Parties, but ultimately is elected, and therefore can be got rid of.

I'm a staunch Republican

[Kiljan Arslan]

Can you really see the British people of today rising up in arms because they don't agree with what Charles has to say? That doesn't stop what him saying being pervasive and damaging.

Though I would find it somewhat amusing having the monarchy deposed with another Charles. Kinda like how Rome ended on a Romulus.



I'm a staunch Republican

Yeah and imagine if you get a cromwell to replace him

[Garrigan]

What right does he have to effectual political immunity where an elected politician does not? Why should the fact that he was born into a particular family give him the right to such an unshakable position of rhetorical significance?

Fair point. Would you support a change to a Republic? With the same principle of a Leader who doesnt change with the Parties, but ultimately is elected, and therefore can be got rid of.

[Каие]

It's better to reform the office of the King to implement some democratic ideals into it, or simply shut him up. Rather than overhaul the entire British system, because one old man doesn't know what's good for him.

[Garrigan]

Though I would find it somewhat amusing having the monarchy deposed with another Charles. Kinda like how Rome ended on a Romulus.

Heh. I think there was some debate on whether he'd actually be "Charles III" as that name doesnt have the greatest history...

[King Edward III]

Heh. I think there was some debate on whether he'd actually be "Charles III" as that name doesnt have the greatest history...

No point in breaking with tradition. Who gives a damn if Charles I wasn't the best of Kings. Still better then Cromwell in my humble opinion.

Can you really see the British people of today rising up in arms because they don't agree with what Charles has to say? That doesn't stop what him saying being pervasive and damaging.

Why in gods name would people 'rise up' because Charles said something they didn't like? Thats what politicians and politics is for.

I'm a staunch Republican

I'm a staunch Monarchist.

Not really, as Charles is not that popular in Scotland and since their goal is Independence a politically active unelected [and anti-catholic] Head of State would be a good point to being around Scottish Catholics to the Independence side in a referendum.

I think the vast majority of people in Scotland couldn't give a damn.

Not that I'm argueing that Catholic monarchs should be banned or anything. Honestly I couldn't care less.