Actually, when I contemplate the Trump years in the USA, I feel more and more convinced that a system separating the role of head of state from that of head of government is a good thing. The monarch is an alternative source of (soft) power, being, psychologically, the focus of national unity and personal loyalty for the country (including the armed forces). This prevents all power being concentrated in one person. Because the monarch sits above party politics, he or she can unify the country in spite of the coming and going of the various political factions and heads of government, many of whom come to be despised by a large proportion of the citizens. The monarch effectively prevents the head of government from getting too big for his or her boots, by acting as a reminder to the people of the limitations of the office of prime minister. There are quite a few monarchies in Europe (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Spain, Netherlands, Belgium). Quite a few republics have chosen to split the head of state from head of government, too, e.g. Ireland, Germany, Italy, Israel. In Spain, the monarch even stopped a military coup, single-handed! Don't knock it too much, when your own system is falling apart due to the overweening power of the president.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
About that will need changing In Australia I am wondering if it is written into the rules and regulations the Australian mint is regulated by or is worded as a tradition? A news item touching on the subject mentioned Charles has appeared on coins already in the UK marking special occasions On those coins he was facing the same direction as his mother Another tradition has had a new monarch facing the other direction to their predecessor In Australia, the article notes, monarchs only appear on the lower denomination bank notes Article said it is expected Charles will be on the $5 note His mother at the time, before 1986 was on the Australian $1 note before that became a coin Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Haha...you make a good point. With our luck though we'd get Trump as the monarch and we'd be stuck with him for the next century. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The concept isn't bad though, even for a Trump like monarch. Let him play the role with little of the power and we'd all be better off. Just hope that Charles isn't the next Trump. He's not likely to be as free from quirkiness as the Queen was.
If it is too much to ask for you to be a decent human being— —well, it's not like that would be news. Really, though, if you want to throw fighing words, then at least don't be such a fucking coward about it.
What are you talking about? Coward, fighting words? You have no problem writing a page about nothing and yet you can't express yourself now other than to mutter something about "fighting words" and "coward"? Again, WTF are you talking about? You being a speech writer for Prince Charles? Those are "fighting words"? You asking me if I know they are "Royals"? Do you have a screw loose?
He is getting into role with the Royal traditions of backstabbing and outlandish behaviour He may know a little about British history already. "Henry the eighth I am I am I got married to the widda next door She'd been married 7 times before And every one was a Henery."...it goes on Well H8 was a genuine psycho and quite legit.
They were saying that over here (in Canada) a whole lot of things will have to change - Her Majesty's Loal Opposition, the Court of Queen's Bench....
Yes, Trump thinks he can act like an old-fashioned king with autocratic power. A constitutional monarch you can't respect, and who divides the country rather than uniting it, would however be catastrophic. The British model only works if most people can respect the monarch. While being above party politics helps a lot, it is still quite a tough thing to pull off. Elizabeth devoted her entire life to it. Charles may manage it too. In one respect he is most definitely a man for our times: he has for decades been a huge supporter of respect for the environment. So I expect him, in his weekly audiences with Truss (yes, they happen every week), to ask gentle questions about climate change policy and related matters, among other things. He can't express an opinion in public any more but he is allowed to "advise and warn" the PM privately. He can ask probing questions and the PM will find it embarrassing if she has no answers.
"A whole lot of things", given what you have exampled, is actually just two: ensuring correct gender pronoun is used, and swapping "Queen" for "King". Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! That pretty much covers most changes required. Physical changes, such as images or cyphers on things, will take time, but using correct language... that's easy.
Good point regarding the actual "power" of advising the current government. The rest, IMO, is a bit overdone even by European ceremonial monarchy standards. You've listed a few examples and most of those are very dialed-back including some with regular jobs and some that ride bicycles around town. Most also don't still own "half" the country. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The worst "job" is that of all the royals that won't actually become monarch and probably even the one that does at age 74. The Queen did a remarkable job given the circumstances. My comments are no reflection on her. Imagine a scenario where your monarch in waiting is Tiassa the Terrible. That's got to happen one day...
Its just that, in most cases, things can change naturally. Currency etc. But the lyrics of a song are generally fixed by the artist. They don't usually implement .... variables.
Yes I agree absolutely the whole thing needs to be streamlined. We have far too many relatives and hangers on paid for by the public for no good reason. Such people tend to behave badly, having no need to earn respect as the monarch has to. Andrew a case in point. That will be one of Charles's tasks, I suspect, in the coming years.
I saw something today by the Economist pointing out that taxpayers funded the monarch (hanger's on) to the tune of 84 million pounds/year and that Charles was probably going to cut that back to the more immediate family.
Sarkus gave you an answer in post #20 Did you not see the notification that he or she had quoted you in his or her answer?
Exactly. It needs to be pruned back, in order to retain support, especially now, when we have the most severe cost of living crisis for decades. But the monarchy will survive, so long as it can remain agile enough to adapt.
