Can Queen Elizabeth retire without abdicating?

Okay, it's 2017, why do you all still do this? Most of the rest of the world has moved on. It's simply irrational to say that the winner of the lucky sperm competition get's to be the head of state. Send your inbred to the trailer park like we did and move on.
 
Only in the sense of British class.

And memories are so short, do you not recall her behaviour in regards to the death of the ex wife of Charles, and her continuing behaviour towards the ex wife of Andrew?

I always thought that she behaved entirely appropriately after the death of Diana. Like me she wasn't to know that the whole country was having a meltdown of grief. She misread the mood of the nation. But ultimately why shouldn't she have assumed it was not her place to make speeches about her? Apparently she had to, and then she did. It wasn't as if she had killed Diana herself. No, Prince Philip did that*.



*allegedly
 
Okay, it's 2017, why do you all still do this? Most of the rest of the world has moved on. It's simply irrational to say that the winner of the lucky sperm competition get's to be the head of state. Send your inbred to the trailer park like we did and move on.

Oh really? And who is that inhabiting the White House right now? ;)
 
Trump is a product of inbreeding, now? Tell me more!

True enough. Somehow I highlighted the wrong part. I meant this:

Okay, it's 2017, why do you all still do this? Most of the rest of the world has moved on. It's simply irrational to say that the winner of the lucky sperm competition get's to be the head of state. Send your inbred to the trailer park like we did and move on.

It may be irrational to give the head of the state to the fastest sperm in a particular family, but the Rube Goldberg machine that is the US elections have just been a long-winded and expensive way of creating a choice of two terrible candidates. ;)
 
I always thought that she behaved entirely appropriately after the death of Diana. Like me she wasn't to know that the whole country was having a meltdown of grief. She misread the mood of the nation. But ultimately why shouldn't she have assumed it was not her place to make speeches about her? Apparently she had to, and then she did.

^^ This. She was lucky she had Tony Blair to tell her what the baseborn and the gutter press needed.

http://media-assets-01.thedrum.com/..._-_the_queen_princess_diana--default--400.jpg
 
The 91-year-old queen visited hospitals yesterday to try to cheer up injured survivors of the Manchester bombing.
. . . But could she withdraw from public life without abdicating? Would the public accept a queen who only made a handful of public appearances a year? She's entitled to a break without having to give up everything.

Of course, she is 91 after all.

I wonder if you read the recent news from Japan?

Japan cabinet approves bill to allow emperor to abdicate

Japan's cabinet approved a bill on Friday that would allow Emperor Akihito to step down, paving the way for the first abdication by a Japanese emperor in nearly two centuries.

The 83-year-old emperor, who has had heart surgery and prostate cancer treatment, said in rare public remarks last year he feared age might make it hard for him to fulfill his duties.

Akihito has sought to soothe the wounds at home and abroad of World War Two, which was fought in his father Hirohito's name, and to bring the imperial family closer to the Japanese people. He will be succeeded by Crown Prince Naruhito, 57.

The bill will be sent to parliament, where lawmakers are aiming to pass it before the current session ends next month.

"The government hopes for the smooth passage of the legislation," Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga told a news conference.

While no definite plan for an abdication has been confirmed, media have said it will likely take place in late 2018, which would mark nearly 30 full years on the throne for the emperor.

Abdication is not possible under current law and the last time an emperor stepped down was in 1817.

The bill is one-off legislation that would allow only Akihito to step down, with no provisions for future emperors.

It also makes no reference to the controversial issue of changing the system to allow women to inherit the throne, or to stay in the imperial family upon marriage, Japanese media said, although political parties are discussing a separate resolution on the topic.

There are currently only 4 male heirs to the throne. There's the crown prince, the crown prince's younger brother, his 10-year-old son, and the Emperor's own brother, who is in his 80s and has no children of his own. The crown prince and his brother are unlikely to have any more children, so everything is now riding on that one 10-year-old boy. If he doesn't have a male child, it could all be over.
 
This is one of the reasons I have no problem with either the continued monarchy in Britain, or Canada's attachment to the royals... Because sometimes it can be good protocol to have a head of state who is non-political.

(Could you imagine Trump going to meet victims of some horrific accident or attack?)
But the price! You get a more sharply class-minded society, fretting about the signs and signals of belonging to one group or another, including the attending sociolinguistics.
Yet the U.S., which has separated itself from the monarchy for centuries, seems to have one of the largest income disparities in the world, with a huge divide between the "haves" and "have nots".

Yes, the Queen/monarchy may be seen in a different 'class' than other people, but the problems associated with "class-minded society" are pretty minor.
Besides, inherited merit is hardly the right message to send about democracy; rather a blatant contradiction of its foundational principles. You want an apolitical leader? Have an elected monarch, a ceremonial President under parliamentary democracy....
Ummm... if a monarch is elected, then they are no longer 'apolitical'. Pretty much by definition, they have to engage in politics to get elected. Which of course means that you run the risk of whomever is elected may be a polarizing figure, or more of an embarassment (along the lines of Trump).

I dunno, but having that sort of mixed messaging around could promote wild swings, like leaving Europe to go on an imperial jaunt down memory lane.
Ummm.... hadn't heard anything about the Monarchy promoting Brexit.
 
Okay, it's 2017, why do you all still do this? Most of the rest of the world has moved on. It's simply irrational to say that the winner of the lucky sperm competition get's to be the head of state. Send your inbred to the trailer park like we did and move on.
Some of the reasons have already been given in this thread. But, to repeat:

- Having an apolitical head of state (who is likely trained/experienced in being diplomatic) for certain protocol functions can be beneficial (picture for example Trump trying to console victims of a terror attack.)

- Any attempts to modify the government will require significant amount of effort... why would you want to spend all that time and effort to remove a figurehead when there are other problems to be dealt with?

- The royal trappings can provide a link to the country's history
 
Okay, it's 2017, why do you all still do this? Most of the rest of the world has moved on.
And look what it has gotten them into...

Few presidential states are as stable, as peaceful, as uncorrupt, as prosperous, and as democratic as the extant constitutional monarchies.

It's simply irrational to say that the winner of the lucky sperm competition get's to be the head of state.
People are irrational.

The pomp and circumstance of constitutional monarchy can neutralise these irrational tendencies so the rest of us can get on with the business of governance.

Send your inbred to the trailer park like we did and move on.
20% of the US population is inbred?
 
I always thought that she behaved entirely appropriately after the death of Diana. Like me she wasn't to know that the whole country was having a meltdown of grief. She misread the mood of the nation. But ultimately why shouldn't she have assumed it was not her place to make speeches about her? Apparently she had to, and then she did. It wasn't as if she had killed Diana herself. No, Prince Philip did that*.



*allegedly

I'm curious as to what she could have done differently. She allowed Diana's body to be flown home on the Queen's flight. She contacted Diana's family first to ask them if they preferred a private funeral (which was certainly Mrs. Shand Kydd's privilege as Diana's mother). She was asked to provide a public formal funeral, and she did. She was asked to give an address, and she did. Otherwise, she chose to keep private at Balmoral for the sake of Diana's sons, which I think any grandmother would do. If not exposing her grandsons to the public immediately after their mother's death is misreading the mood of the nation, I expect any grandmother would still put the grandsons first in that fashion. She's condemned if she doesn't act human, then she's condemned if she acts like a grandmother first.

In the years since, Elizabeth, William, and Harry are the only ones who have consistently remembered Diana publicly. The Queen personally dedicated a NHS wing in Birmingham when it was renamed after Diana. She personally dedicated the Diana Fountain in Kensington Gardens. She added Diana to the Royal Family website, and her Jubilee website (not a distinction she gave to Camilla). She included Diana's jewels in a public exhibit, and her gowns in another. She's endorsed the new White Garden at Kensington Palace & the upcoming statue. Exactly what else is the woman supposed to do to honor Diana?
 
I'm curious as to what she could have done differently. She allowed Diana's body to be flown home on the Queen's flight. She contacted Diana's family first to ask them if they preferred a private funeral (which was certainly Mrs. Shand Kydd's privilege as Diana's mother). She was asked to provide a public formal funeral, and she did. She was asked to give an address, and she did. Otherwise, she chose to keep private at Balmoral for the sake of Diana's sons, which I think any grandmother would do. If not exposing her grandsons to the public immediately after their mother's death is misreading the mood of the nation, I expect any grandmother would still put the grandsons first in that fashion. She's condemned if she doesn't act human, then she's condemned if she acts like a grandmother first.

In the years since, Elizabeth, William, and Harry are the only ones who have consistently remembered Diana publicly. The Queen personally dedicated a NHS wing in Birmingham when it was renamed after Diana. She personally dedicated the Diana Fountain in Kensington Gardens. She added Diana to the Royal Family website, and her Jubilee website (not a distinction she gave to Camilla). She included Diana's jewels in a public exhibit, and her gowns in another. She's endorsed the new White Garden at Kensington Palace & the upcoming statue. Exactly what else is the woman supposed to do to honor Diana?

In reality, it has nothing to do with Diana. The comments come mostly from people who want her to stop being Queen. To that end they will criticize everything she does, even if they contradict themselves.
 
In reality, it has nothing to do with Diana. The comments come mostly from people who want her to stop being Queen. To that end they will criticize everything she does, even if they contradict themselves.

This
 
The majority of the world's fully democratic countries are monarchies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index


But it's 2017! (Iffen you're Justin Trudeau that's a reason)
For a start, that Wikipedia page doesn't even mention the word "monarchy".

Of the 19 "Full Democracies" listed on that page, only 7 (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Spain) are actual monarchies. It's only a majority if you count New Zealand, Canada and Australia as separate monarchies, which they aren't.
 
For a start, that Wikipedia page doesn't even mention the word "monarchy".

Of the 19 "Full Democracies" listed on that page, only 7 (Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Spain) are actual monarchies. It's only a majority if you count New Zealand, Canada and Australia as separate monarchies, which they aren't.

Which they are.
 
In reality, it has nothing to do with Diana. The comments come mostly from people who want her to stop being Queen. To that end they will criticize everything she does, even if they contradict themselves.

Ah. "I want to abolish the monarchy because they are an overprivileged, overpaid, overcoddled, overbred bunch of wankers" isn't enough? Jeez.
 

Back
Top Bottom