The Prince of Wales is to marry Camilla Parker Bowles, Clarence House has announced.

Started by amity753 pages

As someone who wants to protect the environment, I hate the fact that the Crown Estates, which pays for the whole thing, is destroying marine environments and causing erosion by the dredging for aggregate extraction. What they do is sort huge amounts the sand and gravel each day, put it onto huge ships and sell it to other countries who have decided that they don't want to damage their own coastlines. We dig up far more aggregate than we need for own needs. They are literally selling off Britain, ship load by ship load in the name of her majesty.

As someone who believes in equality, I believe that it is a bad thing that every British child is taught they cannot get to the top of society because they have not been born to the right family. I hate that the monarchy supports the class system and helps it to cling to life with all the pernicious effects it has on people.

Sometimes people (often foreigners) say that without Britain would not be Britain without the monarchy. Ignoring for a moment that 'Britain' itself is a slightly difficult term, one is primarily English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish. It would be a different Britain but still be Britain. As John Major once said:

"Fifty years on from now, Britain will still be the country of long shadows on county grounds, warm beer, invincible green suburbs, dog lovers and old maids bicycling to Holy Communion through the morning mist."

This will still be true without the monarchy. There is a good chance that some of the cricketers will be Muslims and the old lady coming back from church will go home and eat curry for Sunday lunch. We don't need the monarchy in modern Britain, the Island will not sink into the see if we don't have one, indeed it is more likely to sink with the Queen flogging off all the sand.

"There will always be an England and England shall be free". For this freedom we don't need the monarchy. On the contrary, out freedoms in Britain have come from opposing and restricting the monarchy, our first 'constitution' was to restrict the domination of the bad King John:

"No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice."

It is our freedoms that are enshrined in our culture and history which make Britain, not the monarchy.

What people pay in taxes to support the Monarchy (and the taxes are not seperate) is but a fraction of the wealth the Royal Family generates for the country just by existing. The Civil List is a tiny fraction of public expenditure and, futher more, the Crown Estates pay for both Queen and Heir, and the other estates have surrendered their income- which would be in excess of the civil list- to Parliament. Fact is, there would be LESS public money if the Monarchy was dumped.

Cromwell tried to start a religious tyranny and his power grab was booted out and the Monarchy restored inside one generation. There's reason for that.

what is the purpose of the king and queen... if you have a prime minister...?

What IS a Prime Minister if you don't have a Monarch???

I'd would definitely like to get rid of the Prime Minister before the monarchy!

Originally posted by Ushgarak
What IS a Prime Minister if you don't have a Monarch???

Wait a minute Ush! This is new for me. If there is no Monarch the PM can't govern? Then who is Lord Protector of England? it can't be both. 😕

No, just that the term Prime Minister is meaningless unless there is someone he is Minister TO. Minister is a subsidiary of power for someone ELSE, the Prime Minister being literally that, the first amongst the Monarch's Ministers.

Lose the Monarchy and the term is meaningless. I was just mocking what MG said.

Literally speaking you are right though; no law can be passed without the Queen's assent. As, however, it is also illegal for the Queen to hold political views that differ from Parlaiment's, that is not an issue.

It is called Constitutional Monarchy. It might look a little weird, but ALL politics is weird and silly and unfair, in the US as much as the UK. Bottom line- it works rather well for us, and we would be diminished without it.

It doesn't look weird is just that here in the U.S. I been told that the monarchy is the image of power in England. But the real power is located in Parliament and in the PM. The royalty is no longer involved in the current politics of the nation.

Nothing, The powers beloing to the Queen but she has to do what Parliament says- IF it comes to the crunch, which it never does, because no-one wants that. the Queen and the PM meet every week and the Queen acts as an amazingly experienced political operator and guru to any figure in power (previous few others in power can remember dining with the Kennedys), so in fact the whole situation is very co-operative.

The Monarchy is a huge and unique asset to this country that if gone can never return- we would be mad to lose it. Fact is, rules change, the Monarchy changes with the times. If Charles loves this woman, then go for it- we accept it of anyone else, we can accept it from him too.

Well that helps clear some of the issues. I guess that if the monarchy isn't costing tons of money and if Charles loves this woman so much is pretty okay. And I can see that times do change and the monarchy changes as well. Sounds good! 👆

All I can say is, its about time they got married. He should have bypassed the whole Diana saga and just married Camilla. They seem so suited. Its just bad about how people are going and and against it. And the whole thing of the vote to see whether he gets to be king if he marries just seems wrong, still I say congratulations.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
If anyone thinks the UK would even vaguely benefit from the removal of the Monarchy they are fooling themselves.

Most of the european countries that got rid of their monarchy are now regretting it (france, italy etc...).
Even Russia now regrets getting rid of their monarchy

I've never heard of her....I barely know of the Prince of Wales

I don't see why any of our comments matter, especially to two people who are apparently very much in love with each other. I have seen many physically beautiful people marrying each other but still end up being divorced, separated or guilty of parricide. When it comes to true love and happiness, I guess physical appearance does not really matter. After all, a wedding is just a day, but marriage is a lifetime.

In my opinion there is no point in having a monarch as they now do bugger all, but as long as we have one i dont see why camilla shouldnt be allowed to become Queen. And i wish people would get over Diana who was a psycho i dont get what made her so special