Topic: U.K.: succession law to allow first-born royal daughters to inherit throne

[Tallitot]

deleted by poster.

doesn't this thread belong in "politics"?

No. Why do you ask that question here?

Sorry, I'll pm the mod. I thought it would since it discusses a political issue. I'll post on this issue when a mod rules on where thisd thread belongs.

[PeterTheAleut]

deleted by poster.

doesn't this thread belong in "politics"?

No. Why do you ask that question here?

Sorry, I'll pm the mod. I thought it would since it discusses a political issue. I'll post on this issue when a mod rules on where thisd thread belongs.

You already reported this thread to the mod team. Why don't you just wait for us to make our decision?

[Tallitot]

deleted by poster.

doesn't this thread belong in "politics"?

No. Why do you ask that question here?

Sorry, I'll pm the mod. I thought it would since it discusses a political issue. I'll post on this issue when a mod rules on where this thread belongs.

You already reported this thread to the mod team. Why don't you just wait for us to make our decision?

deleted by poster

[Pikhristos Aftonf]

Well, men do bring something to the monarchy that women never will: mustaches.

Bingo.  

This guy makes it to the throne and no First World War, no WWII, no Russian Revolution, no Vietnam, no Michael Bay, the director of many horrible movies, no Dancing with the Stars, etc.

Instead, mustaches got smaller, as evidenced by his assassin:


Then we all know what happened when they got really narrow, Charlie Chaplin style... //:=(

Then cholera and starvation accompanied really really narrow mustaches, as demonstrated by his lousiness Mugabs (my nickname for him)


Now?  Few significant mustaches remain (hipsters aside) and things are lousy.  Coincidence?

Great theory, but it should somehow incorporate beards, for example, if we extend the timeframe:

leonidas obviously had a kick*** beard, which allowed him to become an awesome king

xerxes on the otherhand, had no beard and thus he became the guy no one likes.
simple and intuitive, historically-approved, the secret behind the success of a kingdom is the facial hair of its monarch!




Vulgarity replaced with something more acceptable for the Public Forum  -PtA

[John of the North]

doesn't this thread belong in "politics"?

Not when it is rapidly degrading into a thread on facial hair.

[PeterTheAleut]

doesn't this thread belong in "politics"?

Not when it is rapidly degrading into a thread on facial hair.

BEARDS RULE! If you want to be an Orthodox man, you MUST wear a beard!

[Tallitot]

An "updated monarchy", kind'a like "the latest in gramaphone technology". Pa-leez. Considering that the most of the countries will ditch the monarchy after Elizabeth Windsor dies, what's the point?

[Tallitot]

James, we don't have a choice. The whole political class is corrupted and they all essentially represent the same party.

Changing the succession in this way should be subject to the approval of the people, not at the decision of the Prime Minister.

But that's the form of government you have. The "Crown's" powers are exercised by the PM, while in reality the should be as you say 'subject to the approval of the people", these powers should not be the excercised by the PM acting in the name of an unelected "monarch".

[akimori makoto]

James, we don't have a choice. The whole political class is corrupted and they all essentially represent the same party.

Changing the succession in this way should be subject to the approval of the people, not at the decision of the Prime Minister.

But that's the form of government you have. The "Crown's" powers are exercised by the PM, while in reality the should be as you say 'subject to the approval of the people", these powers should not be the excercised by the PM acting in the name of an unelected "monarch".

The powers of the Crown are exercised by more numerous and diversely-comprised organs than simply her Majesty's prime minister.

Her Majesty's judges exercise the Crown's judicial power, for example, on her Majesty's behalf. Do you propose that her Majesty's judges should be elected?

[John of the North]

An "updated monarchy", kind'a like "the latest in gramaphone technology". Pa-leez. Considering that the most of the countries will ditch the monarchy after Elizabeth Windsor dies, what's the point?

I put about as much stock in this prophecy as I do in the words of Harold Camping. For one, it will be virtually impossible for Canada to remove the Crown.

But that's the form of government you have. The "Crown's" powers are exercised by the PM,

The Crown's powers are exercised only by the Crown on advice of the people's representatives. No elected Prime Minister has the authority to sign bills into law, to appoint senators/judges, or use any other powers reserved for the Crown. The issue is whether or not the Crown is using the powers given it to serve the people and oppose politicians where necessary.

these powers should not be the excercised by the PM acting in the name of an unelected "monarch".

Rather, the Crown should not blindly follow the whims of their ministers, but ensure that all actions taken are in the best interests of the people. I have seen no evidence that, if the Crown was replaced with an elected president, Canada would see an improvement in government. Given your history of opposing the monarchy, I would like to see you make a positive case for another system of government.

[LBK]

For one, it will be virtually impossible for Canada to remove the Crown.

You're not wrong there. I reckon the only way Canada will ditch the monarchy is if the Brits do it first. 

[John of the North]

For one, it will be virtually impossible for Canada to remove the Crown.

You're not wrong there. I reckon the only way Canada will ditch the monarchy is if the Brits do it first. 

Even then--it would not be easy. To remove the Crown requires unanimous agreement--the House of Commons, the Senate, the Supreme Court, and all ten provinces. I would rather herd cats than try to get that bunch to agree on anything...