Why replace one foreigner with another...
Minimal Minimalist position.... We get a royal, Harry for example make them an Australian citizen then tell them they are King or Queen of Oz and they have to give up citizenship of pommy land and they and their descendants assume the role and powers of the GG.
Minimalist position (mine)..... We change the title GG to Prez and and the Prez is selected by 2/3rds majority of parliament - avoids US style presidential circus.
Populist position - US style circus.
|
Why replace one foreigner with another...
Minimal Minimalist position.... We get a royal, Harry for example make them an Australian citizen then tell them they are King or Queen of Oz and they have to give up citizenship of pommy land and they and their descendants assume the role and powers of the GG.
Minimalist position (mine)..... We change the title GG to Prez and and the Prez is selected by 2/3rds majority of parliament - avoids US style presidential circus.
Populist position - US style circus.
This way we dont even care. They elect one. We put the bozo on the currency for four or eight years. Elected is better than not.
As a card-carrying Brit... I'm all for this, plus auction off current Royal Family to one of the countries that love 'em in order to pay off some of the national debt.
Because who comes after Obama?
Abbott is bad, but things could be much worse
I may not be terrible familiar with the British monarchy, or with your American presidents, but I don't think they serve even remotely the same function. Will the vice president be taking over the presidential duties?
But hey, if you're looking to throw away a couple million bucks, I'll take 'em!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Who wouldnt want Barack Obama as first elected king of the commonwealth? Win-win.
If it gets him out of the US, I'm all for it.
Actually the US President is both Head of State and Head of Government. Whereas in the Great Britain that is split between the Crown and Prime Minister.
For those of you that want to support this, you realize that this would make the British Military under the sole leadership of the US President, they swear a loyalty oath to the British Crown, not the actual government.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Who wouldnt want Barack Obama as first elected king of the commonwealth? Win-win.If it gets him out of the US, I'm all for it.
Actually the US President is both Head of State and Head of Government. Whereas in the Great Britain that is split between the Crown and Prime Minister.
For those of you that want to support this, you realize that this would make the British Military under the sole leadership of the US President, they swear a loyalty oath to the British Crown, not the actual government.
Also the British Prime Minister could force the President to sign documents, thus they'd have to do what the British Government wants and the President would be taxed by Britain.
|
|
What would this all mean? It would mean each new president goes on commonwealth currency when they win their election. It means barak Obama gets to pop in and break a bottle against a new navy ship, and that is pretty much it. The royal family didnt do much but cost money which can now exclusively be spent on upkeep of a residence when the president visits. No more shooting parties in Spain for the prince and his previous girlfriend while his wife and child remain home.
Never understood why people have a problem with the royal family just leave them be.
I wouldn't want to spend my entire life under the microscope of the media
What would this all mean? It would mean each new president goes on commonwealth currency when they win their election. It means barak Obama gets to pop in and break a bottle against a new navy ship, and that is pretty much it. The royal family didnt do much but cost money which can now exclusively be spent on upkeep of a residence when the president visits. No more shooting parties in Spain for the prince and his previous girlfriend while his wife and child remain home.
Actually, the Monarchy costs under $5 Million in direct money and maybe $50 Million in total. All the residences are privately owned by the Windsor family and they pay taxes upon them along with any earned money.
The Crown Estate's 2011/12 accounts revealed profits of £240.2 million and the final figure for the grant was rounded up to £36.1 million.
Hence with a minimum 20% tax rate, they pay £48 million.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why on earth would we want a country populated almost entirely with criminals, yobos, and nuts?
I mean, we already have one.
That's what we thought, and that's why we deliberately lost the War of Independence and dispensed with the USA. Deliberately, do you hear, just so we didn't embarrass all the other nations of the world.
Why not an elected king? For that matter, why don't we Proddies get ourselves a nice Pope to be going on with? Regarding the first point, we'd be stuck with whoever the US electorate chose for us and anyway [devastating satire] all our government's important decisions are already made for them in Washington or Brussels anyway [/devastating satire] so there'd be no point. What I say is NO GODS NO MASTERS, and if we must, can we please have either:
1) A statue of Stalin carved out of earwax
2) A Lemmy impersonator
3) Half a Rhinoceros
4) Christina Hendricks, wearing nothing but woad and pretending to be Bodeicia, standing in a wheelbarrow with scythes on the side pulled by four dozen ducks. Thanks!
Hell no. Get rid of the guns, get a healthcare system that doesn't say a rich scumbag's life is worth more than a poor chairty worker and get rid of the complete obsession with making money...and still hell no. Socialism, baby - where you can feel like real people on a low income.
I can take or leave the monarchy. Remember, much of the money generated from royal lands (oh such much royal land) goes into the coffers of the government, so they don't cost much. We can become a republic, but I would never, ever join America. I had (and have) the choice to live there, and really, really don't want to.
Why on earth would we want a country populated almost entirely with criminals, yobos, and nuts?
I mean, we already have one.
That's what we thought, and that's why we deliberately lost the War of Independence and dispensed with the USA. Deliberately, do you hear, just so we didn't embarrass all the other nations of the world.
Why not an elected king? For that matter, why don't we Proddies get ourselves a nice Pope to be going on with? Regarding the first point, we'd be stuck with whoever the US electorate chose for us and anyway [devastating satire] all our government's important decisions are already made for them in Washington or Brussels anyway [/devastating satire] so there'd be no point. What I say is NO GODS NO MASTERS, and if we must, can we please have either:
1) A statue of Stalin carved out of earwax
2) A Lemmy impersonator
3) Half a Rhinoceros
4) Christina Hendricks, wearing nothing but woad and pretending to be Bodeicia, standing in a wheelbarrow with scythes on the side pulled by four dozen ducks. Thanks!
I still like your Queen Victoria II idea from that other thread, Limey.
I propose communism! If only our goblin comrade from galt where here...
"plus auction off current Royal Family to one of the countries that love 'em"
You mean Canada?
I propose communism!
I concur. Break with Labour! For workers revolution!
I still like your Queen Victoria II idea from that other thread, Limey.
Sporty Queen vs. Auburn Queen.
in a rubber dinghy filled with custard
I can't believe there's actually a petition for this. O.O
|
|
I can't believe there's actually a petition for this. O.ONew to yellowdingo's posts, huh?
Look at his post history...this is mild compared to some of the ridiculous s!!$ he's petitioned.
Its not like I petitioned to have the white house painted rainbow gay with unicorns...we all know which of you were behind that petition. Dont we.
The legal powers of the British monarch are surprisingly extensive (hint: the plot to the movie Johnny English is quite reasonable), but should the monarch attempt to exercise some of those powers, there would be something of a constitutional crisis in the UK. Which could be quite unfortunate, since (as mentioned upthread) the armed forces owe their allegiance to the Crown, not to the government. And many of us Brits take that sort of thing pretty darn seriously.
Personally, I'm a staunch monarchist, not least because it helps prevent the legal system from being prey to whatever hot-button topic is order of the day. And they generate a lot of tourism. I'm not interested in forcing my view on others, though.
But I will say that I have no desire to stop being the UK. Which would happen if we became a republic. Kind of hard to be a kingdom without a monarch.