Derek you've confused me. Harry and Meghan are leaving the monarchy and not getting public funding (they don't need it after all) and you think she's 'screwed up the monarchy' but you think 'a lot of it needs dumping ,and also the royal family needs slimming down' so it would seem you dislike their decision despite it helping your wish. Perhaps you should make your mind up or alternatively become a royal journalist
Hello there bill I confuse you ,,,,,I confuse myself at times , if there not getting public funding whose paying for there protection ( by the way I think the tax payer should pay that doesn’t bother me ) as for not needing the money they both are worth millions but they are both young and still poss do something ,,as long as they don’t say good bye royal duties whatever , hello mr publicity ,we can make a fortune using royal connections which I don’t agree with ,, if there doing six months so called royal work and are paid by queen or gov then ok , just don’t milk the royal connection ,as for slimming down royal family , get rid of Andrew wife and the two daughters to me they are just milking the system and are a joke , I used to like Harry but think Megan twisted his mind ,not a fan of hers ,
hope that clarity’s a bit more , mind you the way I put things I doubt it
enjoy the lovely weather
"The Guardian (seemingly the newspaper of choice here on Blatchat)"
Based on the amount of noise generated that would be a reasonable (but probably incorrect) assumption. Don't bother with a survey on newspaper readership - my response will be NOYFB.
That’s why I cannot spell I read the wrong paper
Thanks very much for your compliments, I will be holding some classes on critical thinking, which you will be welcome to join.
I will always respect the fact that others have differences in opinion even if they don't think critically and make stupid decisions based on "alternative facts". Of course everyone should have an equal vote in a democratic society, otherwise how could the majority justify in the future complaining about the mess they voted for?
(In response to #98)
Fair points. My own priorities / wish list would be:
As to whether or not this programme would be easier with or without a hereditary monarchy - I suspect it would make absolutely no practical difference at all. The way the palace managed the illegal proroguation of parliament last year demonstrates the monarchy is already politically toothless. I'm quite happy to have a ceremonial hereditary monarchy though - very much preferable to an elected head of state imho.
I'll need some time to think through those.
The way the palace managed the illegal proroguation of parliament last year demonstrates the monarchy is already politically toothless.
I totally agree. And it's that sort of failure that makes me think that we need proper constitutional protection that has some pretty big teeth. And that it's the existence of the monarchy that stands in the way of that change.
The free press is supposed to do a lot of the work making politicians pay a price for bad decisions.
That seems to have gone as an option, instead they are spending time on creating and cashing in on Royal dramas.
The Monarchy is just a distraction at the moment.
1.6K Roadsport SV
"The way the palace managed the illegal proroguation of parliament last year demonstrates the monarchy is already politically toothless."
Severing Boris' head would have delighted the Corbynistas but the monarch has been politically toothless since the Glorious Revolution of 1688.
I seem to recall that the judiciary overturned the illegal prorogation of Parliament. I can't comment on the size of her teeth but Baroness Hale of Richmond's brooch packed a mighty constitutional punch.
Derek - the Grauniad is (or used to be) renowned for its misprints (spelling mistakes in plain English). Is that the wrong paper you're referring to?
Possibly opplock I like the beano , with photos