If the Queen ran this country..

Vita

Vita

Vita

Soldato
Joined
26 Mar 2006
Posts
11,648
Location
United Kingdom
Do you guys think she would do a better job then the current government/previous governments?

It seems like, every government promises something, either delivers and it has major consequences. Or just fails to deliver all together.
 
It is too much for a single family to manage really.

Plus their refound direct rule would inflame so many situations.

As for the broken promises, welcome to politics. In general.
 
kae2 said:
Have you read even a brief history of our Monarchy?
Click to expand...

Actually, I haven't.

I was thinking along the lines of, she called the shots. Fair enough, she would get advised by the government.

But, would the actions she would take, be better or worse?
 
No change or possibly worse because there would be no elections.

Impossible for one person to do, she would have a council of ministers and they would have their minions and so forth. Does that sound familiar?
 
Vita said:
Actually, I haven't.

I was thinking along the lines of, she called the shots. Fair enough, she would get advised by the government.

But, would the actions she would take, be better or worse?
Click to expand...

It all depends on the link between government.

It also is a massive unknown, given that her rule and concent to parliament is pretty much ceremonial (pomp). Or that she'd be any good for that matter..

It's all speculative.
 
Von Smallhausen said:
You should if you get the time.

From Edward I onwards is very interesting to read about.
Click to expand...

I will do.

It was just a thought I had today. It would be a very different country if there wasn't any government, and members of the Royal family basically would take charge. A lot of work, but maybe there actions/views on how to run a country would be entirely different to the parties we have today.
 
instead of a government there would be a council which would basically be exactly the same but we have less say if any. I would like to see the end to career politicians so at least they have some balls while in office instead of buckling to the tabloid papers.
 
Yes and No. Since this is GD I won't bother explaining myself and i'll just leave you with this quote from H.L Mencken

"Off goes the head of the king, and tyranny gives way to freedom. The change seems abysmal. Then, bit by bit, the face of freedom hardens, and by and by it is the old face of tyranny. Then another cycle, and another. But under the play of all these opposites there is something fundamental and permanent — the basic delusion that men may be governed and yet be free."
 
Vita said:
I will do.

It was just a thought I had today. It would be a very different country if there wasn't any government, and members of the Royal family basically would take charge. A lot of work, but maybe there actions/views on how to run a country would be entirely different to the parties we have today.
Click to expand...

The last time that happened they spent hundreds of years fighting with each other, ******* each other and running amok across every other country on the globe and then occasionally slaughtered the civil population just to switch things up a bit.
 
kae2 said:
Bring back King George III!
Click to expand...

Ah, mad George.

Fact without google. After King George III was declared insane, his son George ( later George IV ) was Prince Regent until George III died in 1820 and the Regency Act was passed for this very reason. I think it is still on the statute books but will be stood corrected on that one if anyone knows any different.

George III's two surviving sons George IV and William IV both died without legitimate heirs which paved the way for George and William's niece to ascend the throne. Cue Queen Victoria.

At 59 years, George III's reign is the second longest of any British monarch behind Queen Victoria, who reigned for 64 years.

Also, I should get out more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom