Should the Queen Step Down

Ricochet J · 16 Jun 2007 at 12:13

Should the Queen Step Down soon before or after Blair Steps down?
I think she does. Not saying she's been a bad queen, she's done lots of things. I know when there is a tragedy anywhere in the world she shows her concern on behalf of the people of the UK. She toured The United States and as a result more Americans probably know more about us and our heritage. But now that the word "Queen" is, in my opinion, being overused, and seeing as the UK is in need of some serious revival I reckon the King of the United Kingdom should boost morale. If you think about it:
- People are not happy about all this stuff about immigration, I have no comment on that, but a lot of people do come to the UK uneducated about our traditions, if there was a new King, perhaps they'd learn more
- Scotland want their own independance. a lot of people are against this. IF there is a new King, perhaps he maintain unity by having a bigger role in Scotland as apposed to sitting in London all day
- If there is a new King it will boost our troops moral.
- If there is a new King, it will be televised and the whole world will watch. It will show the world despite today's technology, we're not forgetting our roots. The UK will be watched my millions and good comments will be said about it. These will undoubtly reach our media which will be read/seen by us, which will make us feel good for living in the UK again.

Currently, you might ask, why don't we feel good living in the UK anyway? Well, I do! But a lot of people I know complain of taxes, house prices, war on terror and everything else.

This isn't a bashing thread, just think now is a time for a new king

Mr_White · 16 Jun 2007 at 12:14

If there is a new king, it will do none of what you stated.

God save the Queen.

csmager · 16 Jun 2007 at 12:16

Sounds like you're living in the middle ages

RetiredGreyFox · 16 Jun 2007 at 12:18

No.

She's my Queen until she dies.

dirtydog · 16 Jun 2007 at 12:24

Ricochet J said:
Should the Queen Step Down soon before or after Blair Steps down?
I think she does. Not saying she's been a bad queen, she's done lots of things. I know when there is a tragedy anywhere in the world she shows her concern on behalf of the people of the UK. She toured The United States and as a result more Americans probably know more about us and our heritage. But now that the word "Queen" is, in my opinion, being overused, and seeing as the UK is in need of some serious revival I reckon the King of the United Kingdom should boost moral.

You mean morale. Moral means something else.

If you think about it:
- People are not happy about all this stuff about immigration, I have no comment on that, but a lot of people do come to the UK uneducated about our traditions, if there was a new King, perhaps they'd learn more

How?

- Scotland want their own independance. a lot of people are against this. IF there is a new King, perhaps he maintain unity by having a bigger role in Scotland as opposed to sitting in London all day

Why would he?

- If there is a new King it will boost our troops' morale.

- If there is a new King, it will be televised and the whole world will watch. It will show the world despite today's technology, we're not forgetting our roots. The UK will be watched my millions and good comments will be said about it. These will undoubtly reach our media which will be read/seen by us, which will make us feel good for living in the UK again.

Prince Charles isn't even widely popular, and the Queen is. Her stepping down for him would be unpopular, controversial and divisive.

Vibez · 16 Jun 2007 at 12:27

We'd have to make up a new national anthem for a start

Ricochet J · 16 Jun 2007 at 12:35

dirtydog said:
You mean morale. Moral means something else.

Sorry, i'm still half a sleep whilst typing this, excuse the spelling and grammar.

dirtydog said:
How?

Well, immigrants in the UK will watch the Queen stepping down the new King coming to the throne. With all this hype on television we're all, immigrants or not, bound to learn a thing or two. Okay, this may seem like a bit of a wishy washy explaination, but the t.v has a big influence on the brain

dirtydog said:
Why would he?

For the benefit of England, Scotland and Wales. Financially, and politically.

dirtydog said:

Our troops are in Iraq, Afghanistan, I don't know where else, but I can bet they're operating at other places too. Blair just doesn't cut it for boosting confidence. The troops are there on behalf of the UK. If the new King of the UK goes abroad then they'll see that their work is not going unnoticed.

dirtydog said:
Prince Charles isn't even widely popular, and the Queen is. Her stepping down for him would be unpopular, controversial and divisive.

In your opinion. Even then, if Charles doesn't want to become King, can't his Children?

Alchemy · 16 Jun 2007 at 12:38

Ricochet J said:
In your opinion. Even then, if Charles doesn't want to become King, can't his Children?

Too young.

dirtydog · 16 Jun 2007 at 12:38

Ricochet J said:
Well, immigrants in the UK will watch the Queen stepping down the new King coming to the throne. With all this hype on television we're all, immigrants or not, bound to learn a thing or two. Okay, this may seem like a bit of a wishy washy explaination, but the t.v has a big influence on the brain

No offence but you haven't offered any explanation there at all really

For the benefit of England, Scotland and Wales. Financially, and politically.

Why doesn't the Queen do this now then? Why would Scots who want independence, be swayed by an English monarch telling them to stay in the union?

Our troops are in Iraq, Afghanistan, I don't know where else, but I can bet they're operating at other places too. Blair just doesn't cut it for boosting confidence. The troops are there on behalf of the UK. If the new King of the UK goes abroad then they'll see that their work is not going unnoticed.

The King wouldn't go for the same reason the Queen doesn't go now.

In your opinion. Even then, if Charles doesn't want to become King, can't his Children?

No. The next monarch must be Charles.

Vulcan · 16 Jun 2007 at 12:39

Ricochet J, your points make no sense. Having a king isn't going to change the morale of the soldiers, some decent equipment would! Having a king wouldn't change anything.

With all this hype on television we're all, immigrants or not, bound to learn a thing or two.

What? I fail to see the link between, queen, king, television and immigrants.

vincent1989 · 16 Jun 2007 at 12:41

Vibez said:
We'd have to make up a new national anthem for a start

no we wouldn't, our national anthem has existed far longer than our queen, all thats changed is we have substitued the word 'king' with 'queen' :rolleyes:

dirtydog · 16 Jun 2007 at 12:44

bringerofdecay said:
no we wouldn't, our national anthem has existed far longer than our queen, all thats changed is we have substitued the word 'king' with 'queen'

yep, you do have to wonder what they're teaching in schools nowadays if people don't know that ;(

vincent1989 · 16 Jun 2007 at 12:45

dirtydog said:
yep, you do have to wonder what they're teaching in schools nowadays if people don't know that ;(

yeah i know, it's a pretty bad indication of our herritage.

Jaap74 · 16 Jun 2007 at 12:49

I want the Queen to be an old, dribbling, incontinent wreck and still be on the throne.

If it was good enough for Pope John Paul II then why not Lizzie ?

vincent1989 · 16 Jun 2007 at 12:51

i just think we should scrap the monarchy all together, they do absolutely nothing, and i get no joy out of seeing her visit other towns/countries and cities on the tax payers money.

that would show more countries how advanced we are by moving away from our, quite frankly, fuedal and archaic roots into the new age

dirtydog · 16 Jun 2007 at 12:56

bringerofdecay said:
i just think we should scrap the monarchy all together, they do absolutely nothing, and i get no joy out of seeing her visit other towns/countries and cities on the tax payers money.

that would show more countries how advanced we are by moving away from our, quite frankly, fuedal and archaic roots into the new age

I agree with that. It would also be highly controversial and divisive though, of course. But it would at least drag us into the modern era. A national anthem which spoke of allegiance to one's country instead of to a monarch would be preferable to me also.

vincent1989 · 16 Jun 2007 at 12:58

dirtydog said:
I agree with that. It would also be highly controversial and divisive though, of course. But it would at least drag us into the modern era. A national anthem which spoke of allegiance to one's country instead of to a monarch would be preferable to me also.

i think the only people that would honestly care about the dissolution of the monarchy would be the 60+, and personally i wouldn't be too about the pensioners rising up against us

oddjob62 · 16 Jun 2007 at 13:11

dirtydog said:
No. The next monarch must be Charles.

I'm pretty sure Charles can forfeit his rights to the throne and let it pass to William and do think William (V) would be a very popular king if he was to assume the throne in a next few years.

Have to agree with dirtydog though on most of his points

Flibster · 16 Jun 2007 at 13:20

oddjob62 said:
I'm pretty sure Charles can forfeit his rights to the throne and let it pass to William and do think William (V) would be a very popular king if he was to assume the throne in a next few years.

Plus the Queen can name her successor.

Simon/~Flibster

penski · 16 Jun 2007 at 13:23

I am the queeeeeeeen!

I'll live forever!

I'll never die!

I'll live to a million!

*n