In post #103 Penfold101 said:
Catholic: religion doesn’t matter as none of it is real.
Divorcee: no-one cares, people get divorced all the time.
Traditions: don’t matter, it’s just peer pressure from dead people.
Inclusive: welcome to the modern world, this is a good thing.
Modernisation: also a good thing, see previous point. Just because something is centuries old doesn’t make it good.
Old Penfold's done 22 years in the British armed forces, he knows you know!
You missed my point.
In 1994 Charles admitted to committing adultery with Camilla during his marriage to Diana. The problem is not that Charles subsequently divorced. After all, Henry VIII only took Britain away from Roman Catholicism because he wanted a divorce and the Pope wouldn't give him one! It's the fact that Charles admitted he broke his sacred marriage vow but still automatically became the Head of the Church or England when he became King.
I'd rather keep the Royal Family than have some elected head of state as there would be no democracy in that. The president would be chosen depending on who has the most money to run a campaign and who the right wing press brainwashes the sheep into voting for.
How can there be more democracy in a hereditary King than in an elected President? We don't have to follow the US system of government. There are many Parliamentary Republics with a ceremonial and non-executive President, where a Prime Minster (or equivalent elected official) leads the executive and is dependent on the confidence of the legislature.
'A hereditary monarch is as absurd a position as a hereditary doctor or mathematician.' - Thomas Paine
What I'm saying is a President would be chosen by how much money they have not how good they are for the country.
The King's ancestors were the strongest robber Barons, hence why he is the King! Why do you think anyone ever made a decision that making him the monarch would be good for the country?
You realise that the King also receives tens of millions per year from our exorbitant energy bills? (The offshore wind turbine owners have to pay rent to the Crown Estate to cite their wind turbine foundations on the sea bed, which astonishingly the King still legally owns.)
The idea that the monarchy is non-political is utter nonsense. The entire British class system, still to this day, hangs on it with huge swathes of the country still owned by the nobility and at the top of the pile sits the monarch.
The US Presidential model is not the only Republican system of government.
What the British monarchy requires is to be scaled back, an evolution. However, the monarchy holds the real power and turkeys don't vote for Christmas so it would take a public revolution for it to happen
It needs to be scaled back urgently. Other European countries with monarchies have relatively small running costs and just use their King/Queen for ceremonial duties. They maintain one palace and modest resources with public funds. In contrast, our Monarchy costs the taxpayer £86.3 million in 2021-22 (far more indirectly due to legal tax avoidance) and many Royals are on the payroll to do ceremonial duties/trade missions etc. It is a truly bloated institution.
As for the pledge, if anybody should be pledging allegiance it's Charles to the country and not the other way around.
The notion of normal people standing in front of their TV sets swearing a medieval oath of fealty to the new King is like a Monty Python sketch. It's a piece of Ruritanian nonsense that only serves to show how utterly divorced from the real world the Royal Family and their sycophants have become. For a newspaper to state that 'the whole world' will 'proclaim homage' to King Charles III, as happened yesterday, is laughable.
Ahh nothing wrong at all with someone being above the law by birthright, nothing wrong at all.
Absolutely doesn't make a mockery of justice for all when they get away with whatever they want and brush it under the rug because it would 'embarrass' the country.
Why would we want to pledge allegiance to a King's heir (Andrew) who was a friend of a convicted paedophile and was accused in a sworn affidavit of having sex three times with an underage girl? He has refused to submit to questioning by the FBI, but Emily Maitlis got the better of him in their interview which is why he keeps his head down nowadays!
