Thread: A new monarch.

IIRC Queen Liz loved her animals and chose to drive a Defender...says a lot about a person

As for King Chuck the 3rd, I think he'll be alright. He's been in training for the job for about 70 odd years so should know what to do.

Originally Posted by Max Headroom 2.3m

IIRC Queen Liz loved her animals and chose to drive a Defender...says a lot about a person

As for King Chuck the 3rd, I think he'll be alright. He's been in training for the job for about 70 odd years so should know what to do.

He has, however he's also blotted his copybook a number of times. I hope he'll now aspire to the level of impartiality his mother gracefully exhibited.

Originally Posted by BradC

He has, however he's also blotted his copybook a number of times. I hope he'll now aspire to the level of impartiality his mother gracefully exhibited.

Agreed, but as said he was still in training. Big shoes to fill.

He has, however he's also blotted his copybook a number of times

Yes he has But compared to his brother he is a saint

Originally Posted by trout1105

Yes he has But compared to his brother he is a saint

Does the C of E have saints?

Originally Posted by Saitch

Does the C of E have saints?

I'm pretty certain they do, and I have an idea that there are even some kings that have been designated saints, although none since the reformation.

As whenever anything to do with the monarchy comes up, the republican opinions surface with the death of Elizabeth. After many years to think about it, I think it comes down to one simple question - do you want to have, as head of state, a politician, or someone who has been trained pretty much from birth for the role? For example, Donald Trump or Elizabeth R?

Neither is guaranteed to give satisfactory results, although this example does show the definite advantages of keeping head of state separate from head of government.

And the career of Elizabeth does show the advantages of a job for life - continuity over a long period.

Of course it may be possible to design a republican model where you don't end up with a politician as head of state - but experience round the world does not seem to give this idea much support!

My conclusion is that although I am not keen on having a foreign head of state, I have yet to see a republican model that would definitely be an improvement, let alone one likely to be passed in a referendum today or in the near future.

I'm not against the idea of a republic as such but seeing the mess most of them are in, I reckon we're better off as we are. The monarchy doesn't interfere with what we do or what anyone else in the Commonwealth does so is not a problem.
I am looking forward to the unseemly scramble by all those red flag waving unionists to get job of First President of Oz. Then we'll see huge spending as our "leaders" show the world how it should be done.
A new Presidents Palace but of course they won't actually it that. New fleet of jets to whizz him/her around the world on a never ending gabfest trip. New huge fleet of vehicles fully armoured of course in the best traditions of a republic.
It goes on and on.
The cost of all these grand projects to show everyone else we are governed by one of our "own" will be massive.
AlanH.

Originally Posted by Saitch

Does the C of E have saints?

There are parents from all over Brisbane, who believe Churchie is full of them.

Calendar of saints (Church of England) - Wikipedia