Still Waters Posted June 2, 2014 #1 Share Posted June 2, 2014 King Juan Carlos of Spain has announced his intention to abdicate, after nearly 40 years on the throne. "A new generation must be at the forefront... younger people with new energies," the 76-year-old king said in a televised address. His son, Crown Prince Felipe, 45, will take over the throne. http://www.bbc.co.uk...europe-27662301 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldorado Posted June 2, 2014 #2 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Can't blame him really. It must be a hard life, being a King. (lol) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuzzLightYear Posted June 2, 2014 #3 Share Posted June 2, 2014 Can't blame him really. It must be a hard life, being a King. (lol) Yeah and now he can retire to the same luxuries without all the responsibility. Of course the people of Spain will still pick up the tab. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabby Kitten Posted June 3, 2014 #4 Share Posted June 3, 2014 I hope that the Queen of England will hurry up and do that. She's just green lighted fracking on private land. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Wearer of Hats Posted June 3, 2014 #5 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Has he abdicated for Due Carlos? Also, Betty has no power in government, so her government over which she has no imfluence green lit fracking on private land. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevewinn Posted June 3, 2014 #6 Share Posted June 3, 2014 Its a shame the way these old monarchy's in Europe have gone, some dont even have the courage to go on till the end, just pass it off like some day job. at least in the mother of all monarchy's here in the United Kingdom they go on till their last breath. a true reflection in sense of duty to the country. some do it the right way, accept no imitations. no doubt this will start media speculation about our own Queen by those who like to undermine, demolish or throw away. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted June 3, 2014 #7 Share Posted June 3, 2014 When one gets old one gets feeble and unable to do things. Being a monarch is a 365 day a year job. Sure monarchs should be able to retire without being criticized for it. They will know (we would hope) when it is time to pass the job onto younger people, and a tradition saying they can't is wrongheaded. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithisco Posted June 3, 2014 #8 Share Posted June 3, 2014 I hope that the Queen of England will hurry up and do that. She's just green lighted fracking on private land. No she hasn't! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevewinn Posted June 3, 2014 #9 Share Posted June 3, 2014 When one gets old one gets feeble and unable to do things. Being a monarch is a 365 day a year job. Sure monarchs should be able to retire without being criticized for it. They will know (we would hope) when it is time to pass the job onto younger people, and a tradition saying they can't is wrongheaded. no you carry on regardless, what they can do is pass on some of the work load. but not abdicate. if we had a situation whereby the Queen was unable to continue she would still remain monarch until the bitter end. her public engagements would be carried out by member's of the Royal Family. but she'd remain. its what separates wheat from the chaff. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted June 3, 2014 #10 Share Posted June 3, 2014 no you carry on regardless, what they can do is pass on some of the work load. but not abdicate. if we had a situation whereby the Queen was unable to continue she would still remain monarch until the bitter end. her public engagements would be carried out by member's of the Royal Family. but she'd remain. its what separates wheat from the chaff. I would rather have the Queen being the Queen than someone else. Sometimes these things are important enough that it not be a Lord High Substitute. The Royalty is not there just to attend garden parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Wearer of Hats Posted June 3, 2014 #11 Share Posted June 3, 2014 I would rather have the Queen being the Queen than someone else. Sometimes these things are important enough that it not be a Lord High Substitute. The Royalty is not there just to attend garden parties. No, they also open hospitals, spend other country's money when they go on holiday and provide fodder for tabloid magazines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevewinn Posted June 6, 2014 #12 Share Posted June 6, 2014 (edited) No, they also open hospitals, spend other country's money when they go on holiday and provide fodder for tabloid magazines. what about acting as head of state, Commonwealth. the Royal Family do far far more than you give them credit for, the events that go unreported, the links and relations gained. brings in untold benefits to the commonwealth. being from Australia i get the feeling you like the idea of being a republic, doing away with the Queen. It would just be throwing part of your History away and what for gain? people could go on fooling themselves, but the pages of History will always remind - the Australia of today of its origins. have a watch of this documentary the Royal Family at work. BBC. Edited June 6, 2014 by stevewinn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted June 6, 2014 #13 Share Posted June 6, 2014 A civilian Head of State is a good idea but nowhere as useful as a monarch to symbolize a country. Simple things like greeting foreign dignitaries or going to other countries means more when it is a monarch. Everyone knows about a monarch, only politicos can tell you who the Chancellor of Germany is. He can go somewhere and it is noticed; a royal goes somewhere and it's all over the papers. Yet Germany is the more important country. Elizabeth so far is doing great, but sometimes the monarch gets too feeble or begins making embarrassing slips or just simply does not look the part. In such cases I think, entirely up to the monarch of course, there should be no problem in an abdication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Wearer of Hats Posted June 6, 2014 #14 Share Posted June 6, 2014 being from Australia i get the feeling you like the idea of being a republic, doing away with the Queen. It would just be throwing part of your History away and what for gain? people could go on fooling themselves, but the pages of History will always remind - the Australia of today of its origins. My "cash strapped to the point of selling state assets" state government played host to William and Katherine at great expense for a single day. Money that could have been used to do useful things like repair classrooms, give a hospital a working x-ray machine, fix some pot holes on the road. Instead, it was spent on security as some 32 year old twit and his missus waved at the crowds and promptly p***ed off again. What do we gain by becoming a Republic? Well we get rid of an expensive habit. And, importantly, we'll send a message to all Australians that the past is indeed the past and we'll forge the future together. It might, who knows, stop people referring to "Australia Day" as "Invasion Day" and create a sense of unified pride in the nation. Or it might not. Does our history change? Nope. Did you know that for a number of Australians the Queen doesn't represent the head of state, but rather the symbol of oppression and invasion? MAYBE by becoming a republic we can start to heal that sort of enculturated wound. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevewinn Posted June 7, 2014 #15 Share Posted June 7, 2014 My "cash strapped to the point of selling state assets" state government played host to William and Katherine at great expense for a single day. Money that could have been used to do useful things like repair classrooms, give a hospital a working x-ray machine, fix some pot holes on the road. Instead, it was spent on security as some 32 year old twit and his missus waved at the crowds and promptly p***ed off again. What do we gain by becoming a Republic? Well we get rid of an expensive habit. And, importantly, we'll send a message to all Australians that the past is indeed the past and we'll forge the future together. It might, who knows, stop people referring to "Australia Day" as "Invasion Day" and create a sense of unified pride in the nation. Or it might not. Does our history change? Nope. Did you know that for a number of Australians the Queen doesn't represent the head of state, but rather the symbol of oppression and invasion? MAYBE by becoming a republic we can start to heal that sort of enculturated wound. well i know the popularity of the Royal Family goes up and down in Oz, I believe after William's and Kate's visit the polls showed an increase in support for the monarchy. when it comes to spending money - you have to admit the money spent is petty cash in the grand scheme of things and the argument for money being spent better elsewhere can always be made, Australia is not a tin pot country, It can afford to do everything. hosting visits from heads of state, Royal Visits, fix the potholes, Health care, Schools etc...Australia just embrace your history, and just remember were you came from - from the bosom of old mother England. rightly put your energy into the new world, but not to the detriment of the old - cherish both. the UK is your best link to your past, and the mostly likely to stick by you in the future. for as the older you get the more you'll need the people you knew when you were younger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Merton Posted June 7, 2014 #16 Share Posted June 7, 2014 I think the Aussies, like everyone, would be better off with their own Royal family, perhaps one of the brothers could move there and take up the role. Not doing that they should certainly keep the monarchy. Look at what the visit achieved. It may seem strange that someone like myself, a Vietnamese Communist, should be so in favor of monarchies. Well times have changed and monarchies are not, except in a few backward places, monarchs of the old stripe, and nowadays I think they have a positive and unifying role to play, as well as providing a cultural and historical symbol. Of course that is my own opinion, hardly that of the Party, at least yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Wearer of Hats Posted June 8, 2014 #17 Share Posted June 8, 2014 I think the Aussies, like everyone, would be better off with their own Royal family, perhaps one of the brothers could move there and take up the role. Not doing that they should certainly keep the monarchy. Look at what the visit achieved. No thanks, I like the idea of a Head of State we can tell to p*** off every couple of years. And what did the visit of Will and Kate achieve? Sod all other then wasting money that should have been spent elsewhere. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Wearer of Hats Posted June 8, 2014 #18 Share Posted June 8, 2014 well i know the popularity of the Royal Family goes up and down in Oz, I believe after William's and Kate's visit the polls showed an increase in support for the monarchy. when it comes to spending money - you have to admit the money spent is petty cash in the grand scheme of things and the argument for money being spent better elsewhere can always be made, Australia is not a tin pot country, It can afford to do everything. hosting visits from heads of state, Royal Visits, fix the potholes, Health care, Schools etc...Australia just embrace your history, and just remember were you came from - from the bosom of old mother England. rightly put your energy into the new world, but not to the detriment of the old - cherish both. the UK is your best link to your past, and the mostly likely to stick by you in the future. for as the older you get the more you'll need the people you knew when you were younger. It's not where "we" came from. Me personally my family's from the Republic of Ireland and a bunch of convicts. So if "the mother Country" didn't want them.... A lot of us are from peoples who were here when Australia was "discovered". They don't particularly look favorably upon "the Mother Country". Especially when certain people in the UK stole their ancestors bones and TO THIS DAY refuse to return them. And then there are the migrants from Africa, or Vietnam. They don't have a connection to "the Mother Country". I say lets keep the past in the past and build a future on our own two feet. Also, we CAN'T pay for everything. Or so we're constantly being told by both state and federal governments as an excuse to sell assets and cut services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now