Royal Family & riots

[bitesthedust]

Has KC or anyone from the RF issue any statements about the recent riots?

If not, why not?

Genuine question.

I'm sorry but architecture ... not the same as staying silent and appearing neutral when it comes to literal racial hatred and violent hatecrime...

There really is only one viewpoint that's acceptable and that's to condemn, but the "royal" 🤮 family wouldn't be where they are today if it wasn't for slavery, imperialism and exploitation

There's nothing political about violent criminal rioting.

Yes there is.

And the fact that you and I disagree on this proves my point.

You really don’t think it’s a matter for the PM, Home Sec and police, Communities Minister?

Whose is in charge of the response, if not them?

No? Poll tax riots? Riots following police killings? BLM riots?

No

I meant interfere

I don’t think in this day and age the king would have the power to intervine but by simply made his opinion public could have influenced a less destructive outcome and perhaps even spark the re-education of the rioters and influence the ones controling / inciting them - especially the media (GB News & Talk radio)

Poll tax were peaceful protests initially. This was never about that. This was always racist hooligans out for a fight.

You really think a bunch of racist hooligans are going to listen to Charles?

You really think anyone cares to hear his opinion on this, or any other, political development?

And what if he'd said, or intimated, something you (or, more importantly, the influences you want to re-educate) didn't agree with?

Typo edits.

Like I said - the media and some people encouraged

Besides, if a king can’t speak for himself directly and openly, there is not much point for the monarchy in my opinion

But maybe I should not have an opinion in the matter sunce I was not born&bred here

And what if Charles spoke his mind, and it was something you didn't like?

The Monarch in the UK never speaks their mind - they stay out of the fray, and that way our constitution works. The late Queen's reign saw 15 Prime Ministerships. Shevwould not have agreed with the policies of all of them, but read their policies out at yhe start of each Parliament, as was her role.

It is not Charles's place to spout his opinions.

If you think the British Constitution needs changing, you'll not get an argument from me (PR, please!) but at least put some thought into how it currently works.

So if the King role is purely HOS and must keep out of politics etc, why does he meet the PM every week? Does he seek to influence, discourage, encourage policy, or does he just nod and agree. What is the point if so?

I thought they discussed Strictly ?

The Monarch has rights, which include the right to be consulted by, the right to advise, and the right to admonish His Majesty's government. That is what the weekly meetings are for. He can say what he thinks in those meetings.

Well, so we're told. It may as well be the 3:30 at Kempton for all we know. Or cross stitch techniques. Or more things to do with a bain-marie.

Perhaps they could do a podcast. The last two men in the world to do so ?

He’ll only come out with some woke rubbish so best he stays silent.
Meanwhile he and William are busy building over half of Kent.
So much for the environment.

Seems to have the wrong link so just copied from the 9th August Guardian.

Very weird, The Guardian posted a front page article on Friday 9th reporting that the King sent heartfelt thanks to the police, etc etc.

The link I tried goes to a different article but it's still there if you search. It's quite long, he's been quite involved.

I think the UK's constitutional monarchy will be in place for the rest of my lifetime. Which I believe is a good thing for democracy, and I also think that if even a modicum of research was undertaken, most people, (having done the research), would agree.

Ooh @MrsStottlemeyer I've just reached the episode where you tell the captain you're divorcing him... 🤞

I'm really not being facetious here, but could you detail how having a monarchy benefits me as a normal lower middle class citizen

Libraries closed over my exams as a student whilst the wealthy are wed at our expense
Businesses closed over a stranger's death whilst working at our expense
Impartiality over racial hate crimes as a mixed race British born citizen

oh dear

buckle up to hear about tourism and such

I'm ready to hear about it of course, doesn't mean it means anything
Tourism - Republic

No @balletflats, its just that your thing wasn't funny and didn't answer Ops question. And we don't have 'wedgies', as we're not 10.

I don't support a constitutional monarchy because of tourism. I support it because, having lived under other forms, I believe it is currently the most stable form of government. If that changes I may change my mind.

But this of course means that things like libraries and race crime are a matter for the government not the King. Having said that the Prince's Trust has done a lot of good through the grants they have handed out, which is a direct good that wouldn't exist if not for the current King.

Ultimately though we all have ideas about what works and what doesn't politically, socially and culturally and that is healthy and right and the country would be poorer if we all agreed.

Have you given any thought to the constitutional role the Monarch plays as the abstract embodiment of the State? The Monarch has the power to check a rogue government; and members of the armed services pledge alliegance to the Monarch/State, not the government.

What would you suggest we replace it with?