advertisement


Prince Charles

Sorry, what? I don't follow your argument here. Your conclusion doesn't derive from the two statements you made before it.
It's an almost textbook fallacy of the undistributed middle.

Compare this example with Kirk's argument below:
  1. All students carry backpacks.
  2. My grandfather carries a backpack.
  3. Therefore, my grandfather is a student.
And now Kirk's argument:

1. Russia is trying to undermine UK.
2. Some anti-monarchists are Russian.
3. Therefore o_O anti-monarchists are trying to undermine the UK.
 
Putin is already engaged in trying to undermine the British state/establishment. Every time someone is seduced by the siren call of the anti-monarchists (some of whom, coincidently, are pro-Russia), they should take a moment to consider that a potential vote against the Queen would be a vote for United Russia.
51520431141_5447ca1928_o.jpg
 
It's an almost textbook fallacy of the undistributed middle.

Compare this example with Kirk's argument below:
  1. All students carry backpacks.
  2. My grandfather carries a backpack.
  3. Therefore, my grandfather is a student.
And now Kirk's argument:

1. Russia is trying to undermine UK.
2. Some anti-monarchists are Russian.
3. Therefore o_O anti-monarchists are trying to undermine the UK.


As I mentioned to KS (not Keir) the other day, always good to a maintain sense of humour on PF. And I appreciate the mind reading but alas it's off target.

The Monarchy isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Monarchy = Great Britain = Monarchy.
 
For those advocating abolishing the monarchy, I have just one question:

who, would you say, is most likely to get to choose what replaces it?

My guess would be, the answer to that will be ‘the government of the time’.

Do you still want it abolishing? Asking for a friend.

It doesn't need replacing. It is occupying a much needed void.
 
The monarchy ought to die with Liz but it won`t as Charlie becomes King instantly upon her death and there will be too much sentimental claptrap around the funeral and subsequent coronation to take advantage of the situation. Unless He **cks up right royally, which admittedly is quite possible we`re stuck with it I`m afraid.
 
Telegraph: Queen spending millions to fund Prince Andrew’s fight against sex abuse allegations

Shouldn't we have a system where, when the personal behaviour of the Head of State or their family sully our reputation, they could be removed from office?

Why, in effect, should the nation - in the form of the monarchy - stand behind Andrew?

Why to a lesser degree, should the nation stand behind Andrew's friends, Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein?
 
Telegraph: Queen spending millions to fund Prince Andrew’s fight against sex abuse allegations

Shouldn't we have a system where, when the personal behaviour of the Head of State or their family sully our reputation, they could be removed from office?

Why, in effect, should the nation - in the form of the monarchy - stand behind Andrew?

Why to a lesser degree, should the nation stand behind Andrew's friends, Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein?
Alternatively, if the story is even true "the Telegraph understands..." then the headline could read Mother uses own money to pay for son's defence against false accusations.

No one should rely on the Telegraph for anything, not even a weather forecast.
 
Alternatively, if the story is even true "the Telegraph understands..." then the headline could read Mother uses own money to pay for son's defence against false accusations.

No one should rely on the Telegraph for anything, not even a weather forecast.
Whether the accusations stand up in court, the point remains that Andrew is part of our monarchy and his friendships (not just Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein, but Peter Nygård too) tarnish the image of the nation. Yet we, who had no choice in giving him his position, have no power to remove him, even if the accusations stand up in court.

That seems wrong to me.
 
Whether the accusations stand up in court, the point remains that Andrew is part of our monarchy and his friendships (not just Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein, but Peter Nygård too) tarnish the image of the nation. Yet we, who had no choice in giving him his position, have no power to remove him, even if the accusations stand up in court.

That seems wrong to me.
Does it. Ok. We had terrible rain here today. damned gutters flooded over on every side.
 
Shouldn't we have a system where, when the personal behaviour of the Head of State or their family sully our reputation, they could be removed from office?
When has an "elected" "leader" ever been removed from office due to misconduct of any kind? Not counting assassinations, coups, or other extra-judicial means. Those work on royals too.
 
Alternatively, if the story is even true "the Telegraph understands..." then the headline could read Mother uses own money to pay for son's defence against false accusations.

No one should rely on the Telegraph for anything, not even a weather forecast.

“The [media of choice] understands it can destroy those in power by the stories we print, so do as you are told”
 
When has an "elected" "leader" ever been removed from office due to misconduct of any kind? Not counting assassinations, coups, or other extra-judicial means. Those work on royals too.
You're right - my phrase 'removal from office' wasn't the best way of explaining my argument. And you're also right that most 'removals from office' are not active - they usually take the form of a resignation or of defeat in the next election cycle. But the latter is not an option when you have a hereditary principle.

What I was trying to get at is that, in a hereditary system, even the former - 'resignation/abdication' - does not give a result that accords with a sense of justice being served. Take the case of Spain where, in 2014, King Juan Carlos abdicated following accusations of corrupt business deals, an ill-advised elephant hunting trip at a time of mass unemployment, and accusations of embezzlement involving his daughter, Cristina. Juan Carlos decided to abdicate. But when he did so, he dressed it up as being a personal decision to prevent his son, Felipe, from languishing like our Prince Charles. The fact that he is now living in exile demonstrates, to my mind, that it was not a personal decision, but rather a decision to maintain the institution of the monarchy, and in particular the privilege of his - disgraced - family. So, when the family was disgraced, the hereditary principle still applied!

That seems wrong to me.
 


advertisement


Back
Top