Jump to content

Prince Charles - head of the Commonwealth


Chinahand

Recommended Posts

Ah the advantages of birth.  Have various political leaders from around the world just given Charles a job for life???!!!

Sorry, but that is just unacceptable in this day and age.  Though the Commonwealth leaders aren't exactly an enlightened, modern lot, are they.

I really hope it is at least a renewable set term, subject to revalidation.

To have a person appointed due to simply the priviledge of their birth is wrong. Hereditary political leadership belongs in the history book, not at the head of the Commonwealth, which could be a useful organisation for multilateral cooperation rather than a place for Charles to go meddling, wining and dining.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 minute ago, P.K. said:

Didn't Liz push for this though?

A sort of runner-up prize for not being Head of State...

Head of the Commonwealth is not an hereditary title and no one can be automatically appointed when the Queen dies.

The Commonwealth could choose anyone by be they a member of the Royal Family or any member head of state or politician.

They have chosen and they could have chosen another...Probably done for the sake of continuity.

If HM the Q had died it might well have been different but she suggested and by consent they agreed.

The very word "Commonwealth" means just that "In agreement for the good of all" or "common purpose and intent"..It is an archaic word which some confuse for "wealth" as in "money" but it is about common purpose and values. ie Commonwealth of Massachusetts or Virginia or Commonwealth in the days of Oliver Cromwell...So if appointing Charles is "the commonweal" then the organisation is living up to its name. It is also just a symbolic position..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, P.K. said:

Didn't Liz push for this though?

A sort of runner-up prize for not being Head of State...

And it is a bit of non-job anyway. It may well be that no one else wants to be burdened with it so a neutral appointee in the tradition is probably a quick and easy answer....Not what it once was. I don't think they trundle out the bejewelled elephants any more! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, La Colombe said:

I must think the same as HRH then! My initial reaction was that "not looking like Manchester" meant not looking like the old image of a Hilda Ogden "Fag Ash Lil" type with turban, faded floral working clothes, always saying "Chuck" and "Luv" and "Spondulicks" or some such....Nothing to do with race and I suppose even he must realise that his soon to be daughter in law is not totally WASP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, dilligaf said:

Agreed 

Get rid of the royal family too. Nothing more than a tourist attraction.

Totally unconvinced the dysfunctional and highly superannuated "Royal Family" are a tourist attraction at all. Maybe the palaces and castles are but the parasitic "Royals" - nah.  while we're at it get shot of the House of Lords.

That will create some constitutional problems that will have to be resolved but once again a price that is very worth paying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rog said:
11 minutes ago, dilligaf said:

Agreed 

Get rid of the royal family too. Nothing more than a tourist attraction.

On this we are in agreement and while we're at it get shot of the House of Lords.

That will create some constitutional problems that will have to be resolved but once again a price that is very worth paying.

MLCs too, don't forget them.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bash royalty all you like, but I think the Commonwealth is a wonderful organisation.  53 nations, a third of the world’s population, a quarter of the UN’s membership and covering a fifth of the world's land area.

Its members tend to share the same legal system and it promotes an set of “Commonwealth values”, including democracy and human rights. 

It is also one of the few functional multilateral organisations which successfully spans rich and developing nations.

It is mostly a talking shop, but I think it is better to think of it as a multinational think-tank which deals with everything from economic development, climate change to the issues of poverty and immigration.

The smallest nations sit with the largest, and the richest listen to some of the poorest.

Getting world politicians together to face real issues of global governance is vitally important and the Commonwealth is far more grounded in the realities of the world than Davos, the OECD, the G7 or even the G20.  The shared culture also allows for better mutual understanding compared to the dog eat dog geopolitics the G20 fosters.

I hope it goes from strength to strength. 

I just don't want it to be headed by Big Ears because of who his mother was.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

If you take the national anthem as a kind of prayer, you'd have to say that god seems to be listening. 

LOL!

Assisted by medical support that the guy in the street can only dream of

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...