Royal Succession. No space for debate.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Thread auto-archived as it is too large
 Godwin 10 Sep 2022

I was not particularly bothered about the UK or more relevant to me, England having a King or Queen. Generally I thought Elizabeth 2, was very good and I was happy to see her play the role out. Then maybe we could have the discussion.
So perhaps I am naive or uninformed, but I was startled the Charles was instantly King Charles 3. I assume that if a Jumbo Jet with the next 61 in line to the throne it, and it fell off the conveyor belt, we would instantly have Queen Zenouska Mowatt.
Now, I apologise, but that sounds wrong to me.
I think there should be space for debate on this, and the Royal family have deliberately left no space.
What with 10 days to the funeral, then national mourning, then the build up to the Coronation.
Or have I as usual, misunderstood, and got all worked up for nothing?

Post edited at 09:42
63
 alx 10 Sep 2022
In reply to Godwin:

Who do you think they will name Hand of the King?

 whenry 10 Sep 2022
In reply to Godwin:

I think you've misunderstood the nature of a monarchy.

 veteye 10 Sep 2022
In reply to whenry:

He (and we) doesn't have a say anyway.

It's an antiquated imposition on our society. So stuff you, the mere populace. You the plebeians. In this we are not considered the plebiscite to vote on the way things are.

40
OP Godwin 10 Sep 2022
In reply to whenry:

> I think you've misunderstood the nature of a monarchy.

Possibly I have. Could you please explain in what way I have, or suggest a good book on the subject.

28
In reply to Godwin:

James 6 of Scotland became    James 1 when he became monarch of the  new UK.. Wonder  why Elizabeth  2 was not Elizabeth 1 as the first Elizabeth was Queen of England only? It even led to the blowing up of a few ER 2 postboxes in Scotland in the early 5O,s as illustrated in the song ''Sky- high Joe".Actually I think I know the answer!!

11
 Slackboot 10 Sep 2022
In reply to Godwin:

I think the immediate succession of a new monarch is more of an historic thing to do with avoiding the bloodshed involved in different contenders staking a claim to the throne. I don't think it's primary purpose is to stop debate  on whether there should be a monarchy or not.

 yeti 10 Sep 2022
In reply to Godwin:

monarchy is the only thing faster than the speed of light : )

1
In reply to The Watch of Barrisdale:

Another Scots Republican song of the early 50's contained the lines,

"Cherlie the First he was beheidid,

Cherlie the Second he succeeded,

Cherlie the Third'll no be needed.

Lucky wee Prince Cherlie!"

Can't get everything right unfortunately!

4
 Tony Buckley 10 Sep 2022
In reply to Godwin:

> I think there should be space for debate on this, and the Royal family have deliberately left no space.

You can't blame the current, or even recent, royal family for this.  Nothing to do with them, everything to do with the tradition into which they were born.

If you must ascribe blame, then there's only one place to put it: on you, me and the rest of the common people.  We've not fomented revolution, so those responsible for the situation you're complaining about are those you're complaining to.

To quote Citizen Smith, everyone in favour of a revolution next Thursday* say Fulham.

T.

* It might have been another day.  My memory isn't that good.

1
OP Godwin 10 Sep 2022
In reply to Tony Buckley:

Fulham 

1
In reply to The Watch of Barrisdale:

> James 6 of Scotland became    James 1 when he became monarch of the  new UK.. Wonder  why Elizabeth  2 was not Elizabeth 1 as the first Elizabeth was Queen of England only? It even led to the blowing up of a few ER 2 postboxes in Scotland in the early 5O,s as illustrated in the song ''Sky- high Joe".Actually I think I know the answer!!

"Sky- High Joe "was written by Jimmy MacGregor. Those of you of a certain vintage may remember Jimmy  from the 1960's when he appeared in the Tonight  BBC TV programme, each week with his singing partner Robin Hall. The bold Jimmy is still going strong at the age of 92

 Neil Williams 10 Sep 2022
In reply to Godwin:

With Charles in his 70s he will reign for 10-20 years or so barring medical miracles.  This is the ideal sort of period to debate major constitutional change, to see if he should be the last King or the system should continue.  Major constitutional change should not be done quickly.

Give it a few months to calm down and for mourning etc, then it may be time to start the debate.

Post edited at 11:52
4
 nastyned 10 Sep 2022
In reply to Godwin:

So there's not even a gap between them when we can eat swans? Doesn't sound right. 

1
 DerwentDiluted 10 Sep 2022
In reply to Godwin:

Personally think that selection of the Monarch should be decided by a council of Watery Tarts and Moistened Bints lying in ponds throwing swords.

1
 Andy Hardy 10 Sep 2022
In reply to DerwentDiluted:

That's no basis for a system of government.

 mondite 10 Sep 2022
In reply to yeti:

> monarchy is the only thing faster than the speed of light : )

Terry Pratchett?

“The only thing known to go faster than ordinary light is monarchy, according to the philosopher Ly Tin Wheedle. He reasoned like this: you can't have more than one king, and tradition demands that there is no gap between kings, so when a king dies the succession must therefore pass to the heir instantaneously. Presumably, he said, there must be some elementary particles -- kingons, or possibly queons -- that do this job, but of course succession sometimes fails if, in mid-flight, they strike an anti-particle, or republicon. His ambitious plans to use his discovery to send messages, involving the careful torturing of a small king in order to modulate the signal, were never fully expanded because, at that point, the bar closed.”

 CantClimbTom 10 Sep 2022
In reply to Godwin:

Succession of roles and titles do work like that, if 61 people who are the succession list died then number 62 would be monarch.

Did you never watch this film?

youtube.com/watch?v=cCU1cF3Srh0&

Post edited at 13:10
 Bobling 10 Sep 2022
In reply to Godwin:

Off with his head!

 GrahamD 10 Sep 2022
In reply to Godwin:

You are, of course, perfectly entitled to set up a political party with a Republican manifesto.

The reason it would fail and have no influence at all is where you should be looking for our very real democratic deficit. 

1
Clauso 10 Sep 2022
In reply to Godwin:

You obviously weren't included on his WhatsApp group?

Personally, I gave him my blessing:

"Have it large, Charlie! Them Crown Jewels at yer Coronation will be proper bling, innit? LOLZ!?!"

 ExiledScot 10 Sep 2022
In reply to Neil Williams:

> With Charles in his 70s he will reign for 10-20 years or so barring medical miracles.  This is the ideal sort of period to debate major constitutional change

> Give it a few months to calm down and for mourning etc, then it may be time to start the debate.

Think it had already start the second she died even before, when queen was at peak queen many of her distant relatives etc.. had minor roles etc as they died off they weren't replaced. They've been centralising for a while, now Charles is king, andrew, edward etc will be inched off into the sidings permanently and their offspring having pretty much no role at all. The exception could be Sophie for at least as long as she is sister in law to the king. Andrews and Harry's antics have aided the slimming down too. When Anne dies it'll likely slim further and so on. 

Whilst I agree times change, the wisdom gained through decades of meeting different prime ministers weekly can't be under estimated, it's also the only time either party can speak openly without fear of misquoted or leaked. 

1
 Siward 10 Sep 2022
In reply to GrahamD:

Why is it a deficit? Republicanism has yet to command anything other than minority support in the UK.

7
 GrahamD 10 Sep 2022
In reply to Siward:

There is a democratic deficit in any minority views being represented in our winner takes all parliamentary system.  I think this needs to be addressed before worrying about whether head of state was elected or not.  Once we've done that, we can worry about the total democratic deficit in the second chamber.

1
 birdie num num 10 Sep 2022
In reply to DerwentDiluted:

> Personally think that selection of the Monarch should be decided by a council of Watery Tarts and Moistened Bints lying in ponds throwing swords.

It's strange that you should mention that grand ancient tradition....

I was mulling (in my grief) over my long dead  ancestor...Thomas Seymour Dudley Num Num, vittler to HenryVlll, a successful grocer specialising in sausages of the heavily garlic laced variety, which concealed the foul smell of the rotten meat contained within.
Somehow, those foul tubes of random mashed putrid flesh were considered a delicacy in the Tudor Court and Thomas was eventually dubbed by his liege 'Sir Thomas' and was allowed access to court where, on account of his handsome chiselled features ( a trait of the Num Nums) ..his sausage became a feature of great interest to Ann Boleyn.

The rest, shall we say is history... a tale of moistened bints and throwing swords.

And of course a monarch, displaying the magnificent unmistakable Num Num ginger. Popping up from time to time ever since 

5
 Kalna_kaza 11 Sep 2022
In reply to Godwin:

Anyone who agrees with and accepts that a monarchy in a western society, let alone one with genuine political powers of interference, doesn't truly believe in equality.

We have a system in which by pure chance of birth gives a sole individual the right to be head of state for life with no ability to remove said person regardless of crimes or misdemeanor as they are literally above the law courts, government, police and armed forces. 

Further to that, anyone who is not an adherent to the church of England, either by other religion or none, is also ineligible to be head of state. The fact that our national anthem is problematic for anyone who doesn't believe in either god or a hereditary monarchy is deeply problematic, does that make me less British?

Charles, William, sprogs et al have zero qualifications or ability above anyone else to be head of state yet they are given a life of undeserved luxury at our expense. The monarchy is the absolute pinnacle of elitism which excludes all others. 

The unadulterated propaganda currently saturating UK media right now is an utterly unbalanced view of a single individual and her disfunctional family. Feel free to honour the life of someone who has represented the UK for 70 years but without a balanced view it makes the whole populace look like a group of brainwashed proles.

I was out tonight with friends in the pub, and not one mentioned the queen, nor did I overhear anyone else mention the royal family, in this time of "national mourning". Perhaps few people genuinely care?

 The fact our elected members of the house of commons (another hideously distorted institution) aren't even allowed to mention the monarchy unless in positive terms says a lot about how tilted the system is against genuine change. This is a bit of a anti-monarchy rant, if you don't like it then feel free to down vote just please think twice when you next come across a situation where you feel it's unfair. 

F**k the royals.

37
 Michael Hood 11 Sep 2022
In reply to Kalna_kaza:

Whilst a lot of what you say is valid, you haven't really thought this through, what exactly do you mean by "doesn't truly believe in equality"?

Do you think a CEO of a major company should only be rewarded the same as everyone else in that company? Unless you think "yes" then you don't truly believe in equality, etc.

Show me a society, anywhere in the world that has or espouses complete equality.

And you could have made your points without being so unnecessarily vitriolic.

24
 Kalna_kaza 11 Sep 2022
In reply to Michael Hood:

> Whilst a lot of what you say is valid, you haven't really thought this through, what exactly do you mean by "doesn't truly believe in equality"?

By equality I mean every citizen of a country is equal before the law and in theory (although hard in practice) has no barriers to becoming head of state. At the moment neither of those are true in the UK.

> Do you think a CEO of a major company should only be rewarded the same as everyone else in that company? Unless you think "yes" then you don't truly believe in equality, etc.

Not a fair comparison. CEOs mostly attain their position through merit and no one is forced to work for said CEO or company.

> Show me a society, anywhere in the world that has or espouses complete equality.

The French seem keen on Liberté, égalité, fraternité. No society is perfect but at least the French have a better platform to work from to try.

> And you could have made your points without being so unnecessarily vitriolic.

True, a few too many drinks last night followed by too much royal related content online and TV didn't mix well.

5
OP Godwin 11 Sep 2022
In reply to Michael Hood:

> And you could have made your points without being so unnecessarily vitriolic.

Yes they could, but perhaps it is time for people to be more vitriolic about this topic.

I was chatting with someone yesterday and they mentioned parking at Bolton Abbey is £15 a day. £15 to the Duke of Devonshire to access land he should not own in the first place. This system of Aristocracy with a person with a Diamond Hat at the top, could and should go.

I say "Fulham"

5
 Bottom Clinger 11 Sep 2022
In reply to Kalna_kaza:

So you reckon about 80% of the population doesn’t believe in equality (even your redefined version)? 
 

1
 veteye 11 Sep 2022
In reply to Bottom Clinger:

No. Probably less than 40% truly don't believe in equality/believe in the monarchy as it is now.

 Martin Hore 11 Sep 2022
In reply to Godwin:

I'm entirely in favour of a debate about how our democratic (and in some cases not so democratic) institutions should evolve, but right now is entirely the wrong time to have that debate. Not just because it would be disrespectful to the Queen's memory, to her family, and to all those who sincerely believe this to be a time for mourning, but also because it would be de-stabilising to question the established protocol just as it's being implemented, and because the public support for change is probably at its lowest level right now.

We do have an opportunity for debate in the upcoming months and years, and we should have it, in good time for any changes to take place before we find the current situation repeated. I'm not sure Charles is against such a debate taking place. He has already indicated that he is open to change being debated in other commonwealth countries. 

I'm happy to live in a country with a constitutional monarchy, provided, as I believe to be the case, that the will of the people is sovereign, and if the informed and settled will of the people is that the monarchy should go, then that is what will happen.  The problem we have at present is that our current quasi-democratic institutions don't permit a consensus as to what is the "informed and settled will of the people" to be established. So, the first debate we urgently need is how we move to a fair voting system, and, what I think is the more problematic question, how people are "informed" through the multiplicity of media channels that now exist. Brexit, for example, is a classic example of how our system permitted an uninformed and unsettled "will of the people" to prevail on an issue of critical importance for our country.

Martin

5
 Bottom Clinger 11 Sep 2022
In reply to veteye:

The point being made by Kalna was about agreeing and accepting the monarchy. About 20% of the population don’t want the monarchy, the rest either fully back it or are OK/agree with it, and to label such a large chunk of the UK population as not believing in equality seems bonkers. 
Either way, the UKC debate on the monarchy demonstrates that our collective opinion is inversely proportional to that of wider UK society. Again. Which ain’t always a bad thing. 
 

OP Godwin 11 Sep 2022
In reply to Martin Hore:

> I'm entirely in favour of a debate about how our democratic (and in some cases not so democratic) institutions should evolve, but right now is entirely the wrong time to have that debate. Not just because it would be disrespectful to the Queen's memory, to her family, and to all those who sincerely believe this to be a time for mourning, but also because it would be de-stabilising to question the established protocol just as it's being implemented, and because the public support for change is probably at its lowest level right now.

>

Now is precisely the right time, it always is. As to respect, I believe that the ruling elites, which includes the Royal Family, have no respect for us, the people. Why should I call a member of the Royal Family Sir or Ma'am and bow to them. Why? 

12
 Robert Durran 11 Sep 2022
In reply to Bottom Clinger

> Either way, the UKC debate on the monarchy demonstrates that our collective opinion is inversely proportional to that of wider UK society. Again. Which ain’t always a bad thing. 

I'm not even sure that's true. There are a handful of republicans enjoying there chance to vent their spleen, but the general tone seems reasonably respectful and pretty neutral. I'm no ardent monarchist, but my posts supportive of Charles and calling out the unnecessary nastiness have got a lot more likes than dislikes from the "silent majority" (if that is anything to go by). My guess is that UKC largely reflects the country as a whole.

3
 Duncan Bourne 11 Sep 2022
In reply to CantClimbTom:

A bit like the Nepalese Monarchy

On 1 June 2001, Crown Prince Dipendra opened fire at a house on the grounds of the Narayanhity Palace, the residence of the Nepalese monarchy, where a party was being held. He shot and killed his father, King Birendra, his mother, Queen Aishwarya, and seven other members of the royal family including his younger brother and sister before shooting himself in the head. Due to his wiping out of most of the line of succession, Dipendra became king while in a comatose state from the head wound.

 ExiledScot 11 Sep 2022
In reply to Godwin:

I'd be more concerned about the farce in Westminster, fptp, cash for honours, hereditary peers, bishops, tax havens, zero hour contracts etc... than firing salvos at royalty as though they are the cause of inequality. The population's voting patterns and actions of mps are to blame. 

 Andy Hardy 11 Sep 2022
In reply to Tony Buckley:

Surely the code word should be Tooting?

 john arran 11 Sep 2022
In reply to Bottom Clinger:

A constitutional monarchy is fundamentally and unarguably incompatible with universal equality (or, more correctly, equal opportunity.) If a person supports royal privilege, by definition they cannot also support equal opportunity.

What we're most likely seeing is a cognitive dissonance whereby royals are considered so special that the otherwise laudible concept of equal opportunity is deemed not to apply in their case, thereby allowing two contradictory positions to be held at the same time.

1
 neilh 11 Sep 2022
In reply to john arran:

Hardly unusual.Makes life more interesting.it would be so boring if everyone thought the same.

In reply to The Watch of Barrisdale:

> Another Scots Republican song of the early 50's contained the lines,

> "Cherlie the First he was beheidid,

> Cherlie the Second he succeeded,

> Cherlie the Third'll no be needed.

> Lucky wee Prince Cherlie!"

> Can't get everything right unfortunately!

Curious after all the trouble the Scots took to get a Charles III before.

jcm

 Robert Durran 11 Sep 2022
In reply to john arran:

> What we're most likely seeing is a cognitive dissonance whereby royals are considered so special that the otherwise laudible concept of equal opportunity is deemed not to apply in their case, thereby allowing two contradictory positions to be held at the same time.

Yes, I think it is a reasonable position to accept the monarchy with it's obvious special case of inequality as a working constitutional set up on the grounds that it doesn't really affect our lives in any direct practical sense or necessarily prevent equality elsewhere.

2
 wintertree 11 Sep 2022
In reply to CantClimbTom:

> Did you never watch this film?

I was expecting a link to King Ralph…

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Nothing to do with me ,guv. I've always been a Republican

 Shani 11 Sep 2022
In reply to Robert Durran:

> There are a handful of republicans enjoying there chance to vent their spleen, but the general tone seems reasonably respectful and pretty neutral.

Any 'spleen venting' is against the role of monarch and the mawkish and sycophantic imposition of collective grief upon the population, not against the death of Elizabeth Windsor (a beloved granny/ mother).

Inherited power is ridiculous. We are up there with the laughable pantomime of North Korea.

There simply is not enough 'content' to sustain 24/7 news coverage of the Queen's death which is why the broadcast saturation is so piss poor and nauseating. Worse still, it's hard to avoid and it's crowding out genuine concerns and world events like Ukraine & the cost of living crisis.

Being a 'constant', talk of 'steadfastness', and any idea of 'service' are absolutely stretching any notion of a job that involves opening bridges and hosting garden parties, all whilst living in luxury.

Monarchy needs to move to a subscription model so the Monarchists can pay to be servile to their hearts content. That includes paying for Andrew (who gets the top job if a particular tragedy struck the Windsors, compelling the subjects amongst us to kneel before him!).

Edit: We've peaked with Lego Princess Leia! https://twitter.com/Beane_Noodler/status/1568207203969933313 

Post edited at 10:36
7
 kinley2 11 Sep 2022
In reply to Kalna_kaza:

> I was out tonight with friends in the pub, and not one mentioned the queen, nor did I overhear anyone else mention the royal family, in this time of "national mourning". Perhaps few people genuinely care?

I'd be very interested in research data looking into that - I genuinely have no idea as to whether I and the people I work with and socialise with are generally odd outliers, to whom the current portrayal of UK citizens in the media does not apply or whether the media output is portraying a wildly inaccurate picture of the UK populus, contributing to societal pressure to performatively mourn.

I know that I would be extremely economical with my own personal views if caught on camera at the moment as there is a fairly significant chance of punitive opprobrium!

Repetitive as well, happened with Diana, Queen Mum and to a lesser degree the DoE.

Would be most interesting to have some data to flesh that out, but I suspect there will be a fear that even suggesting asking the questions would carry the hazard of declaring an inconvenient truth.

In reply to Godwin:

We've had 70 years to debate this issue. I'm not sure why the death of a monarch should suddenly stimulate this debate; everyone dies, so the death and subsequent transition was entirely predictable.

2
In reply to Kalna_kaza:

I fully support the UK becoming a republic. President Farage or President Clarkson would be much more exciting than King Charles.

My point is, and I’m sure it’s pretty clear, if you’re a republican you’re already a political minority. The odds that we’d end up with a head of state who aligns with your views and values is practically zero.

So be careful what you wish for.

14
 Pete Pozman 11 Sep 2022
In reply to Godwin:

More irrational than a family succession to the throne is the continuation of 50 hereditary peers in the House of Lords. Those people actually have some power.

The Monarchy has near zero power, but, because of the mystique invested in it, ultimate power is withheld from the politicians. Much as they try to invoke loyalty  to themselves, they are not entitled to any. Loyalty is due to the Crown not the Prime Minister. 

1
 fred99 11 Sep 2022
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

I totally agree.

Just how many Republicans realise that, if we had had a President over the last 50 years or so, then it's highly likely, based on the voting patterns, that we would have had a President Thatcher and a President Blair. Not only that, but we could right now be "enjoying" a President Johnson.

Not one of those could I stomach.

Either way, we would have had a series of politicians, each of which would have had a bias one way or the other, and each of which would require all the paraphernalia (and cost) for themselves and their families beyond their tenure and ad infinitum. Just look at the sh1t caused by, and criminality committed by, so many current and ex-Presidents the world over, not just in banana Republics, but in the western world and Turkey (which is in NATO).

18
 mbh 11 Sep 2022
In reply to fred99:

But elected Presidents that would replace our monarch would presumably be just as ceremonial in their role. In that case, for a better parallel and for an idea of what the role could embody, look not solely at the hypothetical President Thatcher or actual President Erdogan, but also at the examples from Ireland of Presidents Robinson and Higgins or, let's not forget, President Mandela of South Africa.

Post edited at 12:37
2
 Shani 11 Sep 2022
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> I fully support the UK becoming a republic. President Farage or President Clarkson would be much more exciting than King Charles.

> My point is, and I’m sure it’s pretty clear, if you’re a republican you’re already a political minority. The odds that we’d end up with a head of state who aligns with your views and values is practically zero.

> So be careful what you wish for.

I wonder why loyal subjects & patriots like you can't think more imaginatively than the President Blair/Farage/Clarkson tropes we hear monarchists spout all the time?

1. At least we'd get to choose.

2. We could remove them should we so wish.

3. David Attenborough, JK Rowling, Brian May, Kelly Holmes, Stephen Fry,  Tanni Grey-Thompson - there's a LOT of potential out there if you look; people who actually DID something noteable (and who have never protected Andrew, nor used privilege to avoid tax and environmental legislation).

5
 Shani 11 Sep 2022
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> The Monarchy has near zero power,

Categorically not true and provably so. You are being ignorant or dishonest here.

1
 kinley2 11 Sep 2022
In reply to Godwin:

As usual there is the "but President Johnson" warning.

The power of the Head of State varies depending on the constitutional role afforded to the post in the constitution, from wide ranging, nearly old-style monarchic Executive power such as in the US, down to the purely decorative Constitutional Monarch that we have.

An elected Head of State would have, even in the case of an ostensibly ceremonial role, a degree of democratic legitimacy allowing the possibility of action in the event of constitutional need. A Constitutional Monarch is more likely to have an eye on the continuation of the monarchy to their offspring than risk action in the event of need.

In reply to fred99:

I’m a royalist and I’m happy to state that.

Simply put, having a monarch as a head of state gives us an very effective form of government that allows democratically elected individuals to make laws and be accountable to the general public. If it ain’t broke, why fix it?

The arguments that it prevents equality are rubbish. Who cares that I can’t become king? It’s never affected me in my day to day life, it doesn’t affect anyone…

As for the individual who imagined that UKC opinion is representative of the wider public,  8:48 is far to early to be on the sauce. There’s a reason why everyone loves to moan on here - the general public always votes against UKC’s preferred outcome.

12
 Tony Buckley 11 Sep 2022
In reply to Andy Hardy:

It's a line from the programme.  Besides 'power to the people', it's the only one I can remember.

T.

 Martin Hore 11 Sep 2022
In reply to Shani:

I think the argument that a monarchy entrenches inequality is wrong. Scandinavian countries have some of the lowest levels of inequality in the world but three out of four are monarchies. Some demonstrably non-monarchies have much higher levels of inequality eg the US. 

People have lumped the House of Lords in with the monarchy as part of the entrenchment of inequality and privilege, so I was interested that one of your examples of deserving potential presidents is actually already in the House of Lords. Also, I rather expect David Attenborough must have declined a peerage at some point, as he's such an obvious candidate - rather more deserving than his late brother, I would have said.

It would take a lot to persuade me that an elected president would command the respect of those who didn't vote for them in the same way that the Queen succeeded in doing by being totally non-political. 

I'm not saying we shouldn't, at the appropriate time, debate the role of the monarchy, but amongst the things we need to do to address inequality in Britain, reforming the monarchy is not, I feel, high on the list.

Martin

5
 mondite 11 Sep 2022
In reply to Martin Hore:

> It would take a lot to persuade me that an elected president would command the respect of those who didn't vote for them in the same way that the Queen succeeded in doing by being totally non-political. 

Bit trickier for Charles given his views. Plus, of course, the queen didnt succeed by being non-political she succeeded because her views were kept hidden.

To quote the Scottish government when with regard to her lobbying.

“[If] the content of these consultations became known, it might serve to undermine the appearance of the political neutrality of the sovereign, and so the rights of the sovereign could not be exercised effectively without this expectation of confidentiality.”

 Morty 11 Sep 2022
In reply to alx:

> Who do you think they will name Hand of the King?

Probably the same person fulfilling the vacant Groom of the Stool position, when they have finished feeding the dragons obviously.

 GrahamD 11 Sep 2022
In reply to Kalna_kaza:

> Anyone who agrees with and accepts that a monarchy in a western society, let alone one with genuine political powers of interference, doesn't truly believe in equality.

I don't believe in equality because it doesn't exist.  The fact that you can freely post "f#*k the royals (aka head of state)" whilst billions of people couldn't post similar about their head of state rather proves it.

9
 john arran 11 Sep 2022
In reply to GrahamD:

> I don't believe in equality because it doesn't exist.  The fact that you can freely post "f#*k the royals (aka head of state)" whilst billions of people couldn't post similar about their head of state rather proves it.

I think you may be confusing equal( opportun)ity with freedom of speech. No idea why because they're very different beasts.

 mrphilipoldham 11 Sep 2022
In reply to Martin Hore:

> It would take a lot to persuade me that an elected president would command the respect of those who didn't vote for them in the same way that the Queen succeeded in doing by being totally non-political. 

This. I’m not pro or anti royalist. I found the Queen to be an admirable character, who very much kept her promises and remained professional literally up to the day if her death at 96 years old. I’m of no opinion on Charlie, but given his mentor I’m willing to give him time. 
What I don’t understand is that a lot of those seemingly supporting an end to the monarchy are left leaning, and how would they feel with a Conservative elected head of state, as is likely to have been the case for the last decade. It’s just another political figure, draining public funds via expenses and regular elections, and most of all creating further unnecessary division in the population. President BoJo anyone?

13
 Doug 11 Sep 2022
In reply to mrphilipoldham:

If Charles turns out to be a bad king he'll still be there till he dies, if President Smith is bad we can vote them out in a couple of years (assuming a 5 year or similar mandate )

 wercat 11 Sep 2022
In reply to Godwin:

What did you imagine would happen that did not?

Post edited at 18:22
 mrphilipoldham 11 Sep 2022
In reply to Doug:

This is true. But to what extent could a king be bad in this modern day? How could it affect you or me? As we're always told they have very little actual power in our system.

5
 Kalna_kaza 11 Sep 2022
In reply to GrahamD:

It would appear that even freedom of speech is not a given...

https://metro.co.uk/2022/09/11/woman-arrested-after-holding-abolish-monarch... 

1
OP Godwin 11 Sep 2022
In reply to wercat:

> What did you imagine would happen that did not?

I assumed that The Queen would die, funeral and mourning, then a coronation a few weeks after that, and at that point Charles would be King.
But logically I can see that in the days when The King was The Ruler, leaving a power vacuum would be a disaster, so that is why we have this system.
The problem is, once Charles is in role, debate is seen as criticism and goes against the grain for many British people, so we will be stuck with him for whatever.
Generally I like him TBH, it is the system I do not like,  its impacts on land access for one thing, embedding a system put in place 1000 years ago, WTF is that all about.

1
In reply to Kalna_kaza:

Metro has changed it cookie opt out to make it practically impossible, so I'm going to guess they were detained for their own protection. Or for breaching S5 Public Order Act with their sign.

1
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> the continuation of 50 hereditary peers in the House of Lords.

Then there are those who buy their way in. Or those chums who are appointed.

 Pedro50 11 Sep 2022
In reply to captain paranoia:

The banner said f*uck so unsurprisingly arrested.

 Neil Williams 11 Sep 2022
In reply to Kalna_kaza:

I assume the issue is the swear word, not the banner.  Unlike what half of Twitter seems to think, it actually detracts from her point to put obscenities on it.  "Down with the monarchy" would have expressed her view and probably not resulted in her arrest.

Post edited at 20:08
1
 mrphilipoldham 11 Sep 2022
In reply to Neil Williams:

Yes, whatever happened to 'freedom of speech' isn't 'freedom from consequence' as was so popular on here over the last few years?

2
 Neil Williams 11 Sep 2022
In reply to mrphilipoldham:

> Yes, whatever happened to 'freedom of speech' isn't 'freedom from consequence' as was so popular on here over the last few years?

Because many of the left* only want free speech when it agrees with their line?

* I do vote Labour so am not on the right, but I do dislike "cancel culture" - I prefer people being able to (politely) air any view and for people to (politely) criticise it if it is rubbish.

4
 mrphilipoldham 11 Sep 2022
In reply to Neil Williams:

 

* I agree with your preference. I found Trevor Sinclairs twitter outburst and fall out quite amusing this week, just for the sheer absurdity of it all.

 NathanP 11 Sep 2022
In reply to Kalna_kaza:

There's a lot to be said for living in a country where you can be completely indifferent to the head of state rather than in one where you wake up every morning worrying what the crazy f*(@£r has done now.

 Neil Williams 11 Sep 2022
In reply to NathanP:

Personally I would want to keep the principle of the head of state being ceremonial rather than power wielding even if we made them elected rather than hereditary.  Dictators are bad whether elected or not.

I would take our system over the US's any day.

Germany's might be worthy of investigation, with the Bundespraesident holding little power and the Bundeskanzler (who is more like a PM) having more.

Elected dictators (like Sadiq Khan) may be able to make decisions more quickly, but Government more "by committee" carries far more safeguards against abuses of power, and would be even better if we gained a written constitution to avoid abuses like those carried out by Boris.

3
 hang_about 11 Sep 2022
In reply to Godwin:

Apparently Andrew has been given custody of the corgis. 

In reply to hang_about:

Have the corgis any say in the matter?

 Dr.S at work 11 Sep 2022
In reply to The Watch of Barrisdale:

> Have the corgis any say in the matter?

No, they are underage.

In reply to Neil Williams:

> Elected dictators (like Sadiq Khan)

Or, presumably, his predecessor...?

 Michael Hood 11 Sep 2022
In reply to Kalna_kaza:

> By equality I mean every citizen of a country is equal before the law and in theory (although hard in practice) has no barriers to becoming head of state. At the moment neither of those are true in the UK.

If you substituted "head of government" for "head of state" then I think I'd agree with you - simply because in the UK (&NI) the real power is with the "head of government". The problem a lot of people have with our "head of state" is that they come from generations of privilege and accumulated wealth - and basically that just doesn't seem fair - if their means were more modest then I think a lot of the objections would go away. It would still be an anachronistic system, but it would be more acceptable to more people. There's a similar issue with accumulated wealth in hereditary peerages.

But surely there's a similar problem with any accumulation of hereditary wealth, if someone's grandparent was so successful in business that they (the grandchild) never had to work - would that be less objectionable than the royal family and wealthy peerages? Surely their ancestors were merely successful in the business of that age, even if that business (smiting people?) might be seen as objectionable nowadays.

How do you deal with large accumulations of hereditary wealth - what would be fair - obviously a high rate of inheritance taxation could be used which would require large estates etc to be broken up and portions sold, but I suspect these would just be bought by whoever was wealthy at the time - a bit of a merry-go-round - I doubt it would get to the general populous; I don't believe there are any easy solutions here.

As for the law, although the monarch is pretty much exempt from the law, this is only in theory. In practice they are covered by the law because if they broke any laws then it would seriously undermine the monarchy by bringing it significantly into disrepute - look at the damage Andrew has caused just with very strong but unproven suspicion - now imagine if that had been Charles rather than Andrew. Other members of the royal family are not exempt from the law although they may be less likely to be prosecuted - but then that's true to some extent of anyone who can afford the best legal help or anyone who is in a position of power.

> True, a few too many drinks last night followed by too much royal related content online and TV didn't mix well.

I am so glad that we no longer have a working TV or TV licence.

Post edited at 22:01
2
In reply to captain paranoia:

Maybe they'll be able to sue. 

 Michael Hood 11 Sep 2022
In reply to Godwin:

> I assumed that The Queen would die, funeral and mourning, then a coronation a few weeks after that, and at that point Charles would be King.

Since the formation of the United Kingdom (1801), except for George VI, there has been at least a year between accession and coronation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_coronations

- why would you expect Charles III to be any different.

 Robert Durran 11 Sep 2022
In reply to hang_about:

> Apparently Andrew has been given custody of the corgis. 

They were a gift from him, so seems appropriate.

 GrahamD 11 Sep 2022
In reply to john arran:

No confusion here.  Freedom of speech is entirely down to opportunity.   There are actually relatively few of us with the opportunity- there is no equality.  You and I are the lucky ones.

 Michael Hood 11 Sep 2022
In reply to hang_about:

> Apparently Andrew has been given custody of the corgis. 

Actually, Andrew and Fergie - did you realise they were still living in the same house - I didn't - nowt so strange as folk 😁

In reply to Michael Hood:

> I am so glad that we no longer have a working TV or TV licence.

There were other channels...

 Pete Pozman 11 Sep 2022
In reply to Shani:

> Categorically not true and provably so. You are being ignorant or dishonest here.

I'll own up to the ignorance...

 Neil Williams 11 Sep 2022
In reply to captain paranoia:

Yes, including Bozza and Red Ken, and indeed all the other elected mayors.

1
 elsewhere 11 Sep 2022
In reply to Neil Williams:

> Germany's might be worthy of investigation, with the Bundespraesident holding little power and the Bundeskanzler (who is more like a PM) having more.

A monarchy like ours has an interest their eldest child inheriting the role of monarch and therefore cannot go against the PM. Hence an unlawful prorogation of parliament was not prevented by the head of state. That is a fundamental failure if the head of state's role includes protection of the constitution.

A political head of state like the Bundespraesident has a democratic mandate and can contradict the Bundeskanzler without worrying about maintaining the position for their children. This makes them more independent.

We could do with a written constitution and an independent head of state like a commonwealth country governor-general or Bundespraesident appointed in a democratic process necessary to have a democratic mandate to go against the PM if necessary.

Basically like Germany with the optional addition of a purely ceremonial monarchy.

NB a written constitution is not a panacea. I expect most dictatorships have a constitution guaranteeing democratic rights but it means little if ignored.

Post edited at 22:33
 Shani 11 Sep 2022
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> I'll own up to the ignorance...

That's a commendable admission and one we can sort out:

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/explainers/what-royal-prerogative

In reply to Shani:

That may be accurate, but I note that all the abuses of those prerogative powers were on the Government's side; Johnson 'advising' the Queen to prorogue Parliament in 2019, for instance.

I'm fairly sure that I've heard constitutional experts argue that should the Monarch try to exercise their supposed powers without being so 'advised' by the Government, it would trigger a constitutional crisis, and most likely the removal of those remaining prerogative powers, or even the monarchy itself.

 elsewhere 11 Sep 2022
In reply to captain paranoia:

> I'm fairly sure that I've heard constitutional experts argue that should the Monarch try to exercise their supposed powers without being so 'advised' by the Government, it would trigger a constitutional crisis, and most likely the removal of those remaining prerogative powers, or even the monarchy itself.

Hence the desirability of a written constitution so the powers are not "supposed" and a democratically appointed head of state who can exercise those powers without fear if necessary.

1
In reply to elsewhere:

> and a democratically appointed head of state who can exercise those powers without fear if necessary.

What about democratically appointed heads of state who illegally prorogue parliament without consequence?

 elsewhere 11 Sep 2022
In reply to captain paranoia:

> What about democratically appointed heads of state who illegally prorogue parliament without consequence?

There is no perfect system that cannot be abused or broken.

 Robert Durran 12 Sep 2022
In reply to Michael Hood:

> Actually, Andrew and Fergie - did you realise they were still living in the same house - I didn't - nowt so strange as folk 😁

Yes, Fergie has stood by him.

 FactorXXX 12 Sep 2022
In reply to Michael Hood:

> Actually, Andrew and Fergie - did you realise they were still living in the same house - I didn't - nowt so strange as folk 😁

I'm assuming that it's a rather large house and that it isn't the case of one of them having to sleep in the spare room...

In reply to Godwin:

> I was not particularly bothered about the UK or more relevant to me, England having a King or Queen. Generally I thought Elizabeth 2, was very good and I was happy to see her play the role out. Then maybe we could have the discussion.

> So perhaps I am naive or uninformed, but I was startled the Charles was instantly King Charles 3. I assume that if a Jumbo Jet with the next 61 in line to the throne it, and it fell off the conveyor belt, we would instantly have Queen Zenouska Mowatt.

> Now, I apologise, but that sounds wrong to me.

> I think there should be space for debate on this, and the Royal family have deliberately left no space.

> What with 10 days to the funeral, then national mourning, then the build up to the Coronation.

> Or have I as usual, misunderstood, and got all worked up for nothing?

It's not a surprise though is it. Charles has been next in line to the throne since birth. There has been the odd suggestion of alternatives over the years but if those were being taken seriously something would have been in place (it's not as if the Queen's mortality was in doubt)

 Bottom Clinger 12 Sep 2022
In reply to Robert Durran:

I find this sub discussion very interesting. Very rough science, but royalists:republicans is about 2:1 in wider society (not including those who are kinda OK as things are, with reform).  But whilst the debate on here has generally been very respectful, I sense the opposite on here is true, ie republicans outweigh royalists, and by some margin. Kalnas anti monarchy rant got more likes than dislikes, and VS’s pro republic post indicated similar. 

 Robert Durran 12 Sep 2022
In reply to Bottom Clinger:

> VS’s pro republic post indicated similar. 

It was ironic and pro monarchy.

 Bottom Clinger 12 Sep 2022
In reply to john arran:

Makes sense, and shows the power and influence that they have. 

 Bottom Clinger 12 Sep 2022
In reply to Robert Durran:

Indeed the first part was and I misread it and got it totally wrong!  

 jkarran 12 Sep 2022
In reply to Neil Williams:

> With Charles in his 70s he will reign for 10-20 years or so barring medical miracles.  This is the ideal sort of period to debate major constitutional change, to see if he should be the last King or the system should continue.  Major constitutional change should not be done quickly.

You say that but it won't happen. Precisely the same thing will happen next time at the same deliberately breakneck pace to the same arguments, sentimentality and apathy. Then again.

Even if it were widely desired there is no practical and palatable way to be rid of hereditary monarchy while governments serve the monarch, while government business ultimately flows to and through the monarch. They wield as much power as they choose (some might say dare but I'd argue we're currently collectively passive beyond them needing to seriously worry about popular revolt). Plenty are ok with that. I think regardless of the quality of the current monarch a hereditary monarchy in anything but a strictly ceremonial role* is absurd and repulsive but who cares, we're stuck with it.

*and I'd prefer an elected non-exec HoS, effectively chief diplomat with limited constitutional powers.

jk

Post edited at 09:26
 Neil Williams 12 Sep 2022
In reply to elsewhere:

> We could do with a written constitution and an independent head of state like a commonwealth country governor-general or Bundespraesident appointed in a democratic process necessary to have a democratic mandate to go against the PM if necessary.

In only defined circumstances, e.g. where the PM proposes to break the constitution.  I don't want ours to have something like the US's executive orders - the ability of one person to make laws effectively alone is in my view dangerous and undesirable.

Post edited at 09:10
 Neil Williams 12 Sep 2022
In reply to jkarran:

> *and I'd prefer an elected non-exec HoS, effectively chief diplomat with limited constitutional powers.

I'd be OK with that sort of president, but not a US style one.  But I don't overly have an issue with the monarchy either.  I probably would if they started meddling politically.

In reply to Robert Durran:

> Yes, Fergie has stood by him.

Just a reminder; they split up in 1992, and divorced in 1996.

 Robert Durran 12 Sep 2022
In reply to captain paranoia:

> > Yes, Fergie has stood by him.

> Just a reminder; they split up in 1992, and divorced in 1996.

Yes, I know. It is remarkable.

 jkarran 12 Sep 2022
In reply to Siward:

> Why is it a deficit? Republicanism has yet to command anything other than minority support in the UK.

The cause doesn't matter, the deficit is real. Our FPTP electoral system grossly distorts the public's sentiment. We saw that clearly and we now live with the grim consequences where many millions of UKIP votes over nearly 2 decades counted for absolutely naught.

Times like this really do highlight how thin our veneer of democracy is.

  • Crushing parliamentary majority elected without even a majority of voter support.
  • Course setting, government selecting PM elected by just 81k fee paying party members.
  • Sprawling, unelected, life tenure HoL including hereditary and religious positions able to amend and block legislation.
  • Hereditary monarch with unknown degree of influence over PM, able to block legislation.

Were it any other developed nation we'd point and laugh at the absurdity and the ovine passivity of its populace in the face of that.

jk

6
 montyjohn 12 Sep 2022
In reply to jkarran:

> many millions of UKIP votes over nearly 2 decades counted for absolutely naught.

I disagree with this.

Both Labour and the Tories were losing votes to UKIP and the Tories chose to adopt some of their policies around Brexit.

Tories then won another election, and may otherwise not have done.

So your vote always counts.

2
 wercat 12 Sep 2022
In reply to Godwin:

I suppose the problem is very few people not in care homes can remember the last time it happened and therefore haven't given the process too much thought.

I think in my case I've seen so many black and white pathe news clips over the  years that I had it in mind that the princess became queen before she was crowned but then I retain useless information  of many kinds for some reason.

 rogerwebb 12 Sep 2022
In reply to elsewhere:

> A monarchy like ours has an interest their eldest child inheriting the role of monarch and therefore cannot go against the PM. Hence an unlawful prorogation of parliament was not prevented by the head of state. That is a fundamental failure if the head of state's role includes protection of the constitution.

Was there a failure?

Parliament was not prorogued. The Supreme court ruled it unlawful and the government backed down.

If the government had not backed down once the Supreme court had made it's ruling then, and only then, it would have been the duty of the head of state to intervene supported by a ruling of the country's highest court.

I don't think that a system where the head of state could arbitrarily rule an action of an elected government to be illegal would be one most of us would want to live in.

Post edited at 09:49
 midgen 12 Sep 2022
In reply to montyjohn:

> > many millions of UKIP votes over nearly 2 decades counted for absolutely naught.

> I disagree with this.

> Both Labour and the Tories were losing votes to UKIP and the Tories chose to adopt some of their policies around Brexit.

> Tories then won another election, and may otherwise not have done.

> So your vote always counts.

Labour and the Tories were vulnerable to a small minority bloc of voters in swing seats, because FPTP gives massive amounts of power to tiny portions of the electorate. The UK has been dragged down into the gutter over the last decade because a 10-15% of the vote that used to vote UKIP has taken absolute control of the Tory party, hence government, hence the country. 

I'd vote Green if we had an electoral system that allowed me to express my view at the ballot box, as it is, I'm reduced to voting for whoever I think can beat the Tory candidate. It's an awful system, and has failed everybody.

1
 fred99 12 Sep 2022
In reply to Shani:

> 3. David Attenborough, JK Rowling, Brian May, Kelly Holmes, Stephen Fry,  Tanni Grey-Thompson - there's a LOT of potential out there if you look; people who actually DID something noteable (and who have never protected Andrew, nor used privilege to avoid tax and environmental legislation).

All very well being able to change President every so many years.

However do you honestly believe any of the list you gave would want the job. For that matter do you honestly believe that, with the exception of Attenborough, the others could get elected if they did throw their hats into the ring.

For that matter, do you honestly believe that the political parties - yes all of them - wouldn't fight tooth and nail to get their particular nominee elected, so we'd end up with a retired politico.

 Robert Durran 12 Sep 2022
In reply to fred99:

> For that matter, do you honestly believe that the political parties - yes all of them - wouldn't fight tooth and nail to get their particular nominee elected, so we'd end up with a retired politico.

Just been watching the proceedings from Westminster Hall. The idea that the King could ever overstep his power is ludicrous. The discussion following on R4 compared the dignified and seamless transition here to the last transition in the US.

7
 Shani 12 Sep 2022
In reply to fred99:

> However do you honestly believe any of the list you gave would want the job. For that matter do you honestly believe that, with the exception of Attenborough, the others could get elected if they did throw their hats into the ring.

My suggestions weren't an prescriptive list - purely indicative of the kinds of people we might want to fulfil the role. Let's see who throws their hat in the ring. At least we could consider an alternative, unlike now.

> For that matter, do you honestly believe that the political parties - yes all of them - wouldn't fight tooth and nail to get their particular nominee elected, so we'd end up with a retired politico.

Of course. But again we get to vote them in. And out. Their power would always and only be symbolic. 

3
 john arran 12 Sep 2022
In reply to Robert Durran:

> The discussion following on R4 compared the dignified and seamless transition here to the last transition in the US.

Apples and oranges.

1
 Robert Durran 12 Sep 2022
In reply to john arran:

> Apples and oranges.

What do you mean by that?

 john arran 12 Sep 2022
In reply to Robert Durran:

I mean a transition of the person at the head of a country's political decision-making structure is completely different to a transition of a symbolic head of state.

 Harry Jarvis 12 Sep 2022
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Just been watching the proceedings from Westminster Hall. The idea that the King could ever overstep his power is ludicrous. The discussion following on R4 compared the dignified and seamless transition here to the last transition in the US.

Is anyone suggesting that an alternative to the monarchy would be a US-Style presidential system? There are many potential alternatives to hereditary heads of state. 

 Robert Durran 12 Sep 2022
In reply to john arran:

> I mean a transition of the person at the head of a country's political decision-making structure is completely different to a transition of a symbolic head of state.

Fair enough, but any elected head of state will inevitably have a political element. Appointment has its issues too. No system is perfect. 

 jkarran 12 Sep 2022
In reply to midgen:

> I'd vote Green if we had an electoral system that allowed me to express my view at the ballot box, as it is, I'm reduced to voting for whoever I think can beat the Tory candidate. It's an awful system, and has failed everybody.

And you just know were the shoe on the other foot Monty would be railing against it, had for example a tiny clique of communists hijacked a pre-existing government and wrecked the economy.

jk

 jkarran 12 Sep 2022
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Just been watching the proceedings from Westminster Hall. The idea that the King could ever overstep his power is ludicrous.

Or to look at it slightly differently, already well evidenced by leaked details of his decades lobbying government on the quiet as prince of Wales.

> The discussion following on R4 compared the dignified and seamless transition here to the last transition in the US.

The US suffered a failed (stalled) coup. In normal times the transfer of power is assured, seamless and dignified. With an hereditary monarch, 'normal' is a matter of pure luck.

jk

 Rob Parsons 12 Sep 2022
In reply to Shani:

> 2. We could remove them should we so wish.

Could we? What exact system do you have in mind?

> 3. David Attenborough, JK Rowling, Brian May, Kelly Holmes, Stephen Fry,  Tanni Grey-Thompson  ...

F uckin' hell. JK Rowling is a controversial figure (in case you haven't been watching the news.) Fry is the idiots' thinking man. Etc.

We might disagree on the specifics - but I hope you get the point that your idea of a perfect figure for the job might be someone else's anathema ...

2
In reply to jkarran:

> With an hereditary monarch, 'normal' is a matter of pure luck.

Surely the fact that 'normal' transition nearly didn't happen in the US shows they are just as much at the mercy of luck as a hereditary monarchy?

 montyjohn 12 Sep 2022
In reply to midgen:

> I'd vote Green if we had an electoral system that allowed me to express my view at the ballot box

If labour and the tories started hemorrhaging votes to the Green party they would take on more green party policies. They would have to to survive.

By all means vote tactically but if the green policies are what you really care about, then vote green. If everyone doesn't vote for who they really want then who's going to be happy with the result.

You've already said that a minority of UKIP voters managed to influence main parties. This is what happens when enough of the electorate actually vote for what they want.

1
 Shani 12 Sep 2022
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> Could we? What exact system do you have in mind?

One where we can. Obviously. 

 Rob Parsons 12 Sep 2022
In reply to Shani:

> One where we can. Obviously.

What's your example of a country whose system you like? In Ireland, for example, note that the voters have no say in who's being proposed as a candidate for the Presidency.

(Still can't believe you suggested Stephen Fry. As if this country isn't already a laughing stock ...)

Post edited at 12:20
3
In reply to Godwin:

The BBC website has just produced a family tree of the royal corgis!!

Post edited at 12:26
 Pete Pozman 12 Sep 2022
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Just been watching the proceedings from Westminster Hall. The idea that the King could ever overstep his power is ludicrous. The discussion following on R4 compared the dignified and seamless transition here to the last transition in the US.

Absolutely! Imagine a crowd of conspiracy theory nutters charging Westminster Hall with Flat Earth banners forcing the Speaker of the House of Lords to hide in the cellar.

That ( equivalent) literally happened in the US on 6th January 2000. For all the Nigel Farage nonsense we're still having to cope with, I'm still glad I live here.

4
 midgen 12 Sep 2022
In reply to montyjohn:

> You've already said that a minority of UKIP voters managed to influence main parties. This is what happens when enough of the electorate actually vote for what they want.

Sounds like having an electoral system that motivates people to actually vote for what they want is a good idea then?

 elsewhere 12 Sep 2022
In reply to Neil Williams:

I think we are talking about a largely above politics type head of state for constitutional protection. The US (and France) are outliers in that president involved in routine or executive politics.

OP Godwin 12 Sep 2022
In reply to Godwin:

Something I am not clear on, is why we need a head of state, as well as a Prime Minister. I understand people have concerns about first past the post, but we do have a democracy of sorts.
I cannot understand what a head of state within our system adds to things. We have a person who if I understand correctly is divinely selected by God, because Henry the 8th kept changing wives.
Would it, and I am being only slightly tongue in cheek here, be any more ludicrous to have a reality show like Big Brother periodically to select a jolly nice person to cut ribbons and wave from a horse drawn cart?

It is so insane, that if The Queen had died in bus crash with 7 other people, Andrew would not be minding the Corgis, but King Andrew, what's that all about?

Post edited at 12:39
3
 elsewhere 12 Sep 2022
In reply to rogerwebb:

Supreme court being supreme can decide after head of state has decided that head of state was wrong. Otherwise it's not supreme. Therefore head of state's role precedes supreme decision and the opportunity to block prorogation before going to supreme court was lost. That's the failure due to lack of democratic mandate and monarchical deference to PM.

 TobyA 12 Sep 2022
In reply to Godwin:

> Something I am not clear on, is why we need a head of state, as well as a Prime Minister.

This is an interesting point, although the answer might be that's because it the way everyone does it? I'm trying to think of country I know of that has a head of government and head of state in the same person. The US presidency is the only example I can think of, although I don't know enough about, say, the presidency of Mexico to know if that's similar to the US model or closer to most European presidencies where the president is only the head of state, not government.

 jkarran 12 Sep 2022
In reply to captain paranoia:

> Surely the fact that 'normal' transition nearly didn't happen in the US shows they are just as much at the mercy of luck as a hereditary monarchy?

I'd argue they elected an unfit president, that was a choice (of sorts!).

jk

 Shani 12 Sep 2022
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> (Still can't believe you suggested Stephen Fry. As if this country isn't already a laughing stock ...)

Prince Andrew undoubtedly endorses your tacit support for the status quo.

4
 Harry Jarvis 12 Sep 2022
In reply to Godwin:

> It is so insane, that if The Queen had died in bus crash with 7 other people, Andrew would not be minding the Corgis, but King Andrew, what's that all about?

That, fundamentally, is what we get when we have a monarchy. 

 elsewhere 12 Sep 2022
In reply to Godwin:

Or even worse, Edward VII who maybe should have been hung (hanged) as a traitor during wartime.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/edward-viii-traitor-ww2-d...

Post edited at 12:58
 rogerwebb 12 Sep 2022
In reply to elsewhere:

> Supreme court being supreme can decide after head of state has decided that head of state was wrong. Otherwise it's not supreme. Therefore head of state's role precedes supreme decision and the opportunity to block prorogation before going to supreme court was lost. That's the failure due to lack of democratic mandate and monarchical deference to PM.

If the head of state acts first then they would have made an arbitrary decision to overule an elected government. That is a dangerous road.

 john arran 12 Sep 2022
In reply to rogerwebb:

> If the head of state acts first then they would have made an arbitrary decision to overule an elected government. That is a dangerous road.

It wouldn't be a dangerous road were the overrule to be of a decision in clear contravention of a written Constitution. That kind of check-and-balance power would indeed be welcome. Instead, we have a head of state who has significant influence behind the scenes but no formally accepted possibility of practical intervention, and therefore no transparency nor accountability.

1
 elsewhere 12 Sep 2022
In reply to rogerwebb:

That decision is not arbitrary, unless a wrong un like BJ which can happen in any role in any system. It is theirs to make according to their constitutionally defined role for protection of the constitution. That requires head of state whose job can entail NOT deferring to PM.

 Rob Parsons 12 Sep 2022
In reply to Shani:

> > (Still can't believe you suggested Stephen Fry. As if this country isn't already a laughing stock ...)

> Prince Andrew undoubtedly endorses your tacit support for the status quo.

A stupid cheap shot.

What's your suggestion for a country whose model you prefer? (It's a serious question.)

4
In reply to jkarran:

> I'd argue they elected an unfit president, that was a choice (of sorts!).

So the lauded democratically-elected head of state is a problem, then...?

Ask the UK public, and they'd probably vote for Boaty McBoatface. They voted for Bunter, after all.

1
 rogerwebb 12 Sep 2022
In reply to john arran:

I am not disagreeing with arguments for a written constitution. I am arguing for the supremacy of the law over both the government and the state.

'A clear contravention of a written constitution ' may not be an easy thing to define or adjudicate. Perhaps it would be better if that written constitution defined a path by which the head of state could refer issues to the Supreme court. Then again that might let someone argue that only the head of state could make such a referral. However well you draft any kind of legislation eventually it ends up in some protracted wrangle.

No easy answers but a fair few better ones than what we have I suspect.

 jkarran 12 Sep 2022
In reply to captain paranoia:

> So the lauded democratically-elected head of state is a problem, then...?

All systems have problems, all are to time varying degrees susceptible to power grabs and coups and it's not as if royal succession has always been smooth or painless either. If you find yourself with a mad or bad president then assuming sufficient constitutional/institutional strength remains, you can elect another. That is not true of a monarch.

> Ask the UK public, and they'd probably vote for Boaty McBoatface. They voted for Bunter, after all.

The Irish seem to manage and they're not above a bit of craic either.

jk

1
 fred99 12 Sep 2022
In reply to Shani:

> My suggestions weren't an prescriptive list - purely indicative of the kinds of people we might want to fulfil the role. Let's see who throws their hat in the ring. At least we could consider an alternative, unlike now.

> Of course. But again we get to vote them in. And out. Their power would always and only be symbolic. 

"The kinds of people we might want to fulfil the role" ?

A guitarist noted for liking badgers, a tv presenter who gets stage fright, a retired para-athlete who is already in the HoL (and has a history from her Uni days).

Then "we get to vote then in. And out."

Ireland has the President nominated by Parliament - so they get what the politicos choose. Same with Australia - their referendum was to become a Republic, with the President "nominated by Parliament". *Whether that affected the vote we will not know for sure.*

In other words - Jobs for the (retired) boys.

It really sounds as if you either have no knowledge of what really goes on, or else you want some kind of political change just so that you can feel superior - and more to the point that you don't care who gets in so long as it's not someone with a title.

By the way - there have been at least 2 occasions where a monarch has ceased to be the head of state, but where the monarch in question then became President. Now that would really p1ss you off if it happened here.

* Edited to insert.

Post edited at 13:50
3
 mondite 12 Sep 2022
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Just been watching the proceedings from Westminster Hall. The idea that the King could ever overstep his power is ludicrous.

And yet whenever newspapers have tried to obtain information on how the royals have used their power the government (UK and Scottish) have done their best to suppress it.

Why do you think that is?

1
 Shani 12 Sep 2022
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> A stupid cheap shot.

You're understandably angry, but as a monarchist, own it because its yours to own (unlike YOUR cheap shot about Fry, whose name was purely a suggestion).

> What's your suggestion for a country whose model you prefer? (It's a serious question.)

Why can't we shape our own model? (It's also a serious question.)

Post edited at 14:22
6
 neilh 12 Sep 2022
In reply to Shani:

It historically has been shaped...so yes we already "shape" our current model.

 Dave Garnett 12 Sep 2022
In reply to fred99:

> In other words - Jobs for the (retired) boys.

Well, the Irish recently had two female presidents in succession, but isn't a retired notable from the establishment pretty much the job description for a European model of head of state?

Who else would you prefer?  The winner of Strictly, or someone chosen completely at random from the electoral list?  Or someone who really, really wants it?

Post edited at 14:08
1
 Michael Hood 12 Sep 2022
In reply to Godwin:

> It is so insane, that if The Queen had died in bus crash with 7 other people, Andrew would not be minding the Corgis, but King Andrew, what's that all about?

I believe that there is a protocol so that various members of the royal family cannot travel together. Did you ever see William traveling with Charles, etc. So no chance of Andrew getting to the top that way.

I suspect that's the reason that Harry didn't fly up with the rest of them and they couldn't justify 2 planes - although the media of course put their usual "shit-stirring" take on it.

1
 Pedro50 12 Sep 2022
In reply to Michael Hood:

I think the 1st and 2nd in line never fly together. I think Harry could probably fly with either. 

Disclaimer I am not Nicholas Witchell.

Post edited at 15:59
OP Godwin 12 Sep 2022
In reply to Michael Hood:

> I believe that there is a protocol so that various members of the royal family cannot travel together. Did you ever see William traveling with Charles, etc. So no chance of Andrew getting to the top that way.

The point being, it is conceivable that within a few short months, he could go from being at risk of being at Her Majestys Pleasure, to being His Majesty. The method is irrelevant.

Post edited at 16:01
1
 Harry Jarvis 12 Sep 2022
In reply to Godwin:

> The point being, it is conceivable that within a few short months, he could go from being at risk of being at Her Majestys Pleasure, to being His Majesty. The method is irrelevant.

Yes. As has been said, that is the way the monarchy works. No-one else has a say in the matter. 

 Paul72C 12 Sep 2022
In reply to captain paranoia:

> > and a democratically appointed head of state who can exercise those powers without fear if necessary.

> What about democratically appointed heads of state who illegally prorogue parliament without consequence?

Easy - make prorogation of parliament subject to a free vote in the Commons. Seeing as we are a parliamentary democracy and parliamentary sovereignty seems too be sooo important . let's make it sovereign.

OP Godwin 12 Sep 2022
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

> Yes. As has been said, that is the way the monarchy works. No-one else has a say in the matter. 

Then we are fools for accepting it. Just because that is the way things are, does not mean that's how they have to remain.

1
 Shani 12 Sep 2022
In reply to Godwin:

> Then we are fools for accepting it.

What kind of person feebly accepts another human annointing themselves as their sovereign, ruler and/or overlord?

Am i really to sit here and accept another person reigns over me?

How ridiculous for that 'ruler' to claim his being of 'service'.

I have no need of a monarch.

6
 Harry Jarvis 12 Sep 2022
In reply to Godwin:

> Then we are fools for accepting it. Just because that is the way things are, does not mean that's how they have to remain.

I completely agree. I am however surprised that this comes as a surprise to you. 

In reply to Paul72C:

> Easy - make prorogation of parliament subject to a free vote in the Commons.

'Free vote'?

Uh-huh.

So Bunter could permanently prologue Parliament with his majority. Excellent Parliamentary democracy...

 Rob Parsons 12 Sep 2022
In reply to Shani:

> You're understandably angry, but as a monarchist ...

I wouldn't have invented the monarchy; nor am I defending it. (*)

However, recent political changes in the UK demonstrate that it's best to have a very good plan for the future before you chuck out existing arrangements. Regarding heads of state, a sensible start might be to look at what other countries do in order to see what works better. The fact that you won't even engage with that question shows that you've given this issue zero serious thought.

> Why can't we shape our own model? (It's also a serious question.)

What are your specific suggestions?

(* Actually - I would defend it as better than President Stephen Fry. Fer f uck's sake ...)

Post edited at 17:38
1
In reply to Shani:

I’m really confused. You seem to imply that the royal family have some sort of power over you.

They may “rule” over you, but they cannot and do not have any practical day to day impact on either how the UK is governed or your life. 

Liz Truss will have far far more impact on your day to day life and she’s democratically elected. I would say she rules over you to a greater extent than King Charles does.

As I’ve said above, the current set up gives us a stable and effective political system. It has very limited drawbacks. Why you’d want to break an effective system because you appear to have a chip on your shoulder is beyond me.

11
 mondite 12 Sep 2022
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> I’m really confused.

I am equally confused since you seem to go for schrodingers monarchy here.

On the one hand they have no "practical day to day impact" and yet on the other you seem to be giving them credit for the current system being stable and effective.

One key issue is just how much power Liz Truss has by virtue of the delegated powers from the monarchy.

3
 john arran 12 Sep 2022
In reply to captain paranoia:

> > Easy - make prorogation of parliament subject to a free vote in the Commons.

> 'Free vote'?

> Uh-huh.

> So Bunter could permanently prologue Parliament with his majority. Excellent Parliamentary democracy...

... which is why we so badly need a Constitution which explicitly requires a supermajority for any decision that goes beyond the ordinary workings of Parliament, rather than this sham royal assent process that we cannot rely on to be of any use in an actual crisis.

2
In reply to john arran:

Agreed.

I'm neither monarchist nor republican; it has zero effect on me. Given the last few governments, I'd say a written constitution needs to address the issues of Parliamentary democracy before thinking about whether to replace a monarch as a symbolic head of state.

1
 Shani 12 Sep 2022
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> I’m really confused. You seem to imply that the royal family have some sort of power over you.

You need to watch the news and see how republicans are being menaced by the police for legitimate protest.

> They may “rule” over you, but they cannot and do not have any practical day to day impact on either how the UK is governed or your life.

That your the second monarchist to state this on the thread is testament to a worrying (if not willful) ignorance amongst the servile.

> Liz Truss will have far far more impact on your day to day life and she’s democratically elected. I would say she rules over you to a greater extent than King Charles does.

Truss DOES have more power over my life, but so what? She was not democratically elected. I get to vote to change the party and remove her).

> As I’ve said above, the current set up gives us a stable and effective political system. It has very limited drawbacks. Why you’d want to break an effective system because you appear to have a chip on your shoulder is beyond me.

What do you mean it gives us 'a stable and effective political system'. In 2019 Johnson got the Queen to controversially and unconstitutionally prorogue parliament to avoid scrutiny of the Government's Brexit plans. The whole arrangement is ineffective. This is basic stuff that appears to have escaped you. 

A 'chip'? You are welcome to pay for royalty and then fawn & supplicate before the crown to your overlord's content, but like religion, don't impose it on me. 

5
 ExiledScot 12 Sep 2022
In reply to Godwin:

The only way Harry will be king is if Charles, William and his kids are wiped out. Harry is irrelevant, they were hardly crying when he legged it, wondering how they'd cope. 

> The point being, it is conceivable that within a few short months, he could go from being at risk of being at Her Majestys Pleasure, to being His Majesty. The method is irrelevant.

 Robert Durran 12 Sep 2022
In reply to Shani:

> What do you mean it gives us 'a stable and effective political system'. In 2019 Johnson got the Queen to controversially and unconstitutionally prorogue parliament to avoid scrutiny of the Government's Brexit plans. The whole arrangement is ineffective. 

No he didn't. The system worked and parliament was not prorogued. 

Post edited at 19:43
6
 GrahamD 12 Sep 2022
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> Liz Truss will have far far more impact on your day to day life and she’s democratically elected. I would say she rules over you to a greater extent than King Charles does.

Liz Truss is NOT a democratically elected leader.  She is (by some definition of democratic) a democratically elected constituency MP.

1
In reply to GrahamD:

We don’t have a presidential system.

We vote to elect MPs who then chose a party leader.

You might not like it, but it’s perfectly democratic.

5
 Shani 12 Sep 2022
In reply to Robert Durran:

> No he didn't. The system worked and parliament was not prorogued. 

The prorogation was quashed, and the prorogation was deemed "null and of no [legal] effect".

 mondite 12 Sep 2022
In reply to Robert Durran:

> No he didn't. The system worked and parliament was not prorogued. 

Parliament was prorogued with the queens sign off. It is just the supreme court then found it to be unlawful and hence it was stricken from the record.

So whilst technically you can argue it didnt happen since it was formally removed from the record the simple fact is the monarchy was bugger all use in terms of checks and balances.

Note these are the same courts the tories are now trying to cripple in terms of political restraint. Do you reckon Charles is going to knock back those changes?

1
 Fat Bumbly2 12 Sep 2022
In reply to fred99:

If Charles Windsor won an election, I would have no problems with that. Why would I?

 Robert Durran 12 Sep 2022
In reply to mondite:

> Parliament was prorogued with the queens sign off. It is just the supreme court then found it to be unlawful and hence it was stricken from the record.

> So whilst technically you can argue it didnt happen since it was formally removed from the record the simple fact is the monarchy was bugger all use in terms of checks and balances.

> Note these are the same courts the tories are now trying to cripple in terms of political restraint. Do you reckon Charles is going to knock back those changes?

So the monarch has no real power. Why are you worried?

6
 Robert Durran 12 Sep 2022
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> We don’t have a presidential system.

> We vote to elect MPs who then chose a party leader.

> You might not like it, but it’s perfectly democratic.

Indeed. In the same way some people didn't like the way democracy worked in the EU. Still democratic though.

2
 Shani 12 Sep 2022
In reply to fred99:

> "The kinds of people we might want to fulfil the role" ?

> A guitarist noted for liking badgers, a tv presenter who gets stage fright, a retired para-athlete who is already in the HoL (and has a history from her Uni days).

You're defending a past monarch who paid £12m to protect her son from serious charges of an exploitative, sexual nature against a 17 year old - despite his fraternising with a convicted sex offender, and now you defend a monarch who talks to plants, cheated on his wife, who believes in homeopathy, has provided a character reference for at least one paedophilic priest, was mates with Jimmy Savile, rules like this ( youtube.com/watch?v=TGamLrHlikc&),..... but yeah, something something badgers and guitars.

3
 mondite 12 Sep 2022
In reply to Robert Durran:

> So the monarch has no real power. Why are you worried?

I was simply pointing out the flaws in VSisjustascramble argument about them so I am not sure how you decided I was worried. 

Although as it happens it is unclear how much power on a more limited basis the royals actually have. The governments (both Westminster and Scottish) have been rather keen to keep their interference hidden on the grounds that it would affect how they are seen. Which in itself is a bit of a red flag.

 Rampart 12 Sep 2022
In reply to Shani:

>  What kind of person feebly accepts another human anointing themselves as their sovereign, ruler and/or overlord?

I suppose traditionally it wasn't 'feeble acceptance' - someone was king because they could tawt everyone else with a sword harder/better. 

Possibly there's legal provision for challenging Charles to the crown by right of conquest, but then you'd set precedent for everyone who disagreed with your reign to try the same and nothing would ever get done.

 bruxist 12 Sep 2022
In reply to Robert Durran:

> No he didn't. The system worked and parliament was not prorogued. 

This is true only in a technical and quite fictional sense. Parliament was prorogued on the 10th September 2019. The Supreme Court judged the prorogation unlawful on the 24th September 2019, and quashed the Order. Unfortunately the intervening passage of time was parliamentary time lost.

In the same way as the quashing of a conviction sadly does not mean that the convicted has spent no time in prison, because the past cannot be undone, the quashing of the prorogation did not mean that the prorogation did not happen, nor that it did not have its designed and entirely anti-democratic effect.

 jkarran 12 Sep 2022
In reply to Godwin:

> Then we are fools for accepting it. Just because that is the way things are, does not mean that's how they have to remain.

It does if the alternatives are unacceptable.

Jk

 Robert Durran 13 Sep 2022
In reply to bruxist:

> This is true only in a technical and quite fictional sense. Parliament was prorogued on the 10th September 2019. The Supreme Court judged the prorogation unlawful on the 24th September 2019, and quashed the Order. Unfortunately the intervening passage of time was parliamentary time lost.

Why would it have been quicker without a monarch being involved?

1
OP Godwin 13 Sep 2022
In reply to jkarran:

> It does if the alternatives are unacceptable.

> Jk

I am not clear what the alternatives are, or even if we need an alternative, as I am not clear what real role other than ceremonial the Monarchy plays within our Government.

And when you say unacceptable, the question needs to be, unacceptable to who. 

I would suggest we truly are living in a fairy tale, and the Monarchy has no clothes.

1
 Robert Durran 13 Sep 2022
In reply to Godwin:

> I am not clear what the alternatives are, or even if we need an alternative, as I am not clear what real role other than ceremonial the Monarchy plays within our Government.

Effectively none. I thought that was meant to be why it was acceptable!

3
 veteye 13 Sep 2022
In reply to Godwin:

> I am not clear what the alternatives are, or even if we need an alternative, as I am not clear what real role other than ceremonial the Monarchy plays within our Government.

Possibly behind the scenes there is much more room for the monarchy to have a political role?

> And when you say unacceptable, the question needs to be, unacceptable to who. 

I would say that it should be "unacceptable to whom". 

> I would suggest we truly are living in a fairy tale, and the Monarchy has no clothes.

Certainly, some people are living in a fairy tale, especially some of the media.

 elsewhere 13 Sep 2022
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Why would it have been quicker without a monarch being involved?

A monarch who defers to PM did not make it quicker or improve matters.

A democratically appointed head of state with the specific role of sometimes NOT deferring to PM in order to protect the constitution might have deterred BJ and JRM completely or blocked the prorogation until supreme court decided.

Post edited at 07:45
1
OP Godwin 13 Sep 2022
In reply to veteye:

> Possibly behind the scenes there is much more room for the monarchy to have a political role?

For me, this is a problem. I suspect the Monarchy has an awful lot of soft power, which they use for themselves and their chums.

> I would say that it should be "unacceptable to whom". 

I did think that, but really, it is rather early in the day for pedantry. Should monarchy be Monarchy ¯_(ツ)_/¯

> Certainly, some people are living in a fairy tale, especially some of the media.

I would say the media are used by the M(m)onarchy to feed the mass hysteria that perpetuates the fairy tale.

3
In reply to Shani:

> What kind of person feebly accepts another human annointing themselves as their sovereign, ruler and/or overlord?

> Am i really to sit here and accept another person reigns over me?

> How ridiculous for that 'ruler' to claim his being of 'service'.

> I have no need of a monarch.

But what ruling do they actually do? What directions have the RF given you that you haven't been able to ignore.

Replace Monarchy in your post with the EU and you can see what unthinking rabid nonsense Brexiteers came up with to persude us not to be 'ruled' by the EU. They dont rule you in any sense whatsoever. Its ceremonial. 

As someone luke warm on the Royals ( and Im aware of this subject being done to death in here) I would argue, despite their enormous hereditary privilege and wealth, that we would suffer financially and socially without them. They are so intertwined with the fabric of us that it would be damaging to just do away with the monarchy. They also attract a net gain to our shores, economically. 

Like the EU, it wasnt perfect,  but be careful what you wish for.

Edit to add: Charles is a reformer and it is already suggested a slimming down/change is on the way.

I would as a first pass to do something with the Duke of Westminster's wealth, which for someone with the largest royal pot, doesn’t do much ( obvious to me at least) to earn it or to have earned it other than being a landlord from inheritance handed down.

Post edited at 08:14
5
 mondite 13 Sep 2022
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

> Replace Monarchy in your post with the EU and you can see what unthinking rabid nonsense Brexiteers came up with to persude us not to be 'ruled' by the EU.

The EU had a clear set of interactions with the UK (ironically post brexit its a lot more blurred) whereas with the royals its deliberately kept as opaque as possible how much influence they have.

So your comparison is inane especially given the safe money would be on the brexiteer loons being the ones supporting the undemocratic monarchy.

 

> I would as a first pass to do something with the Duke of Westmibster's wealth, which for someone with the largest royal pot, doesn’t do much ( obvios to me at least) to earn it or to have earned it.

They arent royal.

3
In reply to mondite:

> The EU had a clear set of interactions with the UK (ironically post brexit its a lot more blurred) whereas with the royals its deliberately kept as opaque as possible how much influence they have.

Indeed, and mainly beneficial, transparent interactions (be careful what you wish for). And if they were weren't,  we could veto.

Your second statement is irrelevant unless you can show actual influence.  And even if you could, it would have to be malevolent to be an issue. Influence can be good as well as bad.

> So your comparison is inane especially given the safe money would be on the brexiteer loons being the ones supporting the undemocratic monarchy.

I see the paradox however given the man on the street's lack of any cogent reply before,  during or after beyond sovrinty and control I think this is a false argument.

>  

> > I would as a first pass to do something with the Duke of Westmibster's wealth, which for someone with the largest royal pot, doesn’t do much ( obvios to me at least) to earn it or to have earned it.

> They arent royal.

If this is the case then I stand corrected. Nevertheless,  given the inheritance tax issue when the last nobleman died, something still needs to be done.

 veteye 13 Sep 2022
In reply to Godwin:

I deliberately use a small m in monarchy, as I have to keep the royalist approach down a little.

1
 mondite 13 Sep 2022
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

 

> Your second statement is irrelevant unless you can show actual influence. 

Fascinating. So unless something is completely proven despite it being kept deliberately hidden its irrelevant? Lets quote again the Scottish government on the matter (the UK has come out with similar in the past as well).

“[If] the content of these consultations became known, it might serve to undermine the appearance of the political neutrality of the sovereign, and so the rights of the sovereign could not be exercised effectively without this expectation of confidentiality.”

> And even if you could, it would have to be malevolent to be an issue. Influence can be good as well as bad.

Nope sorry but having someone solely selected on who they were born to being able to influence decisions is bad regardless of whether I agree with them or not at that particularly moment in time. Its the classic when passing laws consider that those who will inherit them might not be on your side/benevolent.

 CantClimbTom 13 Sep 2022
In reply to hang_about:

> Apparently Andrew has been given custody of the corgis

In reply to Dr.S at work:

> No, they are underage.

Is it just me seeing that link between the two statements?

 montyjohn 13 Sep 2022
In reply to mondite:

> Nope sorry but having someone solely selected on who they were born to being able to influence decisions is bad regardless of whether I agree with them or not at that particularly moment in time. 

Are you sure the Monarchy really influence decisions (expect for adding clauses to laws to hide their won wealth of course). They may well advise, but it's up to the current parliament to decide the final wording.

The Monarchies work really revolves around international relations and they appear to do a good job.

Yes, you could hire someone for this role, or even elect someone for the role, but they won't be taken as seriously by other leaders, so the best person for the job is the person born into the royal family.

If King Charles starts acting a fool and making the UK look bad, then the Royal family either need to sort it out and make the changes necessary, or the public will.

So whilst things are going well, I don't see any need for change.

2
 mondite 13 Sep 2022
In reply to montyjohn:

> Are you sure the Monarchy really influence decisions (expect for adding clauses to laws to hide their won wealth of course). They may well advise, but it's up to the current parliament to decide the final wording.

Are you sure they are not?

The one thing we do know is they try hard to keep it hidden on the grounds if people did know it would likely damage the image.

> The Monarchies work really revolves around international relations and they appear to do a good job.

Evidence for this?

> Yes, you could hire someone for this role, or even elect someone for the role, but they won't be taken as seriously by other leaders, so the best person for the job is the person born into the royal family.

We are back into schrodingers monarchy here. Where they are massively influential on the world stage but somehow dont impact us.

As for the claim. Really?

I can see it working with the absolute monarchs and dictators who dream of becoming like the royals but for someone who has earned their position through ability do you really think they would take the queen seriously? Especially when they have to go and speak to the PM anyway.

Are all these world leaders looking at Biden and thinking if only he was Charles?

2
 jkarran 13 Sep 2022
In reply to Godwin:

> I am not clear what the alternatives are, or even if we need an alternative, as I am not clear what real role other than ceremonial the Monarchy plays within our Government.

If I understood you, you said we're fools for accepting the hereditary monarchy as is, as partof our system of governance. I agree. But my point is the alternatives are not palatable, not because I think an elected non-exec president for example would be worse but because I don't think it's worth the price we'd realistically have to pay to be rid of the monarch. After a thousand bloody years they are dug in deep!

> And when you say unacceptable, the question needs to be, unacceptable to who.

To me at least. It's not worth a civil war.

> I would suggest we truly are living in a fairy tale, and the Monarchy has no clothes.

I agree, it's ridiculous. So how do we move on without burning everything else to the ground in the process? I can't see how to do it. Look at the police stamping out visible dissent right now. 

jk

1
 montyjohn 13 Sep 2022
In reply to mondite:

>> Are you sure the Monarchy really influence decisions (expect for adding clauses to laws to hide their won wealth of course). They may well advise, but it's up to the current parliament to decide the final wording.

> Are you sure they are not?

You never can be, but ultimately, it's parliament that are responsible for the laws passed. If the Monarchy is influencing laws in a way you don't like, you need to hold your MP to account.

>> The Monarchies work really revolves around international relations and they appear to do a good job.

> Evidence for this?

Not exactly scientific but look at the international response to her death. How did the world react to the last ex-president to die (Bush Snr, 2018) for example. Did you know he died?

> We are back into schrodingers monarchy here. Where they are massively influential on the world stage but somehow dont impact us.

The Monarchy does impact us. In a very positive way. It strengthens the commonwealth and has dug the UK out of the few big holes in the past.

> As for the claim. Really?

Again, just look how the world has reacted to her death. JFK was similar, but he was assassinated so hardly a fair comparison.

 Shani 13 Sep 2022
In reply to montyjohn:

> The Monarchy does impact us. In a very positive way. It strengthens the commonwealth and has dug the UK out of the few big holes in the past.

It cuts both ways, but putting Andrew to one side, what are these 'big holes'?

> Again, just look how the world has reacted to her death. JFK was similar, but he was assassinated so hardly a fair comparison.

Elvis's death was widely mourned.


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Thread auto-archived as it is too large
Loading Notifications...