NationStates Jolt Archive

Every time I ready a British thread or a thread about monarchy, the same point is always raised, usually by some idiot American who can't point out where the UK is on a map. The point is:

THE MONARCHY IS TOO POWERFUL AND MAKES BRITAIN A LESS DEMOCRATIC NATION

So lets start with the facts;

1. The Queen CANNOT control the armed forces - she is their head only in name. If all the commanders were killed in some bizaare accident, then it is possible she (or another royal) might take over but only until the situation is sorted out.

2. The Queen has virtually no role in the legislative process. She says the Queen Speech at the opening of session which is dictated by the government, not by her. She has a veto on government bills (royal assent) but the last monarch to use that was Queen Anne in 1707. In the 1970s it was finally rules that the monarchy doesn't even have to see a piece of legislation to give it assent.

3. The Queen could only ever become the head of government (as well as of state) if the Emergency Powers Act of 1920 came into force. That only happens if a disaster happens while Parliament is not sitting (or unable to sit). She then rules with the Privy Council (a collection of judges and senior civil servants). When in this state, she can pass delegated legislation.

4. The Queen doesn't appoint her ministers personally - she has to go along with the list the government gives her. The last time such was the case was in George III reign. If there were an emergency she could probably appoint a provisional cabinet while an election was organised.

5. She can advise the government on certain matters if she so pleases but it is no more than advice.

6. The Queen is politically neutral.

7. The Queen or her family are not allowed into Parliament unless Parliament gives its consent (an old law dating from when Charles I burst into Parliament and threatened its member with arrest).

8. The Queen pays taxes too. She and her extened family gain tax money from the Civil List. However it is estimated that this amount is little more than 90 pence per household. Members of the Royal Family may be struck off the Civil List for poor conduct.

This may leave the question: What is the point of the Queen? Well firstly she acts as a safe guard. If ever there were some crack pot dictatorship in charge then she could theoritcally intervene. Also she can provide alternative, temporary government were Parliament unable to sit (say all the MPs had been blown up. She might have had to do this had those flour bags thrown by protestors contained poison as was feared). The Queen does a great deal of charity work as do her family and provide many disadvantaged social groups with aid. Finally she is traditional: we British do love our pomp and circumstance. It wouldn't be the same at Chirstmas without the speech or seeing the Trooping of the Colour without her. The monarchy is part of our heritage: it shows the unique partnership we have created in this country between parliamentary democracy and monarchy. We are very much a unique nation: republics are ten a penny but constitutional monarchies are far more rare.

One final point in defence of the Queen: she has no real private life that isnt opened to scrunity by the media. The same goes for her family. They have given up their private lives in order to do their duty. That is a noble thing.

Actually -- this idiot American who knows full well that you're an island off the coast of Europe, with the nation of Scotland up north of England, Ireland off your coast to the northwest, and Wales to the southwest of England, feels sorry for the Royals. They have no privacy and they seem to have little peace.

This may leave the question: What is the point of the Queen? Well firstly she acts as a safe guard. If ever there were some crack pot dictatorship in charge then she could theoritcally intervene. Also she can provide alternative, temporary government were Parliament unable to sit (say all the MPs had been blown up. She might have had to do this had those flour bags thrown by protestors contained poison as was feared). The Queen does a great deal of charity work as do her family and provide many disadvantaged social groups with aid. Finally she is traditional: we British do love our pomp and circumstance. It wouldn't be the same at Chirstmas without the speech or seeing the Trooping of the Colour without her. The monarchy is part of our heritage: it shows the unique partnership we have created in this country between parliamentary democracy and monarchy. We are very much a unique nation: republics are ten a penny but constitutional monarchies are far more rare.
for me, those reasons arent enough to warrant keeping the monarchy, when there are so seeminly pointless. And as for "pomp and circumstance" - is this a real reason for keeping the monarchy? Seriously - tradition is a reason? Not for me it aint.
Personally i think the monarchy is powerless, as you so succinctly pointed out, and other than that out-dated and ultimately pointless. They should be removed because they actually cost the taxpayer money, among other reasons.

God save the Queen!!!

Monarchy is élitist. For that reason, it is not something I can tolerate.

God save the Queen!!!

*Thumps chest, stands tall, and starts singing "Land of Hope and Glory", followed by "God Save Our Gracious Queen"*

Actually -- this idiot American who knows full well that you're an island off the coast of Europe, with the nation of Scotland up north of England, Ireland off your coast to the northwest, and Wales to the southwest of England, feels sorry for the Royals. They have no privacy and they seem to have little peace.

yay! someone knows where wales is! i was seriously expecting that to end with ireland, so i'm chuffed now

yay! someone knows where wales is! i was seriously expecting that to end with ireland, so i'm chuffed now
What's so important about Wales? We all know that the Irish and Scottish were better than the Welsh. During the pre-Roman time of Britannica. Scotsmen had claymores and bagpipes, and Ireland was the centre of learning for all of Celtica. What could the Welsh do? Hide in the bushes?

But really, I don't really care one way or the other about monarchy. As long as it is just a figurehead, it doesn't really matter to me. Although it may harm the economy a tad from the needs of the monarch, it really is just a symbol.

Everyone knows that the UK is a Constitutional Monarchy. The King, Queen, Prince, and Princess are all figureheads.

actually americans are generally fascinated by the british royals, its usually the english who bitch about them and half heartedly mutter abouit getting rid of them.

No, I can do without the monarchy either. They're pointless, and I personally have severe issues with the idea that they are somehow 'better' than us - if I met the Queen, I would be expected to bow and generally kow-tow to someone who's done nothing to deserve it except for be on the beneficial end of an accident of birth. The monarchy serves no purpose, and I've never found tradition alone to be enough of a reason to keep anything.

One final point in defence of the Queen: she has no real private life that isnt opened to scrunity by the media. The same goes for her family. They have given up their private lives in order to do their duty. That is a noble thing.


that's not entirely true, the fact that edward the viii was forced from the throne for being a nazi sympathizer and not for loving a divorced woman is well known in american but is suppressed in britian. as is his treason(giving military intelligence to the germans during their invasion of france) and his monetary speculations during ww2.

)(&^(^%$)*&_^%(^%(*&^)*

I just wrote one hell of a long post in reply and hit the wrong key and the I&%(*%^&%$(*_(*%(&^) computer ate it. I hate when that happens (to say the least)

Suffice it to say, since I can't go through it all again, I'm an American who grew up in Britain. I like Guinness, "Dad's Army" and know who Georgie Best is. I think Manchester United beats the hell out Leeds and Arsenal, but think Chelsea is the best (despite their record). I like Maltesers, Cadbury Flakes and Polos and think fish & chips in newspaper never hurt anyone. A Wimpy Burger is good and Brazil's football team sucks (despite their World Cup record). Germany cheated to get the 2006 World Cup games and Page 3 girls are cool.

Enough,
I admire and support Britain's monarchy, they put up with a lot of shit from people who know nothing. Their "legal" power is minimal, their influence is enormous. If you read Lady Thatcher's books (The Downing Street Years, The Path to Power) it is clear that as P.M. what the Queen thought about things was a consideration in her decision making.

Just my $0.02 cents worth, as a non-ignorant American.

What's so important about Wales? We all know that the Irish and Scottish were better than the Welsh. During the pre-Roman time of Britannica. Scotsmen had claymores and bagpipes, and Ireland was the centre of learning for all of Celtica. What could the Welsh do? Hide in the bushes?


No, the Welsh are the Irish that couldn't swim.

No, the Welsh are the Irish that couldn't swim.
Touché, sir. Touché.

Their "legal" power is minimal, their influence is enormous.
Really? I thought that they really didn't matter anymore, legally or inflencially. I guess I was wrong, as you'd know better than I would about Britain. Though I may know more about Celtic Britain! And Gaul.

Monarchy is élitist. For that reason, it is not something I can tolerate.

In my opinion whether or not a political institution embodies an ideal is irrelvant. What's more important is whether or not it protects that ideal. I think there is a case to be made, I grant I have nothing to support it, that the existance of the monarchy actually makes the UK less elitist, politically at least. Since the House of Commons is in no small part defined by not being the monarchy (or House of Lords for that matter) I feel that it as a result tends to reject elitism, or at least obvious manifestations of it.

It's worth noting that the the US and France, both republics, tend to draw their leaders from a narrower, and more elite, background than the UK. Prominent US politicians are far more likely to come from a wealthy family and there are far more political dynasties. French politicians are less likely to be wealthy but often had politically active parents while the predominance of candidates born in, or who carved out their political career in, Paris is startling. And are either country less socially elitist than the UK?

No, I can do without the monarchy either. They're pointless, and I personally have severe issues with the idea that they are somehow 'better' than us - if I met the Queen, I would be expected to bow and generally kow-tow to someone who's done nothing to deserve it except for be on the beneficial end of an accident of birth.

But you don't have to. Or are you saying you can't cope with peer pressure?

OK, I see two objections emerging here with them. I'd like to give my view on them by reposting parts of a couple of posts I made on a different thread, apologies for the repost but I assume some haven't read them. Reasoned opninions or facts to the contrary are welcomed. Oh, and don't bash Americans on this score, I've not found Americans to be any more anti the UK monarchy than any other nation (bar other monarchies who tend to direct their sentiments toward their own monarchs) and probably less so than republican Brits.

1. The monarchy are pointless

Original post (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7566619&postcount=119)

First up, I'm a monarchist but not a royalist, as far as the UK is concerned. That means that I believe in maintaining the institution of the monarchy but I couldn't give a flying fig who they have in the position. It could be a Norwegian Grey parrot for all I care. I do wish the tabloids would shut up about the latest indiscretion/oh-so-meaningful trip to support the latest trendy cause some minor member of the royal family has done, though.

I believe the monarchy to be a decent enough part of the UK political system. I mean, seriously, all bias apart, can anyone point to another senior member of the UK system who's done their job as competently as the queen? Sure, it's not that important a job but don't underestimate the diplomatic role the queen can play (going over to maintain relationships with countries the PM can't get to and not doing anything disastrous, as long as Philip is kept on a muzzle). Basically I see the monarch as a non-partisan head of state, thus limiting the danger of political gridlock, who can perform a number of symbolic roles (enacting bills, state visits, showing support for approved causes etc). It does this without actually costing much, if anything (I'd be interested to see a cost comparison of the UK monarch versus the Italian president) or creating the kind of personality-obsessed image-conscious presidential politics we see in other states.

Note, the "don't actually cost much, if anything" part is settled in the next post, as is the cost comparison with the Italian presidency.

2. The monarchy are expensive

This post was originally submitted after somebody posted that the monarchy cost £35 million in upkeep and £7.9 million from the civil list and cited sources. I had a look into the financial side myself and here's the post I made afterwards. It's a long post since there's a lot to cover but I think it covers pretty much everything.

Original post (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7576542&postcount=158)


The secrets of the Queen's finances are published

http://www.theinternetforum.co.uk/rf/queen1.html

http://www.accountancyage.com/News/1108309

http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/...07426%2C00.html
The first link was about the exact expenditure on the civil list. I'll get to this later.

The second mostly lost me, I'm afraid. For an accountancy site it seemed very poor at making it clear exactly where the costs went (apart from a brief, far from comprehensive list at the end). There is one key passage, however, which I'll mention later.

The Guardian was better. From my reading of the Guardian it seems clear that the £35 million is expenditure on the institution and the civil list on the person. So the bulk of the cost would be cost of executing the functions of the head of state, with the cost of maintaining the estates bolted on top. Assuming the cost of maintaining the estates remains the same whether or not we have a monarchy that leaves the question of whether we pay too much for our head of state.

Unfortunately none of the above articles, as far as I can tell, make it clear what proportion of the £35 million is spent on the head of state and what proportion on the estates, and I haven't been particularly successful in finding the costs of other nations presidents. There was one quite decent source, though:

http://www.britishrepublic.org.uk/money.htm

Now this is quite partisan, obviously, so should be taken with a pinch of salt. Some of the figures, like the £54 million cost of the monarchy, are out of date. Its main source is also a Tripod site which makes me suspicious as to its authority, though it must be said that this is a monarchist Tripod site. But, it's all I have so far.

OK, so according to the British Republic site the French and Irish presidencies cost around £2 million. Assuming it wouldn't cost more to maintain a British president than a French one (and I see no reason to believe it would) that's a saving of £52 million according to British Republic. Even allowing for the new figures that's still £33 million, right?

Not exactly. We still have the cost of the maintainance of the palaces, which would be paid regardless, to deduct. The source that British Republic sites, The Constantin Society states (note, these figures are not verified and subject to refutation) that this was £20,541,000 in 1994-5. (http://members.tripod.com/~constantian/expense.html). Assuming that no other costs would be paid under a republic (and I really can't be arsed to check any further) that's still a saving of £13 million, though.

Provided we go for the French or Irish spendthrift route. If we follow the Italians or Americans, though, we get a different story. The Constantin Society lists the Italian Presidency's costs as $144,883,257 (£76,550,586) and the US Presidency's as $310,441,000 (£163,996,797) (http://members.tripod.com/~constantian/expense2.html). I'm going to discount the US due to its greater size, world prominence and, most importantly wealth. But if we went for the same kind of presidency as the Italians we'd end up paying £61 million pounds a year extra.

Let's be optimistic and hope, despite the fact that spiralling government spending points the other way, that we could have a presidency of around the same cost as that of France. So we save £13 million.



Now, for the civil list. The British Republic site points out the monarchy get considerably more in wages than a president probably would. I can't verify the figures but I'll let them stand as is:

In their article on the issue the CMA states that "The Queen's Civil List has been fixed at £7.9 million per annum until 2011." An elected president would receive a fraction of that, a salary that would be less even than that of the Prime Minister. Even if it were the same as the PM this would incur a cost of around £163,000. If, as the monarchists claim, we pay a substantial pension to former presidents this would no doubt be less still, perhaps £80,000. Lets be generous and say they get a pension of £120,000. At most there would be about five former presidents alive at any one time so altogether, including the incumbent's salary this would amount to £763,000. In fact you could pay a president and five former presidents £163,000 each and still it comes to less than £1m a year.
So a saving of £6.9 million a year in wages. Well, probably less since it's fair to pay the other members of the royal family. The British Republican argues otherwise, but misses the fact that some royals do take on head of state type roles, for example diplomatic visits (Prince Charles to Libya springs to mind). Of course Philip could perhaps be axed since he only tags along, much as Cherie Blair who gets paid nothing, but that doesn't mean that other royal spouses can't do visits on their own. It's just that Philip is a fecking idiot who can't be left to open his mouth without snipers on standby.

Anyway, let's give the other Royals another million, allowing for the cost that would accrue on wages for others to do the roles they perform in a republic. That's on the high end, granted, but still ends up with a saving of almost £6 million quid a year. Not a huge amount by governmental standards, about the same as the PM's liquor allowance, but still hardly chump change.

However, it's worth remembering the history of the civil list. The Guardian article points it out here:

The monarch agreed to hand over the revenue from the crown estate - which owns everything from large landholdings in Somerset to the freeholds of shops in London's Regent Street - in return for an allowance voted by parliament
So the Queen sacrifices her reveue from property in return for the civil list. Does the property belong to her? Yes. Should it belong to her? Hmmm, tricky question. I don't know the exact history but since Magna Carta property rights have been pretty strictly enforced with relation to the monarchy so anything acquired since then would have to have been purchased with some degree of fairness. Perhaps other property was less fairly acquired, I just don't know. Could the state claim it back in a republic? I'm not sure how without setting a dangerous precedent, not just for nobles but for any of us whose property was unjustly acquired from the people in the past. And Marx [edit: I now realise that was Proudhon] said that all property is theft, after all.

OK, so let's say we can't get the crown estates back, that they're the monarch's to do with as they see fit. Are we getting a good deal? Does it gain us more than the (conservative figure of) £6 million we spend on the monarchy over the costs for a republic? Or even the full whack of £7.9 million? The Accountancy Age page tells us:

Under the 1952 Civil List Act, the Queen surrenders the annual income from the Crown Estate, which amounts to £130m a year, in return for the Civil List and for parliament meeting other head of state expenditure.
I'd say we get a good deal, yes.

So, IMHO, a total saving of at best £21 million that means giving up £130 million of government revenue is not a great proposal.

BTW, I honestly knew none of these figures before I started researching. I was fully expecting, and prepared, to have to argue for a complete paring down or even removal of the civil list at least. Thanks for giving me the heads up :)

Monarchy is élitist. For that reason, it is not something I can tolerate.

Elitism isn't a good enough reason. Elitism isn't necessarily a bad thing, just because you don't like the word.

OK, I see two objections emerging here with them. I'd like to give my view on them by reposting parts of a couple of posts I made on a different thread, apologies for the repost but I assume some haven't read them. Reasoned opninions or facts to the contrary are welcomed. Oh, and don't bash Americans on this score, I've not found Americans to be any more anti the UK monarchy than any other nation (bar other monarchies who tend to direct their sentiments toward their own monarchs) and probably less so than republican Brits.

1. The monarchy are pointless

Original post (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7566619&postcount=119)

2. The monarchy are expensive
This post...
Original post (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7576542&postcount=158)

Nice, concise arguments with good evidence. Thanks.

-In Denmark we also have queen. I think it is far better than a president. I must say: "I would rather have a our quenn than a president like G.W. Bush". She might only have very little portion of rearl political influence, but she must sign any law, for it to work. That is a very good safety. A president must always think about re-election, the economy, and dirty day-to-day decisions. A queen does not have such concerns. Dirty-day-today politics are for politicians. That way the institution which embodies the nation shall never fall from grace. G.W. Bush my be called many things... but he has never been gracefull :rolleyes:

Let´s be honest: G.W. Bush has not done much to enhance the reputation of the presidential office or the US. Nor did Nixon. More harm than good, bacause they lowered the standard, quite alot!. I think both has even done far worse than B. Clinton. That woruld never happen in Denmark or the UK.

Harry "the Bastard" (My native language is not english)

Really? I thought that they really didn't matter anymore, legally or inflencially. I guess I was wrong, as you'd know better than I would about Britain. Though I may know more about Celtic Britain! And Gaul.[/QUOTE]

hmmm... Gaul - even though this is completely off the point - if Caesar hadn't invaded Gaul when he did its quite likely that it would have eventually developed into a proper nation- it had gotten to the "little-groups-of-city-states" development stage up until it was overrun by the nasty romans and their tendancy to divide and conquer...

Every time I ready a British thread or a thread about monarchy, the same point is always raised, usually by some idiot American who can't point out where the UK is on a map.

Not all American "idiots" are naive to the power the Queen has, which is zero to none, considering she's nothing more than a figurehead to remind the British population of their former glory.

By the way, any British republicans in here:

You'll establish a republic over my dead body. Go back to Moscow and take your horrible Guardian newspaper with you. Its a pile of socialist droppings. Which, coincidentally, your beliefs are.

Not all American "idiots" are naive to the power the Queen has, which is zero to none, considering she's nothing more than a figurehead to remind the British population of their former glory.

Very true.

By the way, any British republicans in here:

*Puts hand up*

You'll establish a republic over my dead body.

That can be arranged.

Go back to Moscow and take your horrible Guardian newspaper with you. Its a pile of socialist droppings. Which, coincidentally, your beliefs are.

1. I'm not a communist, let alone a socialist.
2. I don't read the Guardian
3. You don't know what my beliefs are.

By the way, any British republicans in here:

You'll establish a republic over my dead body. Go back to Moscow and take your horrible Guardian newspaper with you. Its a pile of socialist droppings. Which, coincidentally, your beliefs are.

Do you know what really pisses me off about republicans? The way they automtically assume that any monarchist is a reactionary, right-wing knee-jerk traditionalist. Can't imagine where they get that idea from...

Do you know what really pisses me off about republicans? The way they automtically assume that any monarchist is a reactionary, right-wing knee-jerk traditionalist. Can't imagine where they get that idea from...
True. I call those people royalists, rather than monarchists, though. I have as little time for them as I do for people who go around saying that the Queen has no function at all. It's not ideal, but she does act as a kind of safeguard and agent of stability, and I wouldn't want to remove that system without being absolutely sure that its replacement would play that particular role.

I believe the monarchy to be a decent enough part of the UK political system. I mean, seriously, all bias apart, can anyone point to another senior member of the UK system who's done their job as competently as the queen?

First define senior.

Second the Queens job doesn’t require much for it to be done competently. i.e., Wine and dine people, read speeches written by other people, simply appear at official events, go to foreign countries when she’s told to.

Sure, it's not that important a job but don't underestimate the diplomatic role the queen can play (going over to maintain relationships with countries the PM can't get to and not doing anything disastrous, as long as Philip is kept on a muzzle).

We do have official diplomats and ambassadors who can do that job.

Basically I see the monarch as a non-partisan head of state, thus limiting the danger of political gridlock,

How?

who can perform a number of symbolic roles (enacting bills, state visits, showing support for approved causes etc). It does this without actually costing much,

Ditto ceremonial President.

Besides, I (and other British Republicans) aren’t republicans due to the ‘perceived’ economic benefit of a republic over a constitutional monarchy.

if anything (I'd be interested to see a cost comparison of the UK monarch versus the Italian president) or creating the kind of personality-obsessed image-conscious presidential politics we see in other states.

NB: Only compare with other ceremonial presidencies, as that it the form of republic most republicans want. (Which I understand the Italian presidency is).

Not exactly. We still have the cost of the maintenance of the palaces, which would be paid regardless, to deduct.

They could either be opened completely to the public or sold off to private citizens (which could, of course, include Elizabeth Windsor).

Could the state claim it [royal property] back in a republic?
Yes, since they are Crown lands rather then private inheritances, so would revert to State control.

And Marx [edit: I now realise that was Proudhon] said that all property is theft, after all.

This is just because I am a pedantic sod rather than an argument. When Proudhon referred to property he wasn’t referring to property in its modern sense (ie, something you own), but something that allows someone to live without working (eg a factory owner who just takes all the profits but doesn’t work in it even as a manager).

So, IMHO, a total saving of at best £21 million that means giving up £130 million of government revenue is not a great proposal.

I’ll just reiterate what I said before, I’m not a republican for economic reasons.


PS. Sorry for only taking notice of a small amount of your second post, but it is very well argued and I’ll have to do a bit of research of my own to do you justice.

I'm against the Queen on principle. Not needed, still has powers to sneak through crafty bills that the goverment doesn't want people knowing about (google it), is just given her place at birth. No thanks. I believe in equality.

Well, being a patriot, I happen to also be a devout monarchist. The Queen may not have politcal powers, but shes a celebrity. Should we also get rid of all those pansy-ass footballers with their fancy haircuts as well? How many of you who say we should get rid of the Queen celebrated the Golden Jubilee last year? I hope it was none of you, but I doubt it.

I say keep her. She's one of the things standing in the way of Blair declaring himself president for life. Not to mention her hubby provides some funny comments at times too. And for anyone who says the Royal don't do anything, they've fought in two of the most (in)famous wars this country has been part of in the last century. They may be German, but theyrisked their lives for Britain, something I would imagine half of you British republicans would never do.

for me, those reasons arent enough to warrant keeping the monarchy, when there are so seeminly pointless. And as for "pomp and circumstance" - is this a real reason for keeping the monarchy? Seriously - tradition is a reason? Not for me it aint.
Personally i think the monarchy is powerless, as you so succinctly pointed out, and other than that out-dated and ultimately pointless. They should be removed because they actually cost the taxpayer money, among other reasons.



An unknown fact the queen MAKES more money for the government and charities than the "british taxpayer" could ever know.
The Royal family work very in an ambassador role making state visits. The Royal family actually do tourism a major favour.

OK, I'm going to stick this all together rather than quote line by line, otherwise it'll end up with lots of bitty sub-debates rather than a whole argument. I'll try to cover all the points though.

For a senior politician I think cabinet level would be fair enough. Politician was actually the wrong term, though, I meant those involved in government so minister would have been better.

As regards the monarch's job, I'll grant it doesn't require that much to do, I said as much in my post. There are still skills involved, though. Mostly just keeping to proper form, maintaining a positive profile and keeping within set boundaries. And it's not a no-brainer to manager all these. Otherwise a no-brainer could do so and Philip definitely hasn't. Charles has also stepped outside the boundaries a fair few times, and has hardly maintained a positive profile, though I'll reserve judgement until the point when (if) he gets the job.

And whilst Diplomats do the actual work, heads of state do the ceremony (with real work if they have power over foreign policy). They also are far higher profile and so increase the country's exposure overseas. Which is why it's vital that the HoS can be properly diplomatic and not cause an the perception of their country to sour. And then there's the courtesy aspect, it means more if you send your head of state than if you send even a high-ranking diplomat.

One thing I didn't mention, on this note, is what the oddity value of a monarch brings. A president with the same amount of power just doesn't have the same level of fascination. Compare how many people overseas know who the head of state of the UK is compared with how many know who the head of state of Germany is. It might seem trivial but it does mean official visits get more media coverage. Again, increasing the county's profile overseas.

As to the issue of gridlock, if you want the specifics I'll give them. Most likely, though, you wanted to point out that they wouldn't apply to a ceremonial president. I realise this (I mention it elsewhere in my original post), I should have been clearer here, though. However, it's also the case that a ceremonial president with no more power than the current monarch wouldn't actually result in any practical changes to the system. It wouldn't, in any real sense, make the UK any more democratic. It would represent the ideal, granted. But it's my belief that a political system should protect, rather than represent, ideals.

Finally, on the economic side, I agree with your point about ceremonial presidents being the best comparison. I picked Italy for precisely that reason, since it's a country of roughly equal size with a ceremonial president. Germany would be another possibility, though some discrepancy would have to be accepted given Germany's greater size. I won't argue the specifics about the Crown Lands, I really don't know any. I'm open to new info, though. Finally I accept the economic factor isn't a primary, or even secondary, concern for many (can't say for sure most, you'd know better than I) UK republicans (nor is it for me). However, it was mentioned a couple of times on here, and seems to be a common conception generally, so I thought I'd bring it up.

Oh, and point taken regarding Proudhon. So I got it doubly wrong. And that, folks, is why I almost never quote famous people. I tend to make a balls of it.

Actually before I finsish I just thought I'd post, in abbreviated form, my basic premises. That way it'll be easier to see exactly where we disagree and so avoid the beating around the bush so common on the old interweb.

1. The fundamental belief is that political institutions should be regarded primarily from a practical, rather than ideological perspective. As I said, they should be seen to protect ideals rather than be manifestations of them.

2a. Given this, I believe that a ceremonials president would offer no tangible benefits over the current system

2b. Secondly, I see a strong president to be potentially counter-productive, especially in the early stages of the transition when the exact balance of power is still somewhat up in the air.

3. Finally, given that I also believe that without strong reasons to believe that a siginificant change to a political system should only be undertaken if, on the whole, it is likely to produce a real strengthening of commonly held ideals then I do not feel that changing the current system to be wise.

Oh, and lastly, lastly, lastly, it's nice to get into a proper discussion on this, or any topic, for a change.

Well, being a patriot, I happen to also be a devout monarchist. The Queen may not have politcal powers, but shes a celebrity. Should we also get rid of all those pansy-ass footballers with their fancy haircuts as well?

Well, I wouldn't say no. But this seems to be a strawman.

How many of you who say we should get rid of the Queen celebrated the Golden Jubilee last year? I hope it was none of you, but I doubt it.

I cannot think of one reason why a Republican would celebrate it anyway, this seems to be a bizarre point you are trying to make. Also what about Republicans that were Monarchist at the time but have changed their minds since?

I say keep her. She's one of the things standing in the way of Blair declaring himself president for life.

Hysterical assumption not based on reality.

Not to mention her hubby provides some funny comments at times too.

Well so does Eddie Izzard.

Wait a sec...

*thinks*

EDDIE FOR KING. GOD SAVE THE KING etc.

And for anyone who says the Royal don't do anything, they've fought in two of the most (in)famous wars this country has been part of in the last century.

So did millions of other people. Including some of my relatives, why shouldn't they be monarch? (Actually I can think of a few reasons myself but anyway). This doesn't help your case any.

They may be German,

They're just as British as me. As a side note, one thing me and Elizabeth have in common is that neigther of us hold a British passport :).

but theyrisked their lives for Britain,

They're no the only ones.

something I would imagine half of you British republicans would never do.
:rolleyes:


Onto Stripe-Lovers

I cannot think of one reason why a Republican would celebrate it anyway, this seems to be a bizarre point you are trying to make. Also what about Republicans that were Monarchist at the time but have changed their minds since?
i celebrated the Jubilee, but only as an excuse to get drunk, eat loads of tasty tasty cake and have a party. :)

OK, I'm going to stick this all together rather than quote line by line, otherwise it'll end up with lots of bitty sub-debates rather than a whole argument. I'll try to cover all the points though.

Is it OK if I carry on this way? It isn't that I want to fragment the debate but I find it easier this way.

For a senior politician I think cabinet level would be fair enough. Politician was actually the wrong term, though, I meant those involved in government so minister would have been better.

OK, well on of the thing that occurs when a country has a Monarch (or possibly equivelent ceremonial rank), is that others that could do the job just as well cannot as they don't have the right blood. However your case that having the prefix HRH certainly does add prestige and that the Monarch is probably better known then other industrialised nations HoS's

As regards the monarch's job, I'll grant it doesn't require that much to do, I said as much in my post. There are still skills involved, though. Mostly just keeping to proper form, maintaining a positive profile and keeping within set boundaries. And it's not a no-brainer to manager all these. Otherwise a no-brainer could do so and Philip definitely hasn't. Charles has also stepped outside the boundaries a fair few times, and has hardly maintained a positive profile, though I'll reserve judgement until the point when (if) he gets the job.


However, circumstances of birth don't automatically give these skills, I'm sure that they could be learned. However, I feel we have been fortunate to have Elizabeth as a monarch, but since the characther of the monarch is essentially random, we could just as easily have a Philip on our hands in few decades time.

And whilst Diplomats do the actual work, heads of state do the ceremony (with real work if they have power over foreign policy). They also are far higher profile and so increase the country's exposure overseas. Which is why it's vital that the HoS can be properly diplomatic and not cause an the perception of their country to sour. And then there's the courtesy aspect, it means more if you send your head of state than if you send even a high-ranking diplomat.

You have a point. But I still feel that (outside of prestige) the Monarch is not nessesarily better then an elected HoS.

With Prestige though, I'm sure that could be kept if we had an elected monarch (which would not be the first time), especially if the terms were long enough.

One thing I didn't mention, on this note, is what the oddity value of a monarch brings. A president with the same amount of power just doesn't have the same level of fascination. Compare how many people overseas know who the head of state of the UK is compared with how many know who the head of state of Germany is. It might seem trivial but it does mean official visits get more media coverage. Again, increasing the county's profile overseas.

We could have an elected Monarch. (Food for thought, would I still be a republican if I believed in having an Elected monarch :confused: )

As to the issue of gridlock, if you want the specifics I'll give them. Most likely, though, you wanted to point out that they wouldn't apply to a ceremonial president. I realise this (I mention it elsewhere in my original post), I should have been clearer here, though. However, it's also the case that a ceremonial president with no more power than the current monarch wouldn't actually result in any practical changes to the system. It wouldn't, in any real sense, make the UK any more democratic. It would represent the ideal, granted. But it's my belief that a political system should protect, rather than represent, ideals.

I understand that. But to me the existence of a Monarch seems to keep us looking backwards (ie to the Golden Age of Empire etc.) and eclipses other great acheivements of Britain. It also perpetuates this idea that some people juust have better blood then others and deserve automatic respect and deference due to it.


Oh, and point taken regarding Proudhon. So I got it doubly wrong. And that, folks, is why I almost never quote famous people. I tend to make a balls of it.

Don't worry, I've met a couple of Anarchists who have made the same mistake (and really should know better)

Actually before I finsish I just thought I'd post, in abbreviated form, my basic premises. That way it'll be easier to see exactly where we disagree and so avoid the beating around the bush so common on the old interweb.

1. The fundamental belief is that political institutions should be regarded primarily from a practical, rather than ideological perspective. As I said, they should be seen to protect ideals rather than be manifestations of them.

However, we may disagree on what ideal a monarchy protects.

2a. Given this, I believe that a ceremonials president would offer no tangible benefits over the current system

Which really is an opinion and cannot really be objectively tested imo (same for my view as well)

2b. Secondly, I see a strong president to be potentially counter-productive, especially in the early stages of the transition when the exact balance of power is still somewhat up in the air.

Well, there certainly are historical precedents for this. But non I can think of in a modern setting.

But then again, I don't want a strong president.

3. Finally, given that I also believe that without strong reasons to believe that a siginificant change to a political system should only be undertaken if, on the whole, it is likely to produce a real strengthening of commonly held ideals then I do not feel that changing the current system to be wise.

Interesting view, and I accept it may not nessaserily change the political system, but I do believe that it would change the way society looks.

On the commonly held ideals part, there seem to be few, which admittedly will not be strenghthend with a republic.

Oh, and lastly, lastly, lastly, it's nice to get into a proper discussion on this, or any topic, for a change.
Well, you have caught me right in the middle of an essay which I am not too excited about doing ;)

An unknown fact the queen MAKES more money for the government and charities than the "british taxpayer" could ever know.

Care to say why she recieves tax money then if she is capable of being self supporting?

The Royal family actually do tourism a major favour.

I call post hoc.

Prove the existence of a monarchy attracts the tourists rather then thing that are here and would be here if the monarchy was dissolved tommorow.

Actually -- this idiot American who knows full well that you're an island off the coast of Europe, with the nation of Scotland up north of England, Ireland off your coast to the northwest, and Wales to the southwest of England, feels sorry for the Royals. They have no privacy and they seem to have little peace.yay! someone knows where wales is! i was seriously expecting that to end with ireland, so i'm chuffed nowWould it be indelicate to mention that Wales is actually sort of 'nestled' in the side of England, west of most of it, yes, and in a mid-to-south sort of lattitude, but that there's a long bit of England that's more southwest than Wales (namely the Devon and Cornwall peninsular).

Of course, there's a good argument (by the Cornish at least) that Cornwall isn't England, and it's traditionally P-Celtic like Wales and it weren't for the geological accident of the Bristol Channel it might as well have /been/ Wales, or Wales been Cornwall or something... :)

(Reminds me, in passing, of the interesting fact that the most northern part of Ireland (the Island) is in Eire (the Republic), not Northern Ireland (the... erm... Province??? of the UK), but that's just politics... :))


Edit: Forgot the on-topic part. Boiling it down to its pure essence, it's summarised to "Yayyy Monarchy!!! The Queen Rules!!! Long Live The Queen!!! Long Live Prince Charles/King-George-VII-ish-In-Potentia-But-I-Really-Wouldn't-Mind-Too-Much-If-He-Let-William-Take-On-The-Job!!!".

(All the actual sensible arguments have already been made, so forgive me for trivialising my own position. :))