NationStates Jolt Archive

I am not truly knowledgible about this subject, but we were talking about it in Comparative Governments yesterday and it made me think of a question. Is the British monarch really worth keeping around with tax dollars? They really do not do anything but what the Parliament says they can. I would like know your opinion and perhaps I could learn more about this subject from this thread.

Well, I'd start up with saying that the Queen would have to be replaced with some sort of non-royal equivalent, like a President. Which would also cost money, although perhaps not as much.

But a big part of it is probably the tradition behind it, the royal family's symbolic meaning which is quite important to the British still, as I understand it. If you actually asked the British, they probably wouldn't want to "secularise" (ie deromanticise) their government completely. Because, let's face it, how boring would that be?

The monarchy should stay, but with modification. Perhaps the abolishment of some archaic laws that have no bearing on modern day life, and even the introduction of some new ones.

The monarch, above all else, remains a fine ambassador to this great country. To meet the Queen of England is a far greater honour than meeting Ol' Big Nose the PM. Although in matters of state he shold still be in control.

The British Monarchy is one of the oldest in the world that survives to this day. To destroy over one thousand years of history to achive something that would make little difference on our day to day lives would be unthinkable.

for practical purposes, the monarchy is an outdated, bloated, inbred, expensive and inefficient counterbalance of power

a president could do the same job for a lot less and could be democratically elected. unlike the monarchy.

the monarchy also are exceedinly priveliged in that they, personally, have done nothing to earn their power, influence, authority, staus or money. a president would have to earn his/her position.
the monarchy is therefore inherently unfair.

some people will cling to ridiculous notions of tradition, but this tradition is outdated, and its time to move on.

apologies for my spelling in that post... eating lunch atm

The monarchy should stay, but with modification. Perhaps the abolishment of some archaic laws that have no bearing on modern day life, and even the introduction of some new ones.

The monarch, above all else, remains a fine ambassador to this great country. To meet the Queen of England is a far greater honour than meeting Ol' Big Nose the PM. Although in matters of state he shold still be in control.

The British Monarchy is one of the oldest in the world that survives to this day. To destroy over one thousand years of history to achive something that would make little difference on our day to day lives would be unthinkable.


For a start, she is NOT the "Queen of England." She is the Queen of the United Kingdom, which consists of Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales, as well as of the entire Commonwealth.

Secondly, the British monarchy isn't all that old: it dates to 1603, the year in which James VI of Scotland became also James I of the United Kingdom.

Thirdly, Britain is these days supposed to be a democracy. Monarchy is an affront to democracy and an insult to us, the people of Britain. The whole filthy lot of them should be abolished as of this second. Well, they should have been abolished many centuries ago. And there is no need for a president, elected or otherwise, to replace them: we should have instead a constitution which would stand as a proud symbol of our democracy.

And there is no need for a president, elected or otherwise, to replace them: we should have instead a constitution which would stand as a proud symbol of our democracy.
Ahem...and replace it with an elected god-king in office for four years?

The majority of nations AFAIK have a seperation between the head of state and the head of government, for good reason. They have to fulfill different roles.

The monarchy should stay, but with modification. Perhaps the abolishment of some archaic laws that have no bearing on modern day life, and even the introduction of some new ones.
Archaic and outdated laws get repealed in the UK fairly regularly. The monarchy is no impediment to this. There are one or two archaic laws specifically relating to the monarchy which ought to be revised, e.g. the ban on succession by Catholics and those who marry Catholics, and the Royal Marriages Act (which quite possibly wouldn't survive a challenge in the courts anyway).

The big monarchy-related areas which ought to be looked at are the Royal Prerogative, which is actually ministerial prerogative; and the disestablishment of the Church of England, which involves a lot more issues than the Queen's nominal position as Supreme Governor of the CofE.

The monarch, above all else, remains a fine ambassador to this great country. To meet the Queen of England is a far greater honour than meeting Ol' Big Nose the PM. Although in matters of state he shold still be in control.

The British Monarchy is one of the oldest in the world that survives to this day. To destroy over one thousand years of history to achive something that would make little difference on our day to day lives would be unthinkable.
I agree it would be a mistake to abolish it, although it's not unthinkable.

I am not truly knowledgible about this subject, but we were talking about it in Comparative Governments yesterday and it made me think of a question. Is the British monarch really worth keeping around with tax dollars? They really do not do anything but what the Parliament says they can. I would like know your opinion and perhaps I could learn more about this subject from this thread.
Yes, definitely worth keeping around and as you say, it would be even better if the Americans could pay for it with dollars. :p However, as this is most unlikely to occur , perhaps we should just pay for it in Sterling. The reason she should stay is historic and commercial. Look at it this way, how many people travel half way around the world to see where a U.S. president lives? How many travel around the world to see where any other leading politician lives? See, she helps bring people into the country and people equals money. On top of that, she entertains world leaders in a manner that can only be achieved by someone that is surrounded by so much documented history. I happen to live 6 miles from her Windsor residence and to be honest, the area is heaving with tourists even mid winter.
Apart from all that though, she is also kind of cute don’t you think?

For a start, she is NOT the "Queen of England." She is the Queen of the United Kingdom, which consists of Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales, as well as of the entire Commonwealth.
She's not queen of the entire Commonwealth. She's Head of the Commonwealth (a purely symbolic position), but Queen of only 16 of its 53 member states. Most Commonwealth members are republics; a few have their own monarchies.

Secondly, the British monarchy isn't all that old: it dates to 1603, the year in which James VI of Scotland became also James I of the United Kingdom.
James VI & I was king of the two separate monarchies of England and Scotland : one man, two crowns. They didn't become a single monarchy until 1707.

Thirdly, Britain is these days supposed to be a democracy. Monarchy is an affront to democracy and an insult to us, the people of Britain. The whole filthy lot of them should be abolished as of this second. Well, they should have been abolished many centuries ago. And there is no need for a president, elected or otherwise, to replace them: we should have instead a constitution which would stand as a proud symbol of our democracy.
If the monarch exercised political power, it would be an affront to democracy. But she doesn't - democracy is about placing power in the hands of the people, not virtually powerless ceremonial institutions.

Constitutions can't sign acts, award honours, receive diplomats, be parties to treaties etc etc. Every country needs a human head of state, so that even those parliamentary democracies which have no monarchy have a non-executive president doing much the same constitutional job. The difference is that non-executive presidents lack the colour and life-long training and impartiality which a monarch can provide.

a president could do the same job for a lot less and could be democratically elected. unlike the monarchy.
It's vitally important that the Monarchy and House of Lords *aren't* elected. If they were, they'd not be able to fill their role of protecting us from our elected representitives.

If they were elected they'd go through the same silly spin-doctoring, lying and pandering to the lowest-common-denominator that the House of Commons enjoys so much.

The elected people think stuff up; the unelected people tell them where to shove it.

for practical purposes, the monarchy is an outdated, bloated, inbred, expensive and inefficient counterbalance of power
Outdated? It's funny how some of the most modern and successful countries in the world are monarchies, then, e.g. Canada, Australia, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands and Japan.

Bloated and expensive? Not really. The British monarchy costs about £1 per head per year (and the Crown Estates pay over twice that much into the Exchequer).

Inbred? It used to be, but then were most people throughout history, before urban living and personal mobility became the norm. The recent trend has been away from marrying close relatives, though : the Queen Mother was only very distantly related to George VI, as was Diana to Charles; and I'm not sure that there's any known relationship between Prince William and his possible bride, Kate Middleton. If William married Kate or another commoner, his children will have only 3/16ths royal blood.

a president could do the same job for a lot less and could be democratically elected. unlike the monarchy.
Presidents are not that much cheaper, in fact (and executive presidents tend to be more expensive), and don't provide the same continuity or colour.

the monarchy also are exceedinly priveliged in that they, personally, have done nothing to earn their power, influence, authority, staus or money
They didn't have to work their way up to the position, but most of them work pretty hard at it. Lots of people enjoy positions of power and influence without having earned them, e.g. as First Lady, Hilary Clinton enjoyed far more power and influence than her own achievements merited.

a president would have to earn his/her position. the monarchy is therefore inherently unfair.
A president has to get elected, which isn't the same thing as "earning" his/her position. Democracy doesn't necessarily reward merit or effort. Life is unfair, and I'm far less worried about the unfairness of a powerless head of state who wasn't elected than many other far more important unfairnesses, such as a Prime Minister who wields huge majority power on the strength of 36% of the vote at the last election.

some people will cling to ridiculous notions of tradition, but this tradition is outdated, and its time to move on.
Traditions are part of the fabric of social stability. They shouldn't be sacrosanct when they cause problems, but they shouldn't be dismissed too lightly either : it tends to lead to all sorts of problems.

For a start, she is NOT the "Queen of England." She is the Queen of the United Kingdom, which consists of Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales, as well as of the entire Commonwealth.

I'm sure that should read England before scotland, we did win the battle after all :D


Secondly, the British monarchy isn't all that old: it dates to 1603, the year in which James VI of Scotland became also James I of the United Kingdom.

We kicked James out and put the House of Hanover in. Less inbreeding goes on in the House of Hanover than goes on in scotland. :D



Thirdly, Britain is these days supposed to be a democracy. Monarchy is an affront to democracy and an insult to us, the people of Britain. The whole filthy lot of them should be abolished as of this second. Well, they should have been abolished many centuries ago. And there is no need for a president, elected or otherwise, to replace them: we should have instead a constitution which would stand as a proud symbol of our democracy.
Indeed, it is a democracy and the good people of of the country have voted in Blair, the leftist wonder who effectively sleeps with a republican and is thus not to be trusted. Blair in turn has chosen to keep Queenie.
She stays, so there. Oh, I can get disounted tickets into Windsor castle if you're interested. :D

Yes and No but I suppose it keeps army officers in work

It's vitally important that the Monarchy and House of Lords *aren't* elected. If they were, they'd not be able to fill their role of protecting us from our elected representitives.
If we had the sense to elect the right representatives, we wouldn't need protecting from them!

But we do need the right checks and balances. Part of the problem with the monarchy and House of Lords is that they give the illusion of a balance without being much of one. The Queen is powerless unless the government grossly abuses the constitution (which is difficult to judge, since the constitution isn't codified), and the House of Lords can be overridden by the Parliament Act, as well as having its legitimacy as a balance undermined by the fact that it isn't elected.

There is also no guarantee that an arbitrarily-chosen bunch of people will protect us when we want protecting. rather than when they, in their patronising wisdom, or own self-interest, think we should be protected.

If they were elected they'd go through the same silly spin-doctoring, lying and pandering to the lowest-common-denominator that the House of Commons enjoys so much.
That all depends how they're elected, and what qualifications are required for election.

There are a lot of negative points about it; the Queen doesn't really have much power (officially she can reject parliamentary Bills, but this is is extremely unlikely to ever happen; indeed, it has not happened for a couple of centuries, I think) and the upkeep of the family does cost a lot in tax. However, as someone said, it works out about £1 per tax payer per year or something, and with the money that the monarchy generates from tourism, I suppose it balances out.

I'm pretty indifferent personally speaking. I used to be completely against the idea, but my views have mellowed, but not to the extent where I'd be annoyed if it was abolished.

There are a lot of negative points about it; the Queen doesn't really have much power (officially she can reject parliamentary Bills, but this is is extremely unlikely to ever happen; indeed, it has not happened for a couple of centuries, I think)
Almost three centuries : The Scottish Militia Bill in 1707 was the last use of the Royal Veto.

Secondly, the British monarchy isn't all that old: it dates to 1603, the year in which James VI of Scotland became also James I of the United Kingdom.

James VI & I was king of the two separate monarchies of England and Scotland : one man, two crowns. They didn't become a single monarchy until 1707.

And even in 1707 the monarch (Queen Anne) was still only the Queen of Great Britain - it wasn't until and the Act of Union of 1801 that George III became the first monarch of the United Kingdom (of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland). The first monarch of the UK as currently composed (England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) was George V...

And even in 1707 the monarch (Queen Anne) was still only the Queen of Great Britain - it wasn't until and the Act of Union of 1801 that George III became the first king of the United Kingdom.
And only in 1922 that George V became the first king of the country as presently constituted - the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

And only in 1922 that George V became the first king of the country as presently constituted - the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Yup: added that as an edit before you posted (in almost the same words)...

As a sidenote: not only was George V the king of the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, he was also the King of Ireland - the Irish Free State didn't remove the British monarch as head of state until 1937. I guess Edward VIII and George VI also were Kings of Ireland...

I come out firmly on the side of abolishing the monarchy (along with bringing in a fully-elected upper house, disestablishment of the CofE, codifying the constitution)

However, I doubt it will happen in my lifetime. Possibly the Monarch will cease to be the head of the church; and a few of the outdated laws regarding the line of succession and royal marriages will be tidied up; but that's probably all I can hope for.

I accept that in many ways the present Queen has been an exemplary monarch (excepting perhaps one incident of shameless tax-dodging....and a couple of illegitimate children). She has maintained a dignified persona; I hardly think the same could be expected of her idiot offspring who are almost universally loathed in the UK.


It's time to draw a line under it all; we have a great history which is certainly illuminated by people like Henry V, Richard III, Elizabeth I, etc. The future, however, is another matter and only an elected head of state is acceptable for a 21st century democracy.

I accept that in many ways the present Queen has been an exemplary monarch (excepting perhaps one incident of shameless tax-dodging....and a couple of illegitimate children).

Elizabeth II has had a couple of illegitimate children? Do tell.

Bloated and expensive? Not really. The British monarchy costs about £1 per head per year (and the Crown Estates pay over twice that much into the Exchequer).



You can't use this argument; the Crown Estates are the property of the Crown (i.e the office of the head of state), not the personal property of the Royal Family. They were exchanged in return for the Civil List and there is no conceivable possibility of them being returned into the personal ownership of the Windsors upon the abolishment of the Monarchy as an institution.

Elizabeth II has had a couple of illegitimate children? Do tell.


Prince Philip is widely believed to not be the father of either Andrew or Edward. Obviously, this is unproven - my mentioning it was a bit of a dig on my part.

a president could do the same job for a lot less and could be democratically elected. unlike the monarchy.

What value is their in having an elected president if he or she is just a head of state and has no significent powers. The Queen is far better as she is a far more interesting figurehead


the monarchy also are exceedinly priveliged in that they, personally, have done nothing to earn their power, influence, authority, staus or money. a president would have to earn his/her position.
the monarchy is therefore inherently unfair.

You forget though the cost of this. No private life. None whatsoever. Every detail of their lives explored and analysied by the press. And its not just temporary celebraty, but its the nature of who they were born as.


some people will cling to ridiculous notions of tradition, but this tradition is outdated, and its time to move on.

There is nothing really that outdated about it. Everyone still feels its importance as a state representation institution (as in representing Britian to other countries).

You can't use this argument; the Crown Estates are the property of the Crown (i.e the office of the head of state), not the personal property of the Royal Family. They were exchanged in return for the Civil List and there is no conceivable possibility of them being returned into the personal ownership of the Windsors upon the abolishment of the Monarchy as an institution.

Does that change the fact that it costs less than £1 each person in the UK per year?

It's time to draw a line under it all; we have a great history which is certainly illuminated by people like Henry V, Richard III, Elizabeth I, etc. The future, however, is another matter and only an elected head of state is acceptable for a 21st century democracy.

Why? What is so bad about an unelected head of state if it has no significent powers?

Secondly, the British monarchy isn't all that old: it dates to 1603, the year in which James VI of Scotland became also James I of the United Kingdom.

Thats how old the British monarchy is. The English and Scotish monarchies have been around much longer


Thirdly, Britain is these days supposed to be a democracy. Monarchy is an affront to democracy and an insult to us, the people of Britain. The whole filthy lot of them should be abolished as of this second. Well, they should have been abolished many centuries ago. And there is no need for a president, elected or otherwise, to replace them: we should have instead a constitution which would stand as a proud symbol of our democracy.

1. You need a head of state of some kind to perform ceremonial roles, unless you wish to combine the head of state with the head of government

2. We already have a constitution, it is just uncodified. You do not need a codified constitution to be a democracy.

3. What is so bad about an unelected head of state if they have no significent powers?

Yup: added that as an edit before you posted (in almost the same words)...
... but not before I started writing the post, so I didn't know :)

As a sidenote: not only was George V the king of the United Kingdom of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, he was also the King of Ireland - the Irish Free State didn't remove the British monarch as head of state until 1937. I guess Edward VIII and George VI also were Kings of Ireland...
The British monarch remained King of Ireland until 1949. Although his (and the Governor General's) role within Ireland was abolished by the 1936 External Relations Act and 1937 constitution, he was still technically head of state, in who's name treaties were signed, ambassadors were acreditted etc.

In 1927, the British monarch's title was changed to "by the Grace of God of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King ...", thus still including the whole of Ireland without implying that it was all part of the UK. This was still the official style when the Queen came to the throne, and wasn't changed until 1953.

Prince Philip is widely believed to not be the father of either Andrew or Edward. Obviously, this is unproven - my mentioning it was a bit of a dig on my part.
It's almost certainly untrue, and even if it was, since Prince Philip has not denied paternity, they remain legitimate under British law.

Does that change the fact that it costs less than £1 each person in the UK per year?


It doesn't change that fact that's its utterly shameful for every man, woman and child in the country to be expected to collectively pay for the opulent lifestyles of an ill-qualifed, random collection of half-wits, no.

Royalists always bring up these seriously flawed and ridiculous 'financial arguments' because even they know that the essential premise of the Monarchy is grossly unfair.

The cost-per-person is irrelevent; the priniciple is what's important.

It's almost certainly untrue, and even if it was, since Prince Philip has not denied paternity, they remain legitimate under British law.

...as if dropping a couple of illegitimate sprogs here and there would be a startingly transition from traditional British royal practice anyhow...

It's almost certainly untrue, and even if it was, since Prince Philip has not denied paternity, they remain legitimate under British law.

I doubt you are a position to make that sort of dismissal.

And as if he would deny paternity? That would mean endangering the very institution which provides him with his undeserved 'post'.

pah! democracy is over rated

1. You need a head of state of some kind to perform ceremonial roles, unless you wish to combine the head of state with the head of government

2. We already have a constitution, it is just uncodified. You do not need a codified constitution to be a democracy.

3. What is so bad about an unelected head of state if they have no significent powers?


1. An elected ceremonial presidential post can fulfil this role.

2. Uncodifed constitutions are flexible but they are easy to abuse. Our rights as citizens, sorry, subjects are not protected from future bad governments.

3. The Monarch does have significant powers. It's not acceptable to argue that this is ok because she 'never uses them anyway'

...as if dropping a couple of illegitimate sprogs here and there would be a startingly transition from traditional British royal practice anyhow...


Quite. They and their offspring should be struck from the line of succession however. Unless they would be willing to sit for DNA testing.....

The government wants to wean people off unemployment and incapacity benefit. I know exactly where they should start.

Britain needs an entire constitutional overhaul, starting with the abolition of the house of lords and the Monarchy. Why?


Royal Perogative. The queen does have a great deal of power - which she uses on the 'advice' of the prime minister. Example: Blair's biometric passports and the war on iraq (whether you agree with either or not) need no support in Parliament. The PM just has to 'ask' the queen and it happens - no questions.
It's also completely wrong for the Monarch to fufil the role of head of state. Modern Britain is a modern, cosmopolitan and forward thinking nation, no matter what the government does. The Queen represents none of this. She represents a backwards, forgotten era, when wealth and name, not votes, ruled a country. Our history extends forther than just the monarchy. Our art, culture and past have in most areas developed independantly of the monarchy.
It's unrepresentative of all the UK. The Monarchy is an undoubtedly English institution. However, Britain is a union of four different countries. It's wrong-not to mention absurd-that a scot, welshman or irishman cannot become the head of their nation. Yes, Scotland did end the Protectorate (for those that know their history), but that was already a pseudo-monarchy anyway. Furthermore, why should evenyone in the UK, regardless of religion, live in a Church of England state?
Britain could be far better off as a republic. An elected President with a purely cerimonial + reserve powers role would not need the expense of a Monarch. Some presidents abuse their power and cost far more than the monarchy. Surely we can impose constututional limits on presidential salary and expenses. Even better, we could pass the powers of the perogative to Parliament and have the Prime Minister as President, cutting the expense entirely.
Why should my taxes pay for prince Andrew to play Golf, Charles to get married and Harry to dress as a Nazi. I, after I go to uni, will have to earn my way through life, not have the taxpayer do it for me. If it's *only* £1 a month, you can give me £1 a month too. Or starving childeren in Africa £1 a month. Get my drift?
Better for them too. I'd hate to be like a caged monkey on exehebition. Buckingham palace must be like a jail, albeit one made of glass for the media to snoop through. If people want that kind of attention, run for public office (Includes the Lib Dems!) or become a footballers' wife. It's unfair to expect someone to have no choice in it - just as it's unfair on us too.
Inbred toffs in the house of Lords. 'nuff said. Elect HOC by STV, then we won't need an expensive second chamber.


So why not have a federal system based on the South African model with a president as the leader of the largest party/coalition in the HOC and a governor as leader of the largest party/coalition in English, scottish etc assembly. Have the right to recall MPs (as in British Columbia) and direct democracy (as in Switzerland) too keep them in with public opinion.

And make sure the Queen is Throne Out! (Bah-doom tish)

Almost three centuries : The Scottish Militia Bill in 1707 was the last use of the Royal Veto.

Wrong. Last used in 1999 to veto the "Military Action Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill". It was introduced in parliament and could have embarrased Blair by having it pass, or defeat on a slender majority. So Bliar runs off to Lizzie and gets her to veto it. Being a private member's bill, noone noticed.

And make sure the Queen is Throne Out! (Bah-doom tish)

And yet still no one is addressing the burning issue: should we hang them or shoot them?

And yet still no one is addressing the burning issue: should we hang them or shoot them?

Neither. All too quick.

So why not have a federal system based on the South African modelPerhaps because in controlling crime - one of the key issues of any government - that model has failed (especially with reference to violent crime) (http://www.nationmaster.com/red/country/sf/Crime&b_cite=1).

Perhaps because in controlling crime - one of the key issues of any government - that model has failed (especially with reference to violent crime) (http://www.nationmaster.com/red/country/sf/Crime&b_cite=1).

Good lord! Listen, pal. I've had chavs in souped-up Escorts try and run me over on my bike. People get shot. And happy slapped to death by 14 year olds. All in a country with a monarchy.

Grow up. There's no correlation with monarchies and crime rates - or government policy.

Republicans (small r, I'm talking about the British breed) delight in claiming that holding onto the monarchy is somehow regressive, that it impacts on the development of our nation into a modern forward thinking democracy. But, ye gods, don't we want our country to be something more than a homogenised America-lite? Part of the reason our country is so cosmopolitan and varied is that our culture can survive a couple of immigrants - us natives have something to bind onto, to hold us together and define ourselves so we can be more understanding towards others.

And from where on God's Green Islands comes this sense of degredation about being ruled by a Queen? She's my queen, in a possessive sense, someone that belongs to me as much as the castles she lives in and the money I pay her to maintain tradition. My parents are members of the National Trust because they don't want to see grand old houses or gorgeous views destroyed in the name of unthinking, bland 'modernity'. For the same reason, I'm a monarchist because I don't want to be part of the new vanilla hegemony. Plus they are too much fun to get rid of; George Bush's daughters versus Prince Phillip? Prince Phillip, people! Perhaps the best icon of Britain, as he's not only a drily garrulous and hilariously rude British aristocrat but he's an immigrant from Greece! How much more cosmopolitan can you get, hmm?

Good lord! Listen, pal. I've had chavs in souped-up Escorts try and run me over on my bike. People get shot. And happy slapped to death by 14 year olds. All in a country with a monarchy.

Grow up. There's no correlation with monarchies and crime rates - or government policy.
Depends which part of the UK you live in.

NI, for one, has the lowest victim crime rates in the world (according to the UN)

Depends which part of the UK you live in.

NI, for one, has the lowest victim crime rates in the world (according to the UN)

Yeah, but any relation between the crime rate in NI and the existence of the monarchy is complex (to say the least).


Did I run into you on Urban Dead the other day?

We should keep the monarchy but get rid of the hangers on. So...Queenie/King and Heir plus his Sons/daughters should stay. Thats it, we don't need all the other people, they are not going to get into power, there is no need for them.

So, In Britain in my revised Monarchy it would be Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Phillip, Prince Charles (Heir) and his two Sons, Prince William (rightful Heir) and Prince Harry. Thats the Royal Family, alot more streamlined and although the costs would probs be the same (they might decline slightly) the Royals would be much easier to manage.

We need to keep the Monarchy because they are integral to Britain/England, they have been round for over a thousand years (Ever hear of King Herald in 1066?), they are central to British society and Britishness...its what tourists come to see, Good Ol' Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle. The Monarchy through tourism must bring in as much money as is spent on them. I am all for keeping the monarchy just slightly restructured! Plus there is always the novelty of having one of the oldest monarchies in the world.

The Queen has a lot of power, she can reclaim land from anyone as she pleases as the UK belongs to her, she can claim any house, she can send her soldier to war (she has her own private army, seperate from the British Army, but the soldiers are supplied from it, basically the elite!) without government consent, and a whole other load of powers, type it into Google that will tell you. Of course, she does not use them, as she has no need to.

Keep the Monarchy; but restructure it.

Graham Harvey

Yeah, but any relation between the crime rate in NI and the existence of the monarchy is complex (to say the least).
I would be surprised if anybody was able to find any kind of relation, to be honest, it was just a side point really.


Did I run into you on Urban Dead the other day?
Doubt it, I've never heard of it :p

Ever hear of King Herald in 1066?
No.

Edward, Harold, Edgar to be picky, William; yes....but not King Herald in 1066.

Doubt it, I've never heard of it :p

Okay. An online zombie game. Here's some stuff about the Nadkor on there:

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User:Nadkor

Okay. An online zombie game. Here's some stuff about the Nadkor on there:

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User:Nadkor
Ah ok, cool. There was me thinking I'd just mashed two random syllables together :)

No.

Edward, Harold, Edgar to be picky, William; yes....but not King Herald in 1066.I'm not sure whether you can count Edgar Ætheling as a king -- he was proclaimed as such, but did he accept it? He acknowledged William as the king as son as he was able to, I think.

No.

Edward, Harold, Edgar to be picky, William; yes....but not King Herald in 1066.

Feck, i thought it sounded wrong!

Thanks Mate :D

Republicans (small r, I'm talking about the British breed) delight in claiming that holding onto the monarchy is somehow regressive, that it impacts on the development of our nation into a modern forward thinking democracy. But, ye gods, don't we want our country to be something more than a homogenised America-lite? Part of the reason our country is so cosmopolitan and varied is that our culture can survive a couple of immigrants - us natives have something to bind onto, to hold us together and define ourselves so we can be more understanding towards others.

And from where on God's Green Islands comes this sense of degredation about being ruled by a Queen? She's my queen, in a possessive sense, someone that belongs to me as much as the castles she lives in and the money I pay her to maintain tradition. My parents are members of the National Trust because they don't want to see grand old houses or gorgeous views destroyed in the name of unthinking, bland 'modernity'. For the same reason, I'm a monarchist because I don't want to be part of the new vanilla hegemony. Plus they are too much fun to get rid of; George Bush's daughters versus Prince Phillip? Prince Phillip, people! Perhaps the best icon of Britain, as he's not only a drily garrulous and hilariously rude British aristocrat but he's an immigrant from Greece! How much more cosmopolitan can you get, hmm?

You may want to pay for the monarchy. I don't. For a bit of fun, it's bloody expensive.

Believe it or not, I like grand old houses and castles. That's why I want to kick the toffs out and let me in - and not just in the bits i'm allowed. Then it really will be ours. Think of all the art and architecture locked away!

There's no way we could become america-lite. Canada is similar, i.e. with different languages and cultures in one nation, and shares the worl's longest undefended border. But Québec still speaks french, and canada retains it's own identity. (And for the smart-arses, the functions of the Monarch in Canada are performed by a canadian. so there!)

In any case, we're becoming partially americanised anyway. Most people at 6th form don't ever talk about films, and some think hooker and gas (as in petrol) are perfect British English. And where have the ae ligatures gone? Queenie ain't stopped that!

Ætheling

w00t, w00t! ae ligature alert!

Isn't that just creepy?

I'm not sure whether you can count Edgar Ætheling as a king -- he was proclaimed as such, but did he accept it? He acknowledged William as the king as son as he was able to, I think.
He accepted it and tried to make it so several times.

He made a couple of attempts at gaining the throne...probably most notably in 1069 with the support of King Malcolm III of the Scots and Sweyn the King of Denmark. They even managed to take York.

w00t, w00t! ae ligature alert!

Isn't that just creepy?
:D Yeah, indeed...

He accepted it and tried to make it so several times.

He made a couple of attempts at gaining the throne...probably most notably in 1069 with the support of King Malcolm III of the Scots and Sweyn the King of Denmark. They even managed to take York.
Ah, thank you... I've never paid too much attention for post-Hastings events of the reign of William the Conqueror.

Nevertheless, one usually doesn't count Stuart pretenders as kings, although it can be argued that the Old Pretender reigned over Scotland in 1715 and 1745. I'd exclude Edgar from the list of the English monarchs as well.

Ah, thank you... I've never paid too much attention for post-Hastings events of the reign of William the Conqueror.

Nevertheless, one usually doesn't count Stuart pretenders as kings, although it can be argued that the Old Pretender reigned over Scotland in 1715 and 1745. I'd exclude Edgar from the list of the English monarchs as well.
Ah, but he was acclaimed by the Witan, which made him King elect...crowned or not.

When it came to the pretenders, there was no such thing as the Witan, and acclamation wasn't a way of choosing the King, so it's a different deal.

However, as someone said, it works out about £1 per tax payer per year or something, and with the money that the monarchy generates from tourism, I suppose it balances out.
.

It more than balances it out - it actually creates an income.

To be honest, I'm dead set against a reform of the Monarchy. And, in my opinion, anyone who is is a traitor to this country. If you would have said that fifty years ago you would have been labelled a Communist. It's a disgrace to say that we should abandon our Monarchy in favour of a French and American ideal. We are not democracy-liberal-hippies. We are British, god-damnit, this is our heritage our history and our future and it always will be as long as this country remains on this Earth.

Ah, but he was acclaimed by the Witan, which made him King elect...crowned or not.

Not in William's opinion, I'd say. ;)

When it came to the pretenders, there was no such thing as the Witan, and acclamation wasn't a way of choosing the King, so it's a different deal.
Yes, I agree... Now I come to think of it, both Empress Maud and Stephen of Blois are sometimes counted among the rulers of England, although neither of them recognized the other as the ruler.

It more than balances it out - it actually creates an income.

To be honest, I'm dead set against a reform of the Monarchy. And, in my opinion, anyone who is is a traitor to this country. If you would have said that fifty years ago you would have been labelled a Communist. It's a disgrace to say that we should abandon our Monarchy in favour of a French and American ideal. We are not democracy-liberal-hippies. We are British, god-damnit, this is our heritage our history and our future and it always will be as long as this country remains on this Earth.

Why would a republic be a french or american ideal? Britain was ruled over as a republic as the Commonwealth of Great Britain and Ireland. Under Cromwell and Richard it was a pseudo-monarchy, but before and after their reign Britain was a republic.

THerefore Britain was a republic before America even existed as a nation and 144 years before the French Revolution!

In any case, if being anti monarchy is to be a traitor, then I am a traitor, and proud to be a traitor. What's more, i'm a commie traitor too! So lock me up in the tower of London!

We don't need the monarchy to pack in the punters. We can still troop the colour, change the guard and whatnot. We can still keep beefeaters and ravens in the tower. Even better, if we open the works of art in the palaces and castles - and the palaces in the castles themselves - surely more, not less, people will come to visit.

The Palace of Versailles in the French Republic makes for more money than Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace, despite France being a republic since 1871. Why? Because all the arts and treasures are open for display. And i'm sure we can come up with better palace than the french any day.

Even if it were "uneconomical", it'd be pretty sad to throw away my "democracy-liberal-hippy" ideas based on just money. Getting rid of parliament and having a dictatorship would be cheaper still - but we still cling on to those expensive MPs.

Not in William's opinion, I'd say. ;)


Yes, I agree... Now I come to think of it, both Empress Maud and Stephen of Blois are sometimes counted among the rulers of England, although neither of them recognized the other as the ruler.
Well, I would say Stephen was the King, because he was crowned. Matilda never managed to get crowned, she got chased out of London (by another Matilda, Stephen's wife) before she could be.

Well, I would say Stephen was the King, because he was crowned. Matilda never managed to get crowned, she got chased out of London (by another Matilda, Stephen's wife) before she could be.
Well, on the other hand Maud held Stephen captive for some time; what makes everything complicated is the fact that Maud never proclaimed himself queen, ruling as IIRC 'Lady of the English'.

Do we really want to end up as a smaller, crapper version of the USA?

It's bad enough that we have to create a "Supreme Court of the United Kingdom" when the House of Lords was doing a perfectly adequate job, what'll it be next? A written constitution?

Well, on the other hand Maud held Stephen captive for some time; what makes everything complicated is the fact that Maud never proclaimed himself queen, ruling as IIRC 'Lady of the English'.
And Stephen held Matilda captive for a time right at the beginning of the whole thing ;)

Matilda never got crowned, Stephen did...so I would say that he was the King.

And I think Matilda didn't proclaim herself Queen because the whole thing sort of was on behalf of her son, the future Henry II

Do we really want to end up as a smaller, crapper version of the USA?

How about a bigger, funkier version of Eire?

And Stephen held Matilda captive for a time right at the beginning of the whole thing ;)

Matilda never got crowned, Stephen did...so I would say that he was the King.
Yes, it was turbulent time for the English monarchy... And Matilda definitely wasn't the King of England. :D

And I think Matilda didn't proclaim herself Queen because the whole thing sort of was on behalf of her son, the future Henry II
I agree; BTW, she was an empress already, after all! :)

It's bad enough that we have to create a "Supreme Court of the United Kingdom" when the House of Lords was doing a perfectly adequate job, what'll it be next? A written constitution?

If it's my lucky day, then yes.

But I actually agree: the Constitutional Reform Act makes little actual difference. Without wider constitutional reform it's merely gesture politics.

How about a bigger, funkier version of Eire?

Revive the Protectorate!

Revive the Protectorate!

Touchy subject this side of the Irish Sea.

George Bush's daughters versus Prince Phillip? Prince Phillip, people! Perhaps the best icon of Britain, as he's not only a drily garrulous and hilariously rude British aristocrat but he's an immigrant from Greece! How much more cosmopolitan can you get, hmm?


You say 'hilariously rude', I say 'shamefully racist'. The only good thing about Prince Philip is that he'll be dead before long.

The Bush twins, however, are fit. Hot diggity!

Grow up. There's no correlation with monarchies and crime rates - or government policy.Well, I've spent the last four years studying the causes of crime, pal, and can tell you that government policy can affect crime rates (it doesn't always, but it can), with the apparently fantastic governmental model you advocated being a case in point. See Artz, L., & Smythe, D. (2005). South African legislation supporting victims rights in In L. Davis and R. Snyman (Eds) South African Handbook of Victimology. Van Schaik Publishers, for example.

How about a bigger, funkier version of Eire?

Britain? Funky? We enjoy talking about the weather :rolleyes:

It more than balances it out - it actually creates an income.

To be honest, I'm dead set against a reform of the Monarchy. And, in my opinion, anyone who is is a traitor to this country. If you would have said that fifty years ago you would have been labelled a Communist. It's a disgrace to say that we should abandon our Monarchy in favour of a French and American ideal. We are not democracy-liberal-hippies. We are British, god-damnit, this is our heritage our history and our future and it always will be as long as this country remains on this Earth.


The monarchy has no positive impact on tourism; that's just another myth propogated by royal apologists. If anything, tourism revenues would increase if the living institution of the monarchy was abolished as access to the Royal Palaces could be massively expanded.

There are plenty of alternatives to the 'executive president' model. India for example, which also has a fully elected dual-chamber parliament.

It doesn't change that fact that's its utterly shameful for every man, woman and child in the country to be expected to collectively pay for the opulent lifestyles of an ill-qualifed, random collection of half-wits, no.

Royalists always bring up these seriously flawed and ridiculous 'financial arguments' because even they know that the essential premise of the Monarchy is grossly unfair.

The cost-per-person is irrelevent; the priniciple is what's important.

I disagree. You see though they have a privilaged postition, they loose all private life for the entire of their life. Being royal is no temporary fad thing. Its permenant

Touchy subject this side of the Irish Sea.

Cromwell was no British hero in that respect. Do you think that reusing the title (which I would oppose) would cause offense? Many people in Britain don't know anything about British history - especially the crimes committed in the past. In 17 years of education, I have been tought precious little about British history at all.

The monarchy has no positive impact on tourism; that's just another myth propogated by royal apologists. ...
Erm... the British monarchy has positive impact upon one particular tourist -- me. :) Buck House is no Versailles, it is not interesting at all without the reigning Queen.

Well, I've spent the last four years studying the causes of crime, pal, and can tell you that government policy can affect crime rates (it doesn't always, but it can), with the apparently fantastic governmental model you advocated being a case in point. See Artz, L., & Smythe, D. (2005). South African legislation supporting victims rights in In L. Davis and R. Snyman (Eds) South African Handbook of Victimology. Van Schaik Publishers, for example.

You miss my point-I was possibly, in hindsight, a tad unclear. Government policy does effect crime rates, but the form of government (Republic, Monarchy, Separation of powers or none, etc) doesn't. The legislation brought forward by that government (which does effect crime) is a totally separate matter.

Erm... the British monarchy has positive impact upon one particular tourist -- me. :) Buck House is no Versailles, it is not interesting at all without the reigning Queen.

Exactly why it's unfair on the royals themselves. They don't diserve to be a human zoo.

Exactly why it's unfair on the royals themselves. They don't diserve to be a human zoo.

But they spend their entire lifes being prepared for their roles... And if they really don't want to do it, they can abdicate their position.

Their devotion to the job contrasts very well with elected politicians!

I disagree. You see though they have a privilaged postition, they loose all private life for the entire of their life. Being royal is no temporary fad thing. Its permenant

Any Royal can walk away from their position; even the heir to the throne has the option to abdicate. A minor royal could easily escape any sort of intrusion provided they abandoned their title and 'duties'.

I do sympathise with a prinicipal member of the royal family who has no choice over whether they wish to become famous or not (unlike, say, a big brother contestant); all the more reason to abandon the institution.

Don't pretend to yourself that the Royals reluctantly accept their position in society

Exactly why it's unfair on the royals themselves. They don't diserve to be a human zoo.
I don't think that the Queen shows herself to the visitors in the Palace rolling on the floor of the cage together with Philip, so your comparison is a bit off the mark; as a matter of fact, the tourists don't see her in the Palace at all.

for practical purposes, the monarchy is an outdated, bloated, inbred, expensive and inefficient counterbalance of power

a president could do the same job for a lot less and could be democratically elected. unlike the monarchy.

the monarchy also are exceedinly priveliged in that they, personally, have done nothing to earn their power, influence, authority, staus or money. a president would have to earn his/her position.
the monarchy is therefore inherently unfair.

some people will cling to ridiculous notions of tradition, but this tradition is outdated, and its time to move on.

apologies for my spelling in that post... eating lunch atm

Oh deep joy, unmitigated ecstacy! The very notion of Tony Blair or Gordon Brown as our head of state is repulsive, and for the very reason that a constitutional monarch akin to ours is untarnished by the clandestine treachery and lack of benevolence most politicians accrue is reason enough to maintain a monarchy as a representative body. Furthermore, the history and tradition it's abolition would necessitate losing, irrevocably, would mark a watershed in the devolution of Britain from its colonial, imperialistic glory, to the client state, dominated from Washington, and riven by social upheavel.

But they spend their entire lifes being prepared for their roles... And if they really don't want to do it, they can abdicate their position.

Their devotion to the job contrasts very well with elected politicians!

But politicians have decided that they will stand for office, and have decided to have their lives made public. Many don't realise it, and think that they will be able to keep a private life, but most are prepared to do so.

Abdication probably isn't just as easy as it sounds. Prince Charles regulary gripes about the media (once while the TV cameras were switched on) but doesn't Abdicate, despite obviously hating how his life is exposed.

That's because even if he does abdicate he is still Prince Charles. He couldn't live a normal life. He was born into that position which he cannot escape from - even if he abdicated he would still have the same face and voice we all know. He could never walk down the street without being hounded to death.

Politicians make a choice about their public life, but the Monarchy can't. Even if they Abdicate, it makes little difference.

I don't think that the Queen shows herself to the visitors in the Palace rolling on the floor of the cage together with Philip, so your comparison is a bit off the mark; as a matter of fact, the tourists don't see her in the Palace at all.


I don't think it was meant to be taken literally; the royal family are zoo animals of a sort. The only thing is that we just have to buy a newspaper rather than an entrance ticket.

It demeans us all; them included.

Oh deep joy, unmitigated ecstacy! The very notion of Tony Blair or Gordon Brown as our head of state is repulsive, and for the very reason that a constitutional monarch akin to ours is untarnished by the clandestine treachery and lack of benevolence most politicians accrue is reason enough to maintain a monarchy as a representative body. Furthermore, the history and tradition it's abolition would necessitate losing, irrevocably, would mark a watershed in the devolution of Britain from its colonial, imperialistic glory, to the client state, dominated from Washington, and riven by social upheavel.


I wondered when you would turn up and say something ridiculous along the 'President Blair' line of thinking.

I wondered when you would turn up and say something ridiculous along the 'President Blair' line of thinking.

Sod off.:mad:

Can you honestly claim you would rather have any politician as a "figurehead", not political leader, than the queen?

I don't think it was meant to be taken literally; the royal family are zoo animals of a sort. The only thing is that we just have to buy a newspaper rather than an entrance ticket.

It demeans us all; them included.
Mm... newspapers make zoo animals out of each and every celebrity they can get. I visited England twice in 2005 -- The Sun is something :eek: , and I've read a lot of Russian tabloids.

Oh deep joy, unmitigated ecstacy! The very notion of Tony Blair or Gordon Brown as our head of state is repulsive, and for the very reason that a constitutional monarch akin to ours is untarnished by the clandestine treachery and lack of benevolence most politicians accrue is reason enough to maintain a monarchy as a representative body. Furthermore, the history and tradition it's abolition would necessitate losing, irrevocably, would mark a watershed in the devolution of Britain from its colonial, imperialistic glory, to the client state, dominated from Washington, and riven by social upheavel.

Has the monarchy and it's traditions therefore protected us from Washington and 'social upheaval'? I think not!

I don't understand why we even need a head of state at all. How can one man/woman represent 60 million - especially when Britain is so ethnically and culturally diverse? All a head of state does in parliamentary democracies is recieve other heads of state. Monarchs don't even do that. Therefore the Job of Head of State is completely meaningless!

Perhaps it would be better of we stopped constantly living in the past and for once thought about the present - or even the future. Clinging onto a colonial past when we are no longer a superpower is, to me, completely pointless.

Has the monarchy and it's traditions therefore protected us from Washington and 'social upheaval'? I think not!

I don't understand why we even need a head of state at all. How can one man/woman represent 60 million - especially when Britain is so ethnically and culturally diverse? All a head of state does in parliamentary democracies is recieve other heads of state. Monarchs don't even do that. Therefore the Job of Head of State is completely in the past and for once thought about the present - or even the future. Clinging onto a colonial past when we are no longer a superpower is, to me, completelmeaningless!

Perhaps it would be better of we stopped constantly living y pointless.

It's history, and frankly, it affords us a national identity of sorts. Remove the monarchy and frankly, Britian is no longer Britain, it is, well, nothing culturally, with no significance.

Sod off.:mad:

Can you honestly claim you would rather have any politician as a "figurehead", not political leader, than the queen?

No, having no figurehead at all would be far better than both. At least a 'politician' has a democratic mandate.

In any case, non executive figureheads do exist, look at Ireland. In fact, the President of Ireland is so constitutionally restricted that people (apparently) campaign to abolish the post altogether.

Mm... newspapers make zoo animals out of each and every celebrity they can get. I visited England twice in 2005 -- The Sun is something :eek: , and I've read a lot of Russian tabloids.

Quite right - but again, almost all of these celebrities choose to be in the public eye. The monarchs don't.

Sod off.:mad:

Can you honestly claim you would rather have any politician as a "figurehead", not political leader, than the queen?


Why not try another argument? The President Blair/Bush/Chirac argument doesn't really amount to much other than to illustrate how little you have thought about the issue.


Why does an elected head of state have to be a politician or indeed linked to any political party? Why do you believe that the same sort of people who pursue real executive power in the grubby world of modern politics would also be interested in a ceremonial post with a few limited reserve powers?

It could even be a requirement for the president to remain 'above politics'; something the present royal heir apparent has failed miserably at achieving.

I think the monarchy makes for a perfect head of state. They're in essence trained from birth to be the consummate ambassadors for the countries they represent. Their life of privilege limits the potential for corrupt practices, whilst the fact that they have no choice in this life means that you don't get people trying to get elected as head of state simply for the benefits of the lifestyle. Furthermore the Royal family has a disproportionately large presence on the world stage due to its fame and reputation. This means that any issue they back will get alot more press than if we had a generic head of state trying the same thing.
The best bit about having a royal family is that if they do do anything stupid then you can fall back on the standard excuses that they're mostly German anyway and are all inbred and so on. If we had a head of state elected as being the best that Britain can offer then you have no such deniability.

It's history, and frankly, it affords us a national identity of sorts. Remove the monarchy and frankly, Britian is no longer Britain, it is, well, nothing culturally, with no significance.

Ooh, I made a mess of that last sentence!

It doesn't offer me a national identity. I was born in Scotland (With 1/2 English parents, mind), yet my head of state is constitutionally bound to be an Englishman/woman. It might offer England a national identity, but not the other nations of the UK. I believe strongly in the preservation of the union, but not under an English monarch. That, I cannot identify with. And since I was Born in Scotland to 1/2 English and 1/2 Scottish parents and now live in England, i'm more "British" than most!

No, having no figurehead at all would be far better than both. At least a 'politician' has a democratic mandate.

In any case, non executive figureheads do exist, look at Ireland. In fact, the President of Ireland is so constitutionally restricted that people (apparently) campaign to abolish the post altogether.


An inherently personal choice, since the abolition of a monarch lays a dangerous precedent for the removal of all royal posts and aristocratic positions, and more critically, royal headed institutions notably the Church of England, since the dissolution of its head would require its dissolution, or a fundamental alteration in its role.

...

Quite right - but again, almost all of these celebrities choose to be in the public eye. The monarchs don't.
Almost, but not all of them. The Hilton sisters are something in between, but Athina Roussel is famous only for being a daughter of Christina Onassis and a granddaughter of Aristotle. The princes of the UK are not unlike the category of 'rich heirs'.

The best bit about having a royal family is that if they do do anything stupid then you can fall back on the standard excuses that they're mostly German anyway and are all inbred and so on. If we had a head of state elected as being the best that Britain can offer then you have no such deniability.

With an elected politician we can fall back on them being a stereotypical liar, cheat and scum!

Almost, but not all of them. The Hilton sisters are something in between, but Athina Roussel is famous only for being a daughter of Christina Onassis and a granddaughter of Aristotle. The princes of the UK are not unlike the category of 'rich heirs'.

That's why I said almost all. There will always be people dragged in by the media. It's very unfortunate. But, in my opinion at least, does not make it right, or acceptable.

Why not try another argument? The President Blair/Bush/Chirac argument doesn't really amount to much other than to illustrate how little you have thought about the issue.


Why does an elected head of state have to be a politician or indeed linked to any political party? Why do you believe that the same sort of people who pursue real executive power in the grubby world of modern politics would also be interested in a ceremonial post with a few limited reserve powers?

It could even be a requirement for the president to remain 'above politics'; something the present royal heir apparent has failed miserably at achieving.

What then would you propose as a head of state, one everyone elects and agrees upon, such as....

As for the politicians, I can assure you most politicians seek not only "real" power, but esteem and elevation, an elevation that the role of head of state would facilitate.

Incidentally, why on earth should a monarch or their kin not involve themselves publically in political affairs, the remainder of Britain has the capacity to do so?

An inherently personal choice, since the abolition of a monarch lays a dangerous precedent for the removal of all royal posts and aristocratic positions, and more critically, royal headed institutions notably the Church of England, since the dissolution of its head would require its dissolution, or a fundamental alteration in its role.

And I look forward to it. The less lords and ladies there are the better - and a secular state would be even better.

That's why I said almost all. There will always be people dragged in by the media. It's very unfortunate. But, in my opinion at least, does not make it right, or acceptable.
This world is imperfect, and this imperfection is IMO among the minor ones.

This world is imperfect, and this imperfection is IMO among the minor ones.

But when it comes to a head of state it becomes much more important. The world is imperfect, but if it's possible to make it slightly better, it's still worth doing.

What then would you propose as a head of state, one everyone elects and agrees upon, such as....

As for the politicians, I can assure you most politicians seek not only "real" power, but esteem and elevation, an elevation that the role of head of state would facilitate.

Incidentally, why on earth should a monarch or their kin not involve themselves publically in political affairs, the remainder of Britain has the capacity to do so?

Which is why I believe a British Republic should not have a head of state at all. It's just one more unnecessary position.

The Royal Family cannot be political becaus eof their position and power that they posess - such as the granting of royal assent, which is needed for some, but not all, bills and their theorectical influence over the Government.

If they become political they become politicians - which you wanted to avoid as a head of state, no?

And I look forward to it. The less lords and ladies there are the better - and a secular state would be even better.

Lucky you:rolleyes: . why not elect a prime minister from an ethnic minority, or hell, demolish all our heritige buildings and historical sites?

We cannot deny our own history.

But when it comes to a head of state it becomes much more important. The world is imperfect, but if it's possible to make it slightly better, it's still worth doing.
I'm not sure that kicking Liz and Athina out of their palaces is going to make the world better.

Maybe it's a Russian thing... we tried something like that in 1917, and it didn't work.

I'm not sure that kicking Liz and Athina out of their palaces is going to make the world better.

For them in the long run, it could.

Maybe it's a Russian thing... we tried something like that in 1917, and it didn't work.

Different issue entirely. To make my world a better place, I eat. For me, that works. Honestly, I thought I could be too cynical at times...

Which is why I believe a British Republic should not have a head of state at all. It's just one more unnecessary position.

The Royal Family cannot be political becaus eof their position and power that they posess - such as the granting of royal assent, which is needed for some, but not all, bills and their theorectical influence over the Government.

If they become political they become politicians - which you wanted to avoid as a head of state, no?

Untenable, people require a figurehead.

As for the political aspects, whilst one must contend that they ought to be apolitical, often the intervention of a monrach is to the benefit of the stae, as int he case of the liberal reforms, when Tory opposition was undeomcratically quashed by Royal intervention, to legislate the bills.

For them in the long run, it could.
Maybe... maybe not. Elizabeth, I think, has got into the way of reigning long ago.


Different issue entirely. To make my world a better place, I eat. For me, that works. Honestly, I thought I could be too cynical at times...
If you eat to make your world a better place -- then bon appetit.

Lucky you:rolleyes: . why not elect a prime minister from an ethnic minority, or hell, demolish all our heritige buildings and historical sites?

We cannot deny our own history.

Having a history doesn't mean we have to relive it. Declaring a republic won't need hysterics like "elect a prime minister from an ethnic minority, or hell, demolish all our heritige buildings and historical sites?" -That's just the Daily Mail world.

Because that's what history is be definition - the past. Not the present, nor the future. Celebrating the past does not need to intrude on the present - which the monarchy does. A castle here and there doesn't.

Perhaps when we kick out the monarchs out of the castles and palaces we might be able to appreciate them ourselves.

Having a history doesn't mean we have to relive it. Declaring a republic won't need hysterics like "elect a prime minister from an ethnic minority, or hell, demolish all our heritige buildings and historical sites?" -That's just the Daily Mail world.

Because that's what history is be definition - the past. Not the present, nor the future. Celebrating the past does not need to intrude on the present - which the monarchy does. A castle here and there doesn't.

Perhaps when we kick out the monarchs out of the castles and palaces we might be able to appreciate them ourselves.

A repulic would constitute the end of the Britain that is known, and for the most part, respected.

Incidentally, in relation to the royal palacs, most are upon public view and access for the periods wherein the monarch is not in residence, considerable as it happens.

Every nation needs a head of state. If Eire abolished the Presidency, the Taoseaich would become de facto head of state as well as head of government. Likewise, if we kicked out the Queen, the P.M. would be de facto head of state.

As has already been stated, bad enough having that prancing buffoon Blair as head of government, don't make me put up with him as head of state as well.

An elected presidency would likely overtop the monarchy on costs, while losing out on respect for the position. If your position is ceremonial then respect and authority is all you have, not power. Besides, the turnout would be significantly lower than the proportion who support the monarchy, let alone the vote for one candidate. You reckon more than about 30% would vote for a ceremonial position?

If you disapprove of the constitutional loopholes like the Queen's Consent for Bills to pass into law...deal with them individually. The monarchy itself is not defined by powers retained by historical accident. The fact that they are retained speaks for their not having been a threat to the primacy of the Commons since the Restoration of 1660, meaning they are hardly likely to threaten our democracy now.

The monarchy is an integral, if not essential, part of our national heritage, and our national character. The most important part of our national character is that we do evolution not revolution. Abolishing the monarchy would a wholly unnecessary revolution. Ditto the House of Lords. It is a revising chamber, and should thus be occupied not with lifelong arselickers or those with a political career to think of. That means elected or directly appointed members.

Maybe... maybe not. Elizabeth, I think, has got into the way of reigning long ago.

Charles hasn't. Elizabeth was only coronated when TV and the media were lifting off. In any case, Charles has possibly been able to distract a little attention off her. It is also inevitable she will think and have one face in private - what little privacy she has - and one in public.

If you eat to make your world a better place -- then bon appetit.

Well, dying doesn't entirely rock my world, you know. But that wasn't entirely my point. What is the point of living if you can't try and make the world better?

Charles hasn't. Elizabeth was only coronated when TV and the media were lifting off. In any case, Charles has possibly been able to distract a little attention off her. It is also inevitable she will think and have one face in private - what little privacy she has - and one in public.
Charles isn't reigning yet. As for her privacy -- well' she has quite a lot of it.


Well, dying doesn't entirely rock my world, you know. But that wasn't entirely my point. What is the point of living if you can't try and make the world better?
The point of living, for me, is to stop this world from turning into the hell.

If I saw how it would actually help to replace the monarchy with more time-serving politicians, I might agree with you.

Charles is an entirely unconvincing future monarch. But the institution is...how to put this? Durable, very British, and a successful compromise that doesn't disadvantage Britain in any way.

Every nation needs a head of state. If Eire abolished the Presidency, the Taoseaich would become de facto head of state as well as head of government. Likewise, if we kicked out the Queen, the P.M. would be de facto head of state.

As has already been stated, bad enough having that prancing buffoon Blair as head of government, don't make me put up with him as head of state as well.

An elected presidency would likely overtop the monarchy on costs, while losing out on respect for the position. If your position is ceremonial then respect and authority is all you have, not power. Besides, the turnout would be significantly lower than the proportion who support the monarchy, let alone the vote for one candidate. You reckon more than about 30% would vote for a ceremonial position?

...

The monarchy is an integral, if not essential, part of our national heritage, and our national character. The most important part of our national character is that we do evolution not revolution. Abolishing the monarchy would a wholly unnecessary revolution. Ditto the House of Lords. It is a revising chamber, and should thus be occupied not with lifelong arselickers or those with a political career to think of. That means elected or directly appointed members.

Like I said, I don't think one person can fit the bill for being a head of state. As a nation, we're too diverse. In any case, Blair performs all the functions as head of state. He has access to the Royal Pergative, recieves ambassadors and the like.

Therefore, why would we need to create another office after we have just abolished one. Like I said, Blair has those powers anyway. That cuts the costs.

The entire function of the House of Lords could be replaced by a single chamber elected by PR - preventing one party dictatorships. Then having the swiss model of direct democracy, or an improved variant, would work as a superior break pedal to Parliament.

Like I also said, the monarchy hardly provides me with a national character. If it provides England with a character, England can pay for it. But the UK is more than just England and an English character - and more than an outmoded upper class aristocratic character.

If I saw how it would actually help to replace the monarchy with more time-serving politicians, I might agree with you.

Just abolish the monarchy and don't replace it with more politicians. What does a cerimonial head of state do? Nothing. So why bother with one?

It's not just preventing a one party dictatorship that we have a second chamber for. It also protects us from passing fads and poorly thought out enthusiasms in the first chamber.

It is for scrutinising and revising legislation. That is an important role I'm not convinced can be fulfilled by a unicameral legislature.

I guess if you don't accept the need for a head of state then convincing you of the purpose of the monarchy is a bridge too far. However, a state needs a figurehead of some form. Ceremony is important. If only for handing out honours and meeting ambassadors and opening important buildings, you need someone who is recognised as representing the rest. They can't represent our full diversity. They don't have to.

England does pay. England pays disproportionately for all public expenses in the UK.

National character is a multi-faceted thing. So along with tolerance, fair play, football hooliganism, political correctness, London taxis, bagpipes, etc etc we have the monarchy. The UK is more than any of those things on their own. Together they all help make up our national character.

The country would hardly collapse if we removed the monarchy. But it would have lost a little of it's colour, a little of it's history, and a little of what makes it stand out. And gained, nothing at all, apart from clearing up one or two constitutional footnotes that could be dealt with separately.

The monarchy is definately worth keeping around. It is one of the oldest forms of government around and used to control, virtually, the entire world. My personal heritage comes from the British Royal family and the Danish and though they are figure heads, it is a tradition that cannot be corrupted and should even now have more power and authority then it does.

"The Sun Never Sets on the British Empire"

The monarchy is definately worth keeping around. It is one of the oldest forms of government around and used to control, virtually, the entire world. My personal heritage comes from the British Royal family and the Danish and though they are figure heads, it is a tradition that cannot be corrupted and should even now have more power and authority then it does.

"The Sun Never Sets on the British Empire"

Good lord no, of course it bloody does not.

Maybe it's a Russian thing... we tried something like that in 1917, and it didn't work.

So, are you saying that you'd rather go back to being a serf and being bought and sold like cattle?

If they abolish the queen, who will troop the colour?

Good lord no, of course it bloody does not.

Thats because God knows that the conniving and pernicious English are not to be trusted in the dark.

England does pay. England pays disproportionately for all public expenses in the UK.

National character is a multi-faceted thing. So along with tolerance, fair play, football hooliganism, political correctness, London taxis, bagpipes, etc etc we have the monarchy. The UK is more than any of those things on their own. Together they all help make up our national character.

The country would hardly collapse if we removed the monarchy. But it would have lost a little of it's colour, a little of it's history, and a little of what makes it stand out. And gained, nothing at all, apart from clearing up one or two constitutional footnotes that could be dealt with separately.
Agreed. Plus, it would result in a loss of tourists. The UK would become less unique. The Monarch costs the UK citizen an average of 60p p. a. yet apparently they generate high returns in tourism. The Monarchy should stay, definitely.

The monarchy is definately worth keeping around. It is one of the oldest forms of government around and used to control, virtually, the entire world. My personal heritage comes from the British Royal family and the Danish and though they are figure heads, it is a tradition that cannot be corrupted and should even now have more power and authority then it does.

"The Sun Never Sets on the British Empire"
I am inclined to agree with you. I have blood that is related with the royal Stuarts myself. Nevertheless, it should maintain its current form, as it is in Norway or Sweden, or even the UK. Giving it more power would be rather pointless. It serves as a powerful emblem of a nation's tradition and past though.

So, are you saying that you'd rather go back to being a serf and being bought and sold like cattle?
Firstly, serfdom was abolished in Russia in 1861, not in 1917 -- by the Tsar himelf, nonetheless.

Secondly, Uncle Joe did a fine job in establishing a vast system of state slavery. Granted, there was not a lot of buying and selling people in the labour camps of 1937 (one camp guard selling another a good-looking girl, things like that) -- but I'd say that an average serf of 1837 was much better off than an average prisoner of 1937.

It doesn't change that fact that's its utterly shameful for every man, woman and child in the country to be expected to collectively pay for the opulent lifestyles of an ill-qualifed, random collection of half-wits, no.

Royalists always bring up these seriously flawed and ridiculous 'financial arguments' because even they know that the essential premise of the Monarchy is grossly unfair.
Actually, it's the republicans who bring up the financial argument, and royalists answer it. There's nothing flawed about the fact that the cost of the monarchy is peanuts in comparison to the entire public budget.

The opulance is a greater than that of some, but probably not all, republican heads of state; and much of it is paid for from their private income, not the public purse (which mainly goes to pay official expenses, salaries etc). Much of the public expense would still be incurred under a republic : a president needs a suitable residence or two, and staff, protection etc, and the publically-funded royal buildings (Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, Holyrood House) would still need funding and maintaining under a republic.

The royals aren't geniuses, but nor are they half-wits either. The Queen has plenty of good sense and is astute and diplomatic. The next two monarchs (Charles and William) are graduates from top universities; and I think most of the Royal Family is more intelligent than certain presidents I could name.

As for "ill-qualified" : these people have been trained for public service almost from birth. It's hard to imagine any elected president who could be so thoroughly qualified for this particular job.

The cost-per-person is irrelevent; the priniciple is what's important.
The principle being that a non-political head of state should be non-partisan and not have had to climb the greasy pole, with all that implies, in order to reach what is supposed to be the most dignified office in the land.

I'm a passionate believer in the democratic principle where democracy is appropriate (i.e. in the shaping and exercising of public policy), but it isn't relevant here.

There are two definitions of a Republic, the first (which I call The Playman's Definition) is "not a monarchy". This definition is superficial, and utterly useless. It tells one nothing abut the way a country is governed. It merely tells me that the next dude in the chair is not likely to be the son of the current dude in the chair.

The second (The Real Definition) is a political system in which the lion's share of the power is in the hand of elected officials.

Britain is a Republic, all of Queen Elizabeth II's realms are republics.

There has also been a misplaced emphasis here, namely all the blither about "democracy". What is important is liberty. Liberty in Britain is under threat, as it has always been. One can point to many threats to Britain's liberty, I shall say this: When Adolf Hitler was standing at Calais, peering through binoculars at his next "meal", the greatest threat to Britain's liberty was, and still is the House of Commons.

An elected official can hardly protect liberty from elected officials.

Another poster said that an elected British President would not necessarily have to be political, and he could be above politics. Utter rubbish. The fact is that an electoral institution cannot be separated from politics, and the only organisations in Britain that could realistically run a successful Presidential campaign are the Labour Party, and the Conservative Party.

Election would depend on the candidate's position on political issues, when the voters are faced with a good chap promising to be a figurehead on one hand, and a man promising to do this and that on the other, the latter man will receive the vote.


Returning to democracy, in terms of Her Majesty's citizens/subjects, Britons are outnumbered by non-Britons. Are republicans seriously suggesting that Her Majesty, after having her British position abolished, would simply move to Ottawa, or Canberra, or Wellington, and pick up as a resident Queen of one of her other realms, and what of the domestic politics of such a move? Would Mr. Harper, Mr. Howard, or Ms. Clarke like the idea of having a "under-the-thumb" Governor-General replaced by the actual head of state.

What right has Britain to make this decision for others?

What then would you propose as a head of state, one everyone elects and agrees upon, such as.....

As for the politicians, I can assure you most politicians seek not only "real" power, but esteem and elevation, an elevation that the role of head of state would facilitate


All members of parliament could be barred from subsequently running for a presidency if that was deemed necessary. I am not required to suggest a suitable candidate (are you expecting a pop star?); the whole point is that the process is democratic and that there is a mechanism (i.e. further polls) for removing bad choices. This is not supposed to be a perfect scenario and I am not aware that republicans generally make the claim that it would be.

Presently, the prospect of a petulant hypocrite becoming my head of state in a few years is not what concerns me the most; it is the fact that we will be stuck with him for years thereafter.



Incidentally, why on earth should a monarch or their kin not involve themselves publically in political affairs, the remainder of Britain has the capacity to do so?


Well done for contradicting yourself. Supporters of the human tampon in particular are always making this mistake. You cannot on the one hand justify the monarchy as a dignified presence that transcends politics (and reality?) and on the other hand complain that its members are not allowed to express themselves politically.

The monarch is not an ordinary member of the public. They are afforded special privileges which could be easily abused to political ends; for example in the unusual event of a hung parliament or in the more mundane aspect of weekly personal access to the head of government.

Royal Perogative. The queen does have a great deal of power - which she uses on the 'advice' of the prime minister. Example: Blair's biometric passports and the war on iraq (whether you agree with either or not) need no support in Parliament. The PM just has to 'ask' the queen and it happens - no questions.
"On the advice of the Prime Minister" is a euphemism for "Prime Ministerial prerogative" : the Queen merely rubber-stamps his decisions. I agree that the prerogative needs bringing under control, but because it is a political, not a royal, power. The constitution needs an overhaul, but that can happen without abolishing the monarchy, and abolishing the monarchy wouldn't necessarily bring about the necessary changes : what was the Royal Prerogative may simply be re-named Presidential or Prime Ministerial prerogative.
It's also completely wrong for the Monarch to fufil the role of head of state. Modern Britain is a modern, cosmopolitan and forward thinking nation, no matter what the government does. The Queen represents none of this. She represents a backwards, forgotten era, when wealth and name, not votes, ruled a country. Our history extends forther than just the monarchy. Our art, culture and past have in most areas developed independantly of the monarchy.
I agree. The monarchy is not the embodiment of all that is British, but few people imagine that it is. I don't think the Queen is backward-looking, though. She tries to marry tradition (which is also important) with involvement in the modern British character, and has adjusted her limited public role considerably over the last 54 years. She's also cosmopolitan in outlook (a passionate believer in the multi-racial Commonwealth, for example), and the Prince of Wales is even more so - sometimes showing more concern for minority groups, inter-faith understanding etc than the elected government does.

It's unrepresentative of all the UK. The Monarchy is an undoubtedly English institution. However, Britain is a union of four different countries. It's wrong-not to mention absurd-that a scot, welshman or irishman cannot become the head of their nation.
Nor can an Englishman, in the sense of an ordinary English person. But the Queen (who's mother was Scottish, BTW) has spent a lifetime travelling around more of the UK, and meeting people from more areas and walks of life, than most of us will ever do. No individual can personally embody the whole nation, but someone who's entire life has been spent in national, public, service, is more likely to be familiar with most of it than someone brought up in one particular sector.
Furthermore, why should evenyone in the UK, regardless of religion, live in a Church of England state?
They don't - the Scots live in a Church of Scotland state, and the Welsh and Northern Irish have no established church. But I agree that the CofE and CofS should be disestablished. This, too, is a separate issue from the institution of monarchy. Monarchies can disestablish their churches (as Sweden did in 2000), and republics can and do have established churches (e.g. Iceland and Finland).
Britain could be far better off as a republic. An elected President with a purely cerimonial + reserve powers role would not need the expense of a Monarch. Some presidents abuse their power and cost far more than the monarchy. Surely we can impose constututional limits on presidential salary and expenses. Even better, we could pass the powers of the perogative to Parliament and have the Prime Minister as President, cutting the expense entirely.
An elected non-executive president would probably be cheaper than a monarch and royal family (but an executive one would probably be more expensive), but you get what you pay for : not as much colour, no family in a supporting role, less well-known internationally (how many people can name the President of Germany or Italy?), no continuity of experience. And I expect that the President's official residences would be the same places as the Queen's.

Parliamentary control over the prerogative is a good idea; but I think Mr Blair is already too presidential! The more status you give to the Prime Minister, the further we move away from a parliamentary system in which the PM is chairman of the government, answerable to Parliament, and removable with relative ease. We've already moved to far away from that, IMHO, and need to strengthen Parliament, not the executive.
Why should my taxes pay for prince Andrew to play Golf, Charles to get married and Harry to dress as a Nazi. I, after I go to uni, will have to earn my way through life, not have the taxpayer do it for me. If it's *only* £1 a month, you can give me £1 a month too. Or starving childeren in Africa £1 a month. Get my drift?
In addition to his other royal activities supporting charities etc, the Duke of York, in effect, works for the government as a UK representative for trade and investment. Aren’t public servants allowed leisure time, and aren't they allowed to spend their incomes on it? Charles and Harry are not funded from taxation but from the Duchy of Cornwall, which is, in effect, a commercial corporation.

The cost is not £1 a month, but £1 a year. I'm sure that the Royal Family's charity work raises far more than that for starving children in Africa and other worthy causes. And since the cost of that to you is so miniscule, perhaps you have money to spare to give to charities yourself :) I give far more to help African children every month than I give to the monarchy in a whole year.
Better for them too. I'd hate to be like a caged monkey on exehebition. Buckingham palace must be like a jail, albeit one made of glass for the media to snoop through. If people want that kind of attention, run for public office (Includes the Lib Dems!) or become a footballers' wife. It's unfair to expect someone to have no choice in it - just as it's unfair on us too.
I don't envy them, but I haven't heard anyone in the Royal Family saying that they want out, so I'm not going to judge whether they think it would be better for them.
Inbred toffs in the house of Lords. 'nuff said. Elect HOC by STV, then we won't need an expensive second chamber.
All but a rump of the inbred toffs have been thrown out of the House of Lords. It now consists mainly of people (life peers) who have made their mark in society in one way or another, although I do agree that the way they are chosen leaves a lot to be desired. That, too, is a separate issue from the monarchy : other monarchies (including the Queen's other 15 realms) don't have a House of Lords; some (such as New Zealand) have no second chamber.

I agree that the HoC should be elected by STV, but that doesn't necessarily remove the need for a second chamber. Most large European republics, and some small ones (such as Ireland) use PR to elect their main house of Parliament but still feel the need for a second revising chamber, such as the Senate in Ireland and Italy, and Bundesrat in Germany.

So why not have a federal system based on the South African model with a president as the leader of the largest party/coalition in the HOC and a governor as leader of the largest party/coalition in English, scottish etc assembly. Have the right to recall MPs (as in British Columbia) and direct democracy (as in Switzerland) too keep them in with public opinion.
The system of government is a much wider issue than the monarchy. A federal system may be a good idea, but I would still want a parliamentary democracy with a non-executive head of state, whether it's a monarch or a president. So do most European republics, as it happens.

Actually, it's the republicans who bring up the financial argument, and royalists answer it. There's nothing flawed about the fact that the cost of the monarchy is peanuts in comparison to the entire public budget.

No, it's the other way round. Republicans know that the money involved is a relatively insignificant amount but Royalists always turn to it in a defensive move. Consequently, we have to respond in some manner.



The royals aren't geniuses, but nor are they half-wits either. The Queen has plenty of good sense and is astute and diplomatic. The next two monarchs (Charles and William) are graduates from top universities; and I think most of the Royal Family is more intelligent than certain presidents I could name.

As for "ill-qualified" : these people have been trained for public service almost from birth. It's hard to imagine any elected president who could be so thoroughly qualified for this particular job.


Actually the next generation are mostly half-wits. Prince Charles did not get into Cambridge by virtue of his mediocre grades alone; and St Andrews is not a top university but rather a playground for rich kids a bit too thick for Oxbridge. I notice you decline to mention the laughably stupid Prince Harry.

A lot is made of this 'life-long training' the heirs to the throne supposedly receive. Unfortunately, training is no substitute for ability. The Queen may have been more than competent; I doubt we will be so lucky with her son.
In any case, suppose circumstance were to suddenly remove Prince Charles from the situation; under the system you support we would be left with a head of state in their early twenties; having received a bare minimum of this 'life-long training' you place so much value upon. If this is acceptable to you then you are not being consistent.




The principle being that a non-political head of state should be non-partisan and not have had to climb the greasy pole, with all that implies, in order to reach what is supposed to be the most dignified office in the land.



So what you are basically advocating is that we should submit to a bit of hereditary blue-blood oversight of our democracy.

Abdication probably isn't just as easy as it sounds. Prince Charles regulary gripes about the media (once while the TV cameras were switched on) but doesn't Abdicate, despite obviously hating how his life is exposed.

That's because even if he does abdicate he is still Prince Charles. He couldn't live a normal life. He was born into that position which he cannot escape from - even if he abdicated he would still have the same face and voice we all know. He could never walk down the street without being hounded to death.
I don't think that's the reason. If Prince Charles surrendered his position (which he can't do unilaterally, BTW - it requires an Act of Parliament), I'm sure he could massively reduce the amount of publicity he suffers, even though he couldn't completely rid himself of it.

The reality is almost certainly that he doesn't want to abdicate. Every job has its downside (the media, in this case), and people often moan about them, but most of us don't walk out of a job unless the bad side is worse than the good. I suspect that, on balance, he still wants the job, and thinks that the pain-in-the-butt media is a price worth paying.

Good lord no, of course it bloody does not.


When is your political atlas from? 1906?

As people keep saying, this is a democracic country. A large majority of Brits want to keep the monarchy -- far more than ever wanted Blair to rule the country, at any rate (ironic, really). So long as that is true, the monarchy stays. When public opinion changes, so can the monarchy.

Actually the next generation are mostly half-wits. and St Andrews is not a top university but rather a playground for rich kids a bit too thick for Oxbridge.

Oi! Careful what you're saying; some of us have degrees from that 'playground for rich kids a bit too thick for Oxford'! St. Andrews by most league tables is a top university,top ten in most of the subjects it offers. They certainly don't just give you a degree for turning up.

....all of Queen Elizabeth II's realms are republics

I don't know what to make of that statement. Obviously it's laughable, it's a bit disturbing that you seem to think it's true



One can point to many threats to Britain's liberty, I shall say this: When Adolf Hitler was standing at Calais, peering through binoculars at his next "meal", the greatest threat to Britain's liberty was, and still is the House of Commons.


What exactly are you trying to say here? That we would have been better off with someone like Edward 'nazi-sympathiser' VIII helping out and keeping on eye on them all? Or is this a jibe about not being allowed to go fox-hunting?



An elected official can hardly protect liberty from elected officials.


Neither can an unelected official. A codified constitution however, can.



Another poster said that an elected British President would not necessarily have to be political, and he could be above politics. Utter rubbish. The fact is that an electoral institution cannot be separated from politics, and the only organisations in Britain that could realistically run a successful Presidential campaign are the Labour Party, and the Conservative Party.


Yes that was me. Use your imagination; unless of course you don't want to.



Returning to democracy, in terms of Her Majesty's citizens/subjects, Britons are outnumbered by non-Britons. Are republicans seriously suggesting that Her Majesty, after having her British position abolished, would simply move to Ottawa, or Canberra, or Wellington, and pick up as a resident Queen of one of her other realms, and what of the domestic politics of such a move? Would Mr. Harper, Mr. Howard, or Ms. Clarke like the idea of having a "under-the-thumb" Governor-General replaced by the actual head of state.
What right has Britain to make this decision for others?


What an utterly ridiculous argument. Moreover it is slightly odd that you seem to be under the impression that this has been suggested by any republican ever?

The countries you refer to are actually perfectly capable of making the decision for themselves. Australia and New Zealand will both probably become republics in the near future.

It's history, and frankly, it affords us a national identity of sorts. Remove the monarchy and frankly, Britian is no longer Britain, it is, well, nothing culturally, with no significance.

Elitist rubbish.

The cultural makeup of Britain has very little to do with who give Royal Assent.

Though if British culture did rest upon an archaic institution, I think it would be best if we got rid of it and started again.

I don't know what to make of that statement. Obviously it's laughable, it's a bit disturbing that you seem to think it's true

Nice one. The idiot's definition of a republic is utterly uninteresting. The fact is that in all of Her Majesty's realms, the power of the state is directed, and exercised by elected officials.

This is the distinguishing feature of a republic. A republic is a state in which the power of the state is directed and exercised by elected officials. If a debate is necessary over whether or not Britian is to abolish its monarchy, it is this definition of a republic which must be used. Superficial definitions are useless.

What exactly are you trying to say here? That we would have been better off with someone like Edward 'nazi-sympathiser' VIII helping out and keeping on eye on them all? Or is this a jibe about not being allowed to go fox-hunting?

No, the fact is that the liberty is Britons is more comprehensively threatened by elected officials, than anyone else. ID Cards, surveillence, the list goes on and on.

Neither can an unelected official. A codified constitution however, can.

In which case, whether or not you have a Queen is not at issue. I would further point out that a written constitution can act to transfer power to the courts.

Yes that was me. Use your imagination; unless of course you don't want to.

Use your brain. No one ever got elected by saying "I shall simply keep things in line with the Constitution, and be a nice looking figurehead". Are you seriously envisaging elections being decided on how well someone looks when receiving an Ambassador?

Elections revolve around political issues. A President who promises to do something will get in over one who promises to be a figurehead. You have provided no serious argument to suggest that this won't be the case, and as far as I can see, are not interested in providing such arguments.

What an utterly ridiculous argument. Moreover it is slightly odd that you seem to be under the impression that this has been suggested by any republican ever?

Are you suggesting that Britain abolishing the monarchy will simply mean that Her Majesty loses one title, and will simply take up as a resident monarch in another of her realms? Be realistic, Britain abolishing the monarchy will cause the abolition of it in all her realms. Commonwealth Prime Ministers/Premiers, used to having tame, controlled Vice-Regal people who can be sacked with a single phone-call to London.

Instead of dismissing anything you haven't thought of, answer a few questions:

1) Would/Could Her Majesty simply move to another of her capitals, and reign as a resident Queen? I don't see how, taking Australia first, the only power the Queen actually has is the appointment and dismissal of Governors-General. I don't see it as acceptable that Britain can force Australia to consider altering its Constitution.

2) Would the Prime Minister of that country be fine with the idea? Again, I don't see how. Prime Ministers are fine with Royal Visits, which are nothing more than hand shaking, but politically, the PM is the only show, Governors-General are hardly noticed, and are almost never publicised, they are an irrelevancy in terms of foreign relations.

3) We have seen that the monarchy can survive with nations such as India abolishing it, but can it survive Britain abolishing it? I don't see how. The monarchy is a British institution, one simply cannot uproot it, plonk it down in Ottawa, or Canberra, and expect it to happen smoothly for all concerned.

4) If the answer to 3 is no, what right does Britain have to force the abolition of the monarchy on other countries?

The countries you refer to are actually perfectly capable of making the decision for themselves. Australia and New Zealand will both probably become republics in the near future.

Australia and New Zealand are in every meaningful sense republics. I don't know about New Zealand, but there is little interest in the abolition of the Australian crown, the self-annointed elites badger people about it, but there is no real urge to change our Constitution.

Of course you missed the point. If Britain abolished the monarchy, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand (and the rest) could not make the decision themselves, Britain will have made it for them, unless you've worked out some way for the monarchy to survive without Britain.

No, it's the other way round. Republicans know that the money involved is a relatively insignificant amount but Royalists always turn to it in a defensive move. Consequently, we have to respond in some manner.
The first explicitly republican post in this thread said "for practical purposes, the monarchy is an outdated, bloated, inbred, expensive and inefficient counterbalance of power". If the cost is insignifcant, why raise it as an argument against the monarchy? I discuss this subject a great deal, and it is constantly raised by the republican side.

Actually the next generation are mostly half-wits. Prince Charles did not get into Cambridge by virtue of his mediocre grades alone;
That's true - there was a bit of string-pulling there, and I don't think he's an intellectual giant (in fact I think he talks a lot of nonsense at times), but he's bright enough to get a degree at a respectable university.
St Andrews is not a top university but rather a playground for rich kids a bit too thick for Oxbridge.
St.Andrews is not Oxbridge, but it is among the better universities in the UK. The Guardian, for example, ranks it 11th out of 122.

I notice you decline to mention the laughably stupid Prince Harry.
I mentioned those in the direct line of succession. Harry is unlikely to become king. He's no intellectual, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't have enough acumen and common sense to be monarch - time will tell. The Queen is no intellectual either.

A lot is made of this 'life-long training' the heirs to the throne supposedly receive. Unfortunately, training is no substitute for ability. The Queen may have been more than competent; I doubt we will be so lucky with her son.
I have no doubt that Charles has the ability and understanding to do the job. There's a slight risk that he might need slapping down by a PM if he continues to stray into controversial areas, but I think he's well aware that he won't enjoy the freedom to do that as king that he has now.
In any case, suppose circumstance were to suddenly remove Prince Charles from the situation; under the system you support we would be left with a head of state in their early twenties; having received a bare minimum of this 'life-long training' you place so much value upon. If this is acceptable to you then you are not being consistent.
As you said, the Queen has been more than competant, and she came to the throne in her twenties. The training (and education by example) begins very early in life. Elizabeth II had had years of it by the time she became Queen at 25.

So what you are basically advocating is that we should submit to a bit of hereditary blue-blood oversight of our democracy.
Yep (although they're blood is as red as ours :)), because they do not make policy decisions (which is where democracy matters), do not do a job which requires great intellect, and are more likely to do it impartially than someone who's had to pursue his own ambition in working his way to the top. There's no more reason for a non-executive head of state to be elected than a teacher, bank manager or judge.

Returning to democracy, in terms of Her Majesty's citizens/subjects, Britons are outnumbered by non-Britons. Are republicans seriously suggesting that Her Majesty, after having her British position abolished, would simply move to Ottawa, or Canberra, or Wellington, and pick up as a resident Queen of one of her other realms, and what of the domestic politics of such a move? Would Mr. Harper, Mr. Howard, or Ms. Clarke like the idea of having a "under-the-thumb" Governor-General replaced by the actual head of state.

What right has Britain to make this decision for others?
What right have others to control this decision for Britain? If the UK is unable to decide on the type of head of state it wants, then it would be less sovereign than the other realms, some of which have abolished the monarchy.

An unfortunate consequence for those countries which choose to retain the British monarch as their head of state is that decisions in Britain may have consequences for them, but that is their choice, and it would be intolerable to have them be able to deny the British people the right to determine their own constitution.

In the spirit of the preamble to the Statute of Westminster, British governments probably would consult other realms over changes to the monarchy (the complexity of doing so is one of the reasons the present government gives for not pursuing gender-blind succession, for example); but ultimately, realms should have no more right to dictate the British constitution than Britain has to dictate theirs. The Queen is Queen of Canada etc because she is firstly Queen of the UK.

Nice one. The idiot's definition of a republic is utterly uninteresting. The fact is that in all of Her Majesty's realms, the power of the state is directed, and exercised by elected officials.

This is the distinguishing feature of a republic. A republic is a state in which the power of the state is directed and exercised by elected officials. If a debate is necessary over whether or not Britian is to abolish its monarchy, it is this definition of a republic which must be used. Superficial definitions are useless.

The 'accepted' definition of a republic is uninteresting to you because it doesn't quite say what you'd like it to.

You have conveniently neglected to mention the other important characteristic of a republic; that the sovereignty as well as the legitmacy of the state are ultimately dervied from the citizens of that state. In the UK the Crown is sovereign; not the people. You may be right that in practical terms this makes little difference when all the real power is already concentrated in elected officials anyway, that doesn't make your assertion that Britain is a republic any less false than it is.




No, the fact is that the liberty is Britons is more comprehensively threatened by elected officials, than anyone else. ID Cards, surveillence, the list goes on and on.

In which case, whether or not you have a Queen is not at issue. I would further point out that a written constitution can act to transfer power to the courts.


All the more reason for meaningful constitutional reform; and the concept of a monarchy is an issue in this regard. How could it not be?




Use your brain. No one ever got elected by saying "I shall simply keep things in line with the Constitution, and be a nice looking figurehead". Are you seriously envisaging elections being decided on how well someone looks when receiving an Ambassador?

Elections revolve around political issues. A President who promises to do something will get in over one who promises to be a figurehead. You have provided no serious argument to suggest that this won't be the case, and as far as I can see, are not interested in providing such arguments.



An executive president has never got themselves elected saying things like that, no. Considering we're not talking about such a figure why are you still making such an argument?




Are you suggesting that Britain abolishing the monarchy will simply mean that Her Majesty loses one title, and will simply take up as a resident monarch in another of her realms? Be realistic, Britain abolishing the monarchy will cause the abolition of it in all her realms. Commonwealth Prime Ministers/Premiers, used to having tame, controlled Vice-Regal people who can be sacked with a single phone-call to London.


I have never suggested anything of the sort. Please do not attempt to attribute me with viewpoints I have never expressed.



Instead of dismissing anything you haven't thought of, answer a few questions:

1) Would/Could Her Majesty simply move to another of her capitals, and reign as a resident Queen? I don't see how, taking Australia first, the only power the Queen actually has is the appointment and dismissal of Governors-General. I don't see it as acceptable that Britain can force Australia to consider altering its Constitution.

2) Would the Prime Minister of that country be fine with the idea? Again, I don't see how. Prime Ministers are fine with Royal Visits, which are nothing more than hand shaking, but politically, the PM is the only show, Governors-General are hardly noticed, and are almost never publicised, they are an irrelevancy in terms of foreign relations.

3) We have seen that the monarchy can survive with nations such as India abolishing it, but can it survive Britain abolishing it? I don't see how. The monarchy is a British institution, one simply cannot uproot it, plonk it down in Ottawa, or Canberra, and expect it to happen smoothly for all concerned.

4) If the answer to 3 is no, what right does Britain have to force the abolition of the monarchy on other countries?



1) No, she wouldn't have any more of 'her captials' as you refer to them

2) That is irrelevant; in any case the decision is up to them as to what to do about it. Unlike you, I do not claim to know the mind of various government heads in the Commonwealth. I imagine that the reaction would be varied.

3) No, the idea is to abolish it completely; was that not clear?

4) It is our monarchy, we are the only ones who can take steps to decide its future. We are under no obligation to maintain the institution indefinitely.




Australia and New Zealand are in every meaningful sense republics. I don't know about New Zealand, but there is little interest in the abolition of the Australian crown, the self-annointed elites badger people about it, but there is no real urge to change our Constitution.


So the most recent Australian referendum on the issue wasn't only narrowly lost by the republican side then? Strange, I remember that it was.



Of course you missed the point. If Britain abolished the monarchy, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand (and the rest) could not make the decision themselves, Britain will have made it for them, unless you've worked out some way for the monarchy to survive without Britain.


All these countries have been content in the past to accept a foreign head of state without any sort of influence over the institution which it is derived from. They may complain about such a decision (although I doubt it given the way opinion is heading) but that is beside the point. What a huge amount of self-respect you must have to argue that a multitude of foreign nations should have a say over our domestic system of government?

That was your point? Sorry, you're right, it was so poor I did miss it.

Ooh, I made a mess of that last sentence!

It doesn't offer me a national identity. I was born in Scotland (With 1/2 English parents, mind), yet my head of state is constitutionally bound to be an Englishman/woman. It might offer England a national identity, but not the other nations of the UK. I believe strongly in the preservation of the union, but not under an English monarch. That, I cannot identify with. And since I was Born in Scotland to 1/2 English and 1/2 Scottish parents and now live in England, i'm more "British" than most!What a ridiculous statement. What do you propose, import an American or African for the role of Monarch? Anyway, do not fret for, had you grown up in England your history would have been good enough to encompass other nations and you would be aware that our current monarch derives from the House of Hanover, lower Saxony. That's Germany to you.
As for your being more British than most, no. You are guilty of defining yourself half English and half scots. At that point you lost any British status you may have had because you built a wall and invented what being British was to suit your needs. You left out Wales, you left out Northern Ireland. I put it to you that you're scottish and would love scotland to break away from Britain.

Yep (although they're blood is as red as ours :)), because they do not make policy decisions (which is where democracy matters), do not do a job which requires great intellect, and are more likely to do it impartially than someone who's had to pursue his own ambition in working his way to the top. There's no more reason for a non-executive head of state to be elected than a teacher, bank manager or judge.


I understand your practical argument in this regard; although because I disagree with the hereditary principle in matters of state I will never accept it.


Also, it was a bit of a joke about St Andrews. It is a good university.

I voted no. And to tell you the truth, the monarchy should have just given up after Cromwell.

I mean, can someone PLEASE tell me the point of having them now? They don't have any REAL power or REAL influence over ANYTHING.

Ooh, I made a mess of that last sentence!

It doesn't offer me a national identity. I was born in Scotland (With 1/2 English parents, mind), yet my head of state is constitutionally bound to be an Englishman/woman.
No he/she isn't. There is no constitutional requirement regarding the nationality of the British monarch, and never has been : English/British monarchs have included Danes, Germans, French, Welsh, Dutch and Scots. 60th in the line of succession at the moment is the King of Norway (followed by lots of other foreigners) - he's extremely unlikely to succeed, but he's not constitutionally barred from doing so.

Although resident in England, the British monarch spends much more time in Scotland than most other English residents, and than most Scottish residents spend in England, and so is better equipped to represent the entire country than most people born and brought up in one or other of the kingdoms would be. She's also half Scottish (from her mother), and had Elizabeth II died young, we would have had her sister, Margaret, as Queen, and she was born in Scotland.

It might offer England a national identity, but not the other nations of the UK. I believe strongly in the preservation of the union, but not under an English monarch. That, I cannot identify with. And since I was Born in Scotland to 1/2 English and 1/2 Scottish parents and now live in England, i'm more "British" than most!
By this logic, if we had a Scottish monarch - or President - the English couldn't identify with him/her. If Scotland was independent and had a Lowland monarch/president, the Highlanders could claim not to identify with him/her.

The reality is that no head of state, however chosen, can "represent" all, or even most, of the country, in the sense of coming from a particular region or background. They represent us in part by getting to know most of the country, and the Queen spends a significant proportion of her time in Scotland (far more than she spends in most English regions, or Wales or Northern Ireland).

I voted no. And to tell you the truth, the monarchy should have just given up after Cromwell.

I mean, can someone PLEASE tell me the point of having them now? They don't have any REAL power or REAL influence over ANYTHING.


Answer me why we keep Stonehenge, St Pauls Cathedral or the River Thames and I'll answer you why (at the barest minimum) we should keep the Monarchy.

Because, you know, I'd say that at the moment they all largely amount to the same thing.

Hey, do you think we could get the UN to declare the British Crown a World Heritage institution?

No he/she isn't. There is no constitutional requirement regarding the nationality of the British monarch, and never has been : English/British monarchs have included Danes, Germans, French, Welsh, Dutch and Scots. 60th in the line of succession at the moment is the King of Norway (followed by lots of other foreigners) - he's extremely unlikely to succeed, but he's not constitutionally barred from doing so.

Although resident in England, the British monarch spends much more time in Scotland than most other English residents, and than most Scottish residents spend in England, and so is better equipped to represent the entire country than most people born and brought up in one or other of the kingdoms would be. She's also half Scottish (from her mother), and had Elizabeth II died young, we would have had her sister, Margaret, as Queen, and she was born in Scotland.

We've had plenty of 'foreign' monarchs and plenty of other countries in our line of succession because all the monarchs of Europe have been marrying each other for years. But the question is not one over how Scottish the queen is, it's how the people of Scotland feel about the queen. It might not sound much - but nearly one third of the Scottish vote went to the SSP and SNP - both openly republican. In my opinion, that's a significant minority who don't feel that this "British" monarch represents them.

If she does represent the country so well, then she won't have a problem winning any election, will she?

By this logic, if we had a Scottish monarch - or President - the English couldn't identify with him/her. If Scotland was independent and had a Lowland monarch/president, the Highlanders could claim not to identify with him/her.

The reality is that no head of state, however chosen, can "represent" all, or even most, of the country, in the sense of coming from a particular region or background. They represent us in part by getting to know most of the country, and the Queen spends a significant proportion of her time in Scotland (far more than she spends in most English regions, or Wales or Northern Ireland).

Therefore by the same logic she cannot represent English regions, Wales or Norther Ireland! This is why I feel we don't need a head of state at all. As I said - a republic doesn't need a 'president'.

We've had plenty of 'foreign' monarchs and plenty of other countries in our line of succession because all the monarchs of Europe have been marrying each other for years. But the question is not one over how Scottish the queen is, it's how the people of Scotland feel about the queen. It might not sound much - but nearly one third of the Scottish vote went to the SSP and SNP - both openly republican. In my opinion, that's a significant minority who don't feel that this "British" monarch represents them.
That assumes that people voted for those parties because of their stance on the monarchy, which I think is extremely unlikely. There far more likely to have been voting primarily on issues such as the governance of Scotland (regardless of who the non-governing head of state is), the economy, social policy etc etc.

EDIT : Unless things have changed very recently, the official SNP line is that issue of the monarchy would be put to a referendum in an independent Scotland, and that its draft constitution could operate with either an hereditary or an elected head of state. I've no doubt that many, perhaps the majority of SNP members are republicans, but "monarchist-independents" could vote for the SNP in the knowledge that they will have a chance to retain the crown, so the SNP vote proves nothing on this issue.

Therefore by the same logic she cannot represent English regions, Wales or Norther Ireland! This is why I feel we don't need a head of state at all. As I said - a republic doesn't need a 'president'.
Somebody has to carry out the constitutional functions and be the country's official representative on the international stage, and that somebody will come from one part of the country or other, and probably have less experience of other parts than the Queen has. If we did away with the headship of state, people would then complain about the Prime Minister being unrepresentative! We already hear rumblings of complaint in England about how over-represented the Scots are in Cabinet.

The 'accepted' definition of a republic is uninteresting to you because it doesn't quite say what you'd like it to.

The definition is uninteresting because it doesn't address how a country is governed. Which is exactly what I said in what you quoted but didn't read.

You may be right that in practical terms this makes little difference when all the real power is already concentrated in elected officials anyway, that doesn't make your assertion that Britain is a republic any less false than it is.

I am right, and the practical realities of how a country is governed is the most important thing to consider. Britain is a republic because it is governed by the House of Commons.

How could it not be?

Because the existance of it is not the fundamental issue. Talking about "meaningful constitutional reform", is one thing, advocating the abolition of the monarchy (with no other odeas offered) is another.

An executive president has never got themselves elected saying things like that, no. Considering we're not talking about such a figure why are you still making such an argument?

Then what is the point of it? Upon what basis would the voters make the decision, of they're only voting for this figurehead or that? A purely symbolic vote is a waste of time. If you intend giving such a President "reserve powers", then it becomes important. The problem is that electoral processes inevitably bring politicians to the fore, and politicians tend to do things, which defeats the point.

I have never suggested anything of the sort. Please do not attempt to attribute me with viewpoints I have never expressed.

You didn't in so many words, but Britain has no right to abolish other peoples' monarchies.

1) No, she wouldn't have any more of 'her captials' as you refer to them

What right does a Briton have to change other country's constitutions?

2) That is irrelevant; in any case the decision is up to them as to what to do about it. Unlike you, I do not claim to know the mind of various government heads in the Commonwealth. I imagine that the reaction would be varied.

Actually it is the central question, because in all Commonwealth realms, the power of the state is exercised by politicians. You can't deny that for the commonwealth realms, a foreign head of state, with a representative who can be removed with a phone call, is politically convenient for political leaders.

4) It is our monarchy, we are the only ones who can take steps to decide its future. We are under no obligation to maintain the institution indefinitely

It is partially your monarchy. If you are going to advocate the abolition of the monarchy, I suggest you better aquaint yourself with the monarchy.

Have you ever heard of separate crowns?

So the most recent Australian referendum on the issue wasn't only narrowly lost by the republican side then? Strange, I remember that it was.

To pass a referendum in Australia, not only must a majority of the voters approve, but in a majority of the six states (i.e., more than 50% in at least 4 states)

On the two questions (1 for abolishing the monarchy, 2 for inserting a "preamble" full of trite high-sounding nonsense), none of the states were in favour. Only the Australian Capital Territory approved Question 1. Not one state or territory approved question 2.

Overall, 55% opposed abolishing the monarchy, and 61% opposed the verbiage.

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/handbook/referendums/r1999.htm

Only the middle, and upper class urban electorates favoured it.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s64999.htm

People are more concerned about the economy, law and order, and security. As usual.

The apologists for the ARM say that people really do want to abolish the monarchy, but there is nothing to back this. No does not mean yes.

Not a narrow defeat by Western standards.

What right have others to control this decision for Britain? If the UK is unable to decide on the type of head of state it wants, then it would be less sovereign than the other realms, some of which have abolished the monarchy.

An unfortunate consequence for those countries which choose to retain the British monarch as their head of state is that decisions in Britain may have consequences for them, but that is their choice, and it would be intolerable to have them be able to deny the British people the right to determine their own constitution.

In the spirit of the preamble to the Statute of Westminster, British governments probably would consult other realms over changes to the monarchy (the complexity of doing so is one of the reasons the present government gives for not pursuing gender-blind succession, for example); but ultimately, realms should have no more right to dictate the British constitution than Britain has to dictate theirs.

The Queen is Queen of Canada etc because she is firstly Queen of the UK.

The point is that the decision affects other countries. A legitimate exercise of soverignty cannot be one that affects others without consent. A commonwealth realm abolishing its monarchy would not affect Britain at all. During the Australian referendum, the Queen's official position boiled down to "don't care", if the referendum had passed, it wouldn't have affected Britain, it wouldn't even have changed the international relations, Australia's High Commissioner wouldn't even have become an Ambassador.

If the monarchy could realistically be moved out of Britain, it wouldn't be a problem. I can't help wondering if the Royals would want to stay in office without Britain?

I may have a solution, if they'd go for it. They stay where they are physically, and the remaining realms simply give the British Treasury the money for their upkeep, or pay it directly.

I mean, can someone PLEASE tell me the point of having them now?

It works, we know it works. The reasons for changing it aren't compelling.

Besides, look at some of the country's that abolished the monarchy: Iraq; Iran; Germany; Russia; China; Egypt. Not exactly good advertisements. Not even France says a lot for abolishing a monarchy. Of the world's five most liveable cities, three are in monarchies. Only two republics have survived for a long time, and stayed free, the US and Switzerland.

Frankly, those who favour abolishing the monarchy have not done the amount and degree of thought and planning necessary. If they could guarantee a Switzerland, or a United States, I can see a reason to go for it.

It is partially your monarchy. If you are going to advocate the abolition of the monarchy, I suggest you better aquaint yourself with the monarchy.

Have you ever heard of separate crowns?
The concept of separate crowns, which has developed in the last half century or so, means that the Crown of the UK is separate from the Crowns of Australia and other realms, and is, therefore, the exclusive property of the British people, to do with as they wish :)

The point is that the decision affects other countries. A legitimate exercise of soverignty cannot be one that affects others without consent.
Legitimate exercises of sovereignty frequently affect others, particularly in foreign affairs. To take a more minor example, when Ireland chose to become a republic and leave the Commonwealth in 1949, the British had to make a decision on whether to treat Irish citizens (hitherto British subjects) as foreigners or make an exception for them so that they continued to have the rights to reside, work and vote in the UK. In other words, the need for a British sovereign decision over its internal affairs was imposed upon it by the legitimate exercise of sovereignty by another state.

The same is true with the monarchy. Commonwealth realms would be forced by the circumstances of another sovereign nation to make a decision about their headship of state, but they have no right to limit the internal sovereignty of that other nation.

Besides, look at some of the country's that abolished the monarchy: Iraq; Iran; Germany; Russia; China; Egypt. Not exactly good advertisements. Not even France says a lot for abolishing a monarchy.
But in all these cases the abolition of the monarchy was the consequence of problems and instability in those countries, not the cause of them. On the whole, I think it's true to say that monarchies don't preserve national stability - national stability preserves monarchies.

That assumes that people voted for those parties because of their stance on the monarchy, which I think is extremely unlikely. There far more likely to have been voting primarily on issues such as the governance of Scotland (regardless of who the non-governing head of state is), the economy, social policy etc etc.

EDIT : Unless things have changed very recently, the official SNP line is that issue of the monarchy would be put to a referendum in an independent Scotland, and that its draft constitution could operate with either an hereditary or an elected head of state. I've no doubt that many, perhaps the majority of SNP members are republicans, but "monarchist-independents" could vote for the SNP in the knowledge that they will have a chance to retain the crown, so the SNP vote proves nothing on this issue.

Excellent point, but I still doubt that a majority of SNP (or PC in wales) voters would want to resurrect old royal lines - after several hundered years the royal blood has probably watered down a little! But I do see your point.

Somebody has to carry out the constitutional functions and be the country's official representative on the international stage, and that somebody will come from one part of the country or other, and probably have less experience of other parts than the Queen has. If we did away with the headship of state, people would then complain about the Prime Minister being unrepresentative! We already hear rumblings of complaint in England about how over-represented the Scots are in Cabinet.

Let me explain how i'd overcome that problem. In NI the Cabinet, when functioning, must have a proportional amount of MPs from nationalist and loyalist communities. I'd do the same in a cabinet for the UK, proportional to the amount of MPs in parliament from each home nation, plus or minus one or two, to make it flexible. Most would be English, but it would still be fairish.

The Foreign minister can represent the country abroad as in switzerland - which has far more cultural and ethnic divides than Britian!).

Cerimonial functions can be performed by a nonpartisan (no party affiliation at all) figure decided by the PM and leader of the opposition, and accepted by parliament, rotated among the home nations. Should be people who have contributed to the country as a whole, such as (some!) sports figures, arstists, writers etc. Will have a one year nonrenewable term.

It ain't perfect - nothing really is - but in my opinion, it's a better alternative, should a majority of people want it. If a majority of Britons support the monarchy, i'm more than happy for it to stay in place. That's democracy.

EDIT: When I mean 'cerimonial functions' I mean conferring honours (most would remain) and possibly something to do with opening/closing parliament, which would have a fixed term. The figure cannot and would not have the constitutional mandate to represent the state.

The definition is uninteresting because it doesn't address how a country is governed. Which is exactly what I said in what you quoted but didn't read.


It is interesting to note that you have no answer to the 'sovereignty' issue.




I am right, and the practical realities of how a country is governed is the most important thing to consider. Britain is a republic because it is governed by the House of Commons.


Translation = I am arrogant and refuse to accept that my definition of 'republic' is a legitimate matter of contention.




Because the existance of it is not the fundamental issue. Talking about "meaningful constitutional reform", is one thing, advocating the abolition of the monarchy (with no other odeas offered) is another.


I would only ever advocate the abolition of the monarchy in the wider context of carefully planned constitutional reform. I'm not suggesting we just behead them all and then make it up as we go along; although that would be vaguely amusing.



Then what is the point of it? Upon what basis would the voters make the decision, of they're only voting for this figurehead or that? A purely symbolic vote is a waste of time. If you intend giving such a President "reserve powers", then it becomes important. The problem is that electoral processes inevitably bring politicians to the fore, and politicians tend to do things, which defeats the point.



Yes that's it. All they are essentially voting for is someone who will carry out symbolic duties and oversee the application of the constitution. The voters can base their decision on whatever they like; qualifications, looks, charsima, intelligence, likeability, public-speaking, etc. What is important is that there is a choice; and that that choice is in the hands of the people.

...and a symbolic vote is not a waste of time. All voting is symbolic to a degree.



You didn't in so many words, but Britain has no right to abolish other peoples' monarchies.


Yes it does; if they have submitted to it's oversight without rights over it in return.



What right does a Briton have to change other country's constitutions?


We wouldn't be changing anyone's constitution; we would merely be necessitating, by our actions, that they consequently make such changes themselves.



You can't deny that for the commonwealth realms, a foreign head of state, with a representative who can be removed with a phone call, is politically convenient for political leaders.


What a good reason for persisting with the present situation; as opposed to having a head of state who is actually directly accountable to the people rather than just to their government?




People are more concerned about the economy, law and order, and security. As usual.


So am I. That doesn't mean that this isn't an important issue too. Persist with the standard Royalist 'There are far more important things to worry about' line if you wish; this will not go away however much you want it to.



Not a narrow defeat by Western standards.


That's debatable; it's not exactly a ringing endorsement is it? The next referendum could well be won by the republicans provided it is handled competently.




It works, we know it works. The reasons for changing it aren't compelling.

Frankly, those who favour abolishing the monarchy have not done the amount and degree of thought and planning necessary. If they could guarantee a Switzerland, or a United States, I can see a reason to go for it.

It works and that's it? You can't get your head around how outdated and even offensive the very concept of a monarchy is.

Plenty of people have done the required amount of thought; I don't claim to be one of them. The republican movement in the UK is still very weak but it will not remain so.

That's debatable; it's not exactly a ringing endorsement is it? The next referendum could well be won by the republicans provided it is handled competently.

The reason that referendum failed was because of the type of republic proposed. They proposed a president chosen by the Prime Minister and approved by Parliament, similar to the current status with the governor-general.

It was therefore opposed by monarchists and many republicans. Had it been a directly-elected model, it may have passed, since the type of president chosen makes it almost as undemocratic!

However, you'd be better off asking an Australian Expert, and not me. Hopefully, chucking out the monarchs in the Commonwealth Realms might get the debate moving here.

EDIT:
Just on the six o'clock news, Harry flunks all his a-levels and is now gets to train straight as a army officer into the 'household cavalry'. So much for working up through the ranks and working through merit. Such a cerimonial position should be for the army elite, not the aristocrats.

Perhaps the taxpayer can pay for me to go through university - it'd only be £1 a month for 5 years!

The definition of a republic:a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
Courtesy of the Oxford Dictionary.

Britain is not a republic. Britain is a constitutional monarchy, and a liberal democracy.

Nor is it important what happens in the other nations still acknowledging the Queen as their head of state. If we, as the British people, decide to abolish our monarchy, then the other nations can sort themselves out. Not our problem.

Democracy says keep the monarchy...most people, by a significant margin, support the monarchy in this country. So any argument that the monarchy is undemocratic is ultimately undermined by the people themselves.

The Household Cavalry are a pefectly ordinary army unit, with one additional ceremonial role guarding the monarch on important occasions.

While strings may have been pulled to get Harry into Sandhurst, getting him into the Household Cavalry is hardly like sneaking him into the Commandos on the sly.

For a start, she is NOT the "Queen of England." She is the Queen of the United Kingdom, which consists of Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales, as well as of the entire Commonwealth.

Secondly, the British monarchy isn't all that old: it dates to 1603, the year in which James VI of Scotland became also James I of the United Kingdom.

Thirdly, Britain is these days supposed to be a democracy. Monarchy is an affront to democracy and an insult to us, the people of Britain. The whole filthy lot of them should be abolished as of this second. Well, they should have been abolished many centuries ago. And there is no need for a president, elected or otherwise, to replace them: we should have instead a constitution which would stand as a proud symbol of our democracy.

Although the Kingdoms of England and Scotland have been in existance since around 850 AD and 600 AD respectively. Just because our Monarchy has only existed in it's current form since 1803 doesn't mean it is only 400 years old.

And how on Earth is the monarchy an insult to us? As far as I see it, Queenie and most members of the Royal Family are excellent Ambassadors, not only for Britain but for global charities.
What part of our society is un-democratic? Is that a word? Let's just pretend...
Apart from the House of Lords - which is comprised mainly of former politicians and those that have performed great duties to the state - which part of our system is not democratic? Do you have the right to elect a representative for the House of Commons?

OK, but who would be Head of State? The elected Prime Minister would presumably hold that office - in which case he or she would probably be given the title President.
Britain, and Imperial Presidency? Please God, don't let it come to that!!!

The definition of a republic:a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
Courtesy of the Oxford Dictionary.

Britain is not a republic. Britain is a constitutional monarchy, and a liberal democracy.

Nor is it important what happens in the other nations still acknowledging the Queen as their head of state. If we, as the British people, decide to abolish our monarchy, then the other nations can sort themselves out. Not our problem.

Democracy says keep the monarchy...most people, by a significant margin, support the monarchy in this country. So any argument that the monarchy is undemocratic is ultimately undermined by the people themselves.

Some polls say as significant as 80% wish to retain the current system, with about half the remainder (10%) in support of the total abolition of the Monarchy and the institution of a British Republic.

Some polls say as significant as 80% wish to retain the current system, with about half the remainder (10%) in support of the total abolition of the Monarchy and the institution of a British Republic.

Look Here (http://www.mori.com/polls/1999/m991110.shtml)

Make of that what you will - especially about Blair being 'in touch'!

--snip--

4) It is our monarchy, we are the only ones who can take steps to decide its future. We are under no obligation to maintain the institution indefinitely.

--snip--



Ah, Queenie may live here, but She isn't ours alone: She is the Head of State of over 120 million people, worldwide, and we - as I think someone has already said - do not have the right to deicde the future of other sovereign states. If the Australian Republicans won the referendum and the Queen in Australia was deposed, Britain could do nothing about it. Equally, if we deposed Her, Australia could do nothing about the deposition in Britain. If they wanted to keep Her, they could. It's their decision. Not ours. We all have separate Governments, and are not all "under the thumb of Westminster", as somebody so delightfully put it.
When Rhodesia "deposed" the Queen and declared Independence, Westminster was involved with the Independence decalration, but not the Queen's deposition.
Us deciding to abolish the monarchy in Britain and in all other realms where Elizabeth II is Queen, is like to the USA forcing a Presidential election upon every republican state in the world.

That poll was taken a long time ago... and it seems that the British people still haven't come to their senses and thrown Blair out! It can make one despair...

At least three-quarters still like the monarchy :D

They really do not do anything but what the Parliament says they can.

Actually it is pretty much the other way round :P.

But I like the monarchy, being the last "Proper" monarchy contributes hugely to the economy of this country. After all, Visiting Buckingham Palace is much better than visiting "generic bunch of offices where a ruler works"



Also, without the occasional "Royal Scandal" (that really is not particularly scandalous at all) All of the tabloid papers would go out of business.

Actually, that might be a good thing....

Look Here (http://www.mori.com/polls/1999/m991110.shtml)

Make of that what you will - especially about Blair being 'in touch'!

An interesting poll - one that certainly confirms my information about the secular republicans.

Bliar - spelt perfectly correctly, there is no mistake - in touch with the British public? We would never have gone to war in Iraq if he was, and would never have offered to give up so much of the EU rebate, and wouldn't have such a close relationship with George Dubya across the pond.

I hate it when people talk about whether Charles will be a good King or not - what constitutes a good King? Yes, Queenie is generally acknowledged as being fabulous, but it's not like She runs the country, is it?
People talk about Charles being a good King, like they're talking about whether David Cameron will be a good Prime Minister. It really irritates me. Grr.

That poll was taken a long time ago... and it seems that the British people still haven't come to their senses and thrown Blair out! It can make one despair...

At least three-quarters still like the monarchy :D

Indeed. The anti-depressants simply aren't working. Finally being able to say "Bliar* has lost the general election" might.

*Again, no spelling mistake

An interesting poll - one that certainly confirms my information about the secular republicans.

Bliar - spelt perfectly correctly, there is no mistake - in touch with the British public? We would never have gone to war in Iraq if he was, and would never have offered to give up so much of the EU rebate, and wouldn't have such a close relationship with George Dubya across the pond.

I hate it when people talk about whether Charles will be a good King or not - what constitutes a good King? Yes, Queenie is generally acknowledged as being fabulous, but it's not like She runs the country, is it?
People talk about Charles being a good King, like they're talking about whether David Cameron will be a good Prime Minister. It really irritates me. Grr.

David Cameron as Prime Minister? Please, there are some conservatives on this board :p

Although I'm very suspicious of Cameron's motives for running for the leadership, I do think he was probably the least worst option of the potential leaders. His effect on the opinion polls has also been most encouraging, although let's hope that he doesn't change so much policy that any future Tory victory will be hollow.

It can't be much fun being a secular republican... trying to apply logic to every single situation must be soul-destroying :)

Indeed. The anti-depressants simply aren't working. Finally being able to say "Bliar* has lost the general election" might.

*Again, no spelling mistake

Don't worry, the country shoulf have to come to its senses by 2009, even if that doesn't mean a Conservative majoirty.

The Tory minority government in Canada is a very interesting perspective, and if it's successful I expect David Cameron to learn lessons from their experiences. After all, governing without a majority is not something any UK party is used to.

Hah, the conservative (and now LibDem) leadership scuffles dont really concern me. I will be voting LOONY!

www.omrlp.com

That poll was taken a long time ago... and it seems that the British people still haven't come to their senses and thrown Blair out! It can make one despair...

At least three-quarters still like the monarchy :D

Ooh, at least one third now support a republic!

There is such a think as a good King, though, in the same way that you might know people that are good friends, or complete tossers. Basically, a good King is a king that you don't think is a tosser.

It's quite amazing - an overtly British thread that took two days and 10 pages to get to Blair. Monarchist or republican - you've gotta hate him.

Don't worry, the country shoulf have to come to its senses by 2009, even if that doesn't mean a Conservative majoirty.

The Tory minority government in Canada is a very interesting perspective, and if it's successful I expect David Cameron to learn lessons from their experiences. After all, governing without a majority is not something any UK party is used to.

Yesterday I considered voting tory (WHAT came over me?) at the next election to get rid of Labour. Luckily, i've come to my senses, and remembered that 'tory' and 'new labour' are actually synonomous.

All the parties - even the one(s) that I agree with on policy, are totally unelectable.

This is a far better topic than the monarchy, don't you think?

Don't worry, the country shoulf have to come to its senses by 2009, even if that doesn't mean a Conservative majoirty.

The Tory minority government in Canada is a very interesting perspective, and if it's successful I expect David Cameron to learn lessons from their experiences. After all, governing without a majority is not something any UK party is used to.

For christ sake, whilst I, foremost of all others, would welcome a Tory administration, the leadership of Cameron essentially constitutes demagoguery, and I harbour misgivings as to whether an administration eaded by cameron would pursue Tory policy in the slightest.

For christ sake, whilst I, foremost of all others, would welcome a Tory administration, the leadership of Cameron essentially constitutes demagoguery, and I harbour misgivings as to whether an administration eaded by cameron would pursue Tory policy in the slightest.

Whatever he does, it's got to be better than the administration we have now. What kind of party makes John Prescott Deputy Prime Minister? He's a very good example of why the 11-plus was a good idea.

I do worry about Cameron... I'd prefer he tried a Steven Harper strategy, of constantly reiterating traditional conservative policies with a human face, and just wait for Labour to self-destruct. I certainly don't like his idea of centralising candidate selection, it seems frightfully Stalinist.

Whatever he does, it's got to be better than the administration we have now. What kind of party makes John Prescott Deputy Prime Minister? He's a very good example of why the 11-plus was a good idea.

I do worry about Cameron... I'd prefer he tried a Steven Harper strategy, of constantly reiterating traditional conservative policies with a human face, and just wait for Labour to self-destruct. I certainly don't like his idea of centralising candidate selection, it seems frightfully Stalinist.

It does smack of nomenklatura a tad, notably the list that discriminates against "British" candidates in favour of those from ethnic minorities, and as for Cameron, I concur fully, whilst Davis may well be less condusive to PR, he is irrefutably amore informed, intellectual and respected politician, withj a sense of tradition and principle.

However, yes, cameron would constitute a better leader than any Labour government, however, so would a tadpole.

Cameron makes the Tories look sane at last. After umpteen years and about four leaders, they may begin to look electable.

Cameron makes the Tories look sane at last. After umpteen years and about four leaders, they may begin to look electable.I'll vote Tory if I can guarantee Boris Johnson as leader, personally.

I'll vote Tory if I can guarantee Boris Johnson as leader, personally.Actually, just to clarify, I think the best party leader, until recently, had been Kennedy. He should not have given in (on the public information I know, maybe there was something else other than the vicious-cardigan members of the Liberal party). But I'd be willing to take a chance that I could to get Boris to be PM, if i knew my vote counted towards that end.

To put me on the political map I'm naturally left-of-centre, though like Blunkett as a person (if not all policies), definite against extreme (read: BNP) nationalism, but proud of my country and a pro-monarch person, plus demand that an unelected second house exist to counteract the short-term "fad and spin" politics we get from the Commons.

On the subject of the identity of the monarch, I'm definitely pro-Elizabeth, would be quite interested to see Charles as King but think that a skip to William would be refreshing and possibly necessary, if 'Liz hangs on for another decade or two.

Really, a head of state must not have sought that position, and better still than making it a prize on the National Lottery (match all six numbers and the bonus on both the normal Lotto and the Lottery Extra?) is someone raised to obtain the position.

Kennedy was inept. Like a vicious little gerbil. Just my personal opinion of course.

He squandered the best chance in a generation for the third party to become a serious political force. How long will they have to wait for the next time that both two main parties will be against public opinion on two major issues (Iraq and top-up fees)?

Kennedy was inept. Like a vicious little gerbil. Just my personal opinion of course.Of course...

He squandered the best chance in a generation for the third party to become a serious political force. How long will they have to wait for the next time that both two main parties will be against public opinion on two major issues (Iraq and top-up fees)?But he was liked. He was fun. I don't see Brown/Tory-leader-of-the-week being as commonly well liked by all the public (even if he turned out to be mostly in second place to different 1st placers on a person-to-person basis...)

But that is my opinion. I'm not outwardly political, but I do make stupid political statements in an out of context manner on occasion, so please ignore me.

It works and that's it? You can't get your head around how outdated and even offensive the very concept of a monarchy is.

Plenty of people have done the required amount of thought; I don't claim to be one of them. The republican movement in the UK is still very weak but it will not remain so.
Hopefully, it will fail. The Monarchy is one of Britain's few cultural legacies still around. It is a symbol of its undying power. Remove it, and part of Britain, a great part of Britain, is killed. Kings and Queens made the land. Pathetic politicians will ruin it. I applaud all countries which retain their monarchies, most of all the Scandinavian ones which elect to do so. "Offensive"...please. :rolleyes:

For christ sake, whilst I, foremost of all others, would welcome a Tory administration, the leadership of Cameron essentially constitutes demagoguery, and I harbour misgivings as to whether an administration eaded by cameron would pursue Tory policy in the slightest.

Anything but labour. Or liberal democrat.

Though I also dislike Cameron.

Hopefully, it will fail. The Monarchy is one of Britain's few cultural legacies still around. It is a symbol of its undying power. Remove it, and part of Britain, a great part of Britain, is killed. Kings and Queens made the land. Pathetic politicians will ruin it. I applaud all countries which retain their monarchies, most of all the Scandinavian ones which elect to do so. "Offensive"...please. :rolleyes:

We already have the pathetic politicians. That's why we have the EU: we export the worst ones so we don't have to deal with them. Peter Mandelson...*shuddders*

However, i'm pretty sure that republics do have culture - and legacies to go with it. I don't feel I need a queen to tell me what my culture is - i'm intelligent to work that out for myself. Britain likewise doesn't need a symbol of 'undying power'. We stopped being a superpower long ago. Why do we need to cling onto a colonial imperial past? Even if they did 'make the land' - which they didn't - they are no longer responsible for it. That's the job of democracy nowdays.

England may be on the way out, if Blair keeeps giving more control to the unelected EU

England may be on the way out, if Blair keeeps giving more control to the unelected EU
England on its way out?

You mean by uniting with some other nations into one country with a common Parliament, head of state etc.?

Sorry....that happened in 1707

Something tells me people remember in a vague kind of way that England went into the 1707, and then the 1801 unification very much on top. It was essentially a codification of English supremacy. Joining together in a USE would be very much more a give and take affair. The fact that in a union of nearly 500 million people we can't expect to get our own way all the time is easily forgotten.

Just a note - I'd be very happy to be part of a U.S. of E.
A federal system, with a strictly limited, directly elected central government and most powers constitutionally reserved to the states, would be far better than handing ever more power to the EU with no guarantee that it will be democratically controlled, or even limited in scope.

Something tells me people remember in a vague kind of way that England went into the 1707, and then the 1801 unification very much on top. It was essentially a codification of English supremacy. Joining together in a USE would be very much more a give and take affair. The fact that in a union of nearly 500 million people we can't expect to get our own way all the time is easily forgotten.

Just a note - I'd be very happy to be part of a U.S. of E.
A federal system, with a strictly limited, directly elected central government and most powers constitutionally reserved to the states, would be far better than handing ever more power to the EU with no guarantee that it will be democratically controlled, or even limited in scope.
Hear Hear :)

Something tells me people remember in a vague kind of way that England went into the 1707, and then the 1801 unification very much on top. It was essentially a codification of English supremacy. Joining together in a USE would be very much more a give and take affair. The fact that in a union of nearly 500 million people we can't expect to get our own way all the time is easily forgotten.

Just a note - I'd be very happy to be part of a U.S. of E.
A federal system, with a strictly limited, directly elected central government and most powers constitutionally reserved to the states, would be far better than handing ever more power to the EU with no guarantee that it will be democratically controlled, or even limited in scope.

Why should England not be on top? If you consider that England makes up over 80% of the UK population and contributes more than its fair share to the exchequer, it's hardly unreasonable that it dominates in most areas. If the Welsh or Scots feel that they're not willing to put up with this, they can always secede.

No one would stop them!

On the subject of a United Europe.

The moment they (the EU) can account for that missing 90% of the budget that keeps going missing I will support the idea.

On the subject of a United Europe.

The moment they (the EU) can account for that missing 90% of the budget that keeps going missing I will support the idea.
Are you referring to the Budget rebate or what?

I never said England shouldn't be on top in the UK. 50 out of 60 million people, making the highest per capita contribution to government...

We deserve to be on top in the UK. Just contrasting the UK situation from an English point of view with the EU situation from a UK point of view.

as Jan Smuts Said "If a nation does not want a monarchy, change the nation’s mind. If a nation does not need a monarchy, change the nation’s needs."

If the Welsh or Scots feel that they're not willing to put up with this, they can always secede.

No one would stop them!

Past evidence from Ireland would suggest otherwise...