NationStates Jolt Archive

Should the UK continue the tradition of having a monarch or should it become a republic with a president?

where is the return the US to the monarchy option??

I think we should keep it because monarchy acts as a guardian of a nation’s heritage, a living reminder of the events and personalities that have shaped it. As such it is a powerful focus for loyalty and a source of strength in times of crisis, for example World War II, and a reminder of enduring values and traditions. Separating the positions of Head of State and Head of Government also makes great practical sense; the monarchy undertakes much of the ceremonial work at home and abroad, leaving the Prime Minister free to focus more effectively upon governing.

Monarchy is highly cost-effective when compared to the expense of maintaining a Presidency with a large staff and equally stringent security requirements. Royal residences are held in trust for the nation, and would require the same upkeep costs whether they were inhabited by a monarch or not. Instead monarchy more than pays its way through its generation of tourist revenue as millions visit sites associated with royalty, and through its role in promoting trade and industry abroad on royal visits.

Monarchy is preferable to the alternative; an elected Presidency. It avoids the partisan nature of a Presidency, inevitably associated with one of the political parties, and thus incapable of uniting the nation as monarchy can. In all countries public trust of politicians is sinking to new lows, another reason why an elected Presidency fails to provide a focus for national feeling. Constitutional monarchy is also a more effective system of government, vesting real power clearly in the hands of democratically accountable leaders with a mandate to govern, without all the dangers of political gridlock that can result from conflict between two differently elected bodies (e.g. in the USA or France).

Monarchy can lead public opinion. Although above party politics, modern monarchs have proved able to raise important and sometimes unpopular issues that would otherwise have been ignored. For example, Prince Charles has legitimised discussion of environmental issues and stimulated a lively debate about the purpose of architecture, while Princess Diana’s work with Aids sufferers helped shift public opinion.

where is the return the US to the monarchy option??

Now there's an idea... :)

Now there's an idea... :)

Revolution is illegal hence all debts owed by the united states of America are illegal. Currency is now the pound.

I don't really think its worth kicking up that much fuss myself (well we are all British:)) I would certainly rather not the symbol of British be some inbred aristocrats who I have to swear allegiance to

I would rather swear allegiance to McDonald's hash browns

Put the question up to a national vote.

Although I think I read that King Arthur is supposed to return when the monarchy is threatened. I don't think you want an angry dude who's been dead for a thousand years coming back. :p

I would rather swear allegiance to McDonald's hash browns

I think Ronald McDonald is a dangerous monarch. Especially since Lunatic Goofballs could so easily assassinate him and then take his place.

I think Ronald McDonald is a dangerous monarch. Especially since Lunatic Goofballs could so easily assassinate him and then take his place.

Not so Easy. He has cloned himself. there is at least 10,000 Ronald McDonald clones at various McDonald's at anytime. even if you kill the right one one of the other clones activates and takes his place.

Put the question up to a national vote.

why not make it an international vote considering HM still rules over everything ever :D

I think Ronald McDonald is a dangerous monarch. Especially since Lunatic Goofballs could so easily assassinate him and then take his place.

but does LG hold a monopoly on my heart? (http://img381.imageshack.us/img381/5638/valantineuy5.jpg)

I think the monarchy should be given more executive power. The trick of course is to make sure that the heirs are given good upbringings - I think the current royal family has excellent potential.

Disclaimer - I'm from the US.

Politically the monarchy does little. The queen can't even vote ... though she could absolve parliment... but she doesn't really do much.

We should keep it because its a good source of income.

where is the return the US to the monarchy option??

There isn't one because the question has absolutely nothing to do with the U.S.


In answer to the OP's question, why bother? The system is working.

The trick of course is to make sure that the heirs are given good upbringings

so we should take all of the royal families possessions and have them live in the real world?

Communist.:p

I voted 'Yes', but I wouldn't say so much as 'long live the Queen', not that I wish she would die, but that I don't wholeheartedly support the monarchy. I find the notion of inheritable power questionable, though in a sense it exists as much in the upper classes and some businesses.

Although the aspect of politic power has been mostly removed, there is the fact that the royal family has no need to earn a living as they are largely funded by the taxpayer. Not that they don't always make good use of their time (Charles and Diana had great charitable activities). The tourist aspect of it is legitimate: a good source of income and interest in the country, and one that requires that the royals are still here.

So I couldn't say I support them fully, but wouldn't support a revolution to remove them either.

I voted to become a republic, but my view is slightly more complex than that. Although I believe that inherited authority, and hence monarchy, is illegitimate, I also recognise that the royal family are a nice earner for the country, due to tourism and stuff. Once the money dries up, disestablish them, although I wouldn't support a violent revolution to do so.

SNIP

SNIP

SNIP

am I right in assuming we would all rather just have a cup of tea and not deal with the hassle :)

Should the UK continue the tradition of having a monarch or should it become a republic with a president?
I don't see why it needs to be kept; what exactly would one believe "tradition" to mean, if anything?

While I do think in principle that we should have an elected head of state, keeping the monarchy is hardly the end of the world.

If it changes, great. If it stays how it is, never mind.

am I right in assuming we would all rather just have a cup of tea and not deal with the hassle :)

Pretty much. ;)

Pretty much. ;)

God I'm proud to be British :cool:

God I'm proud to be British :cool:

You know, no other country in the world has as large power surges after popular TV programmes or sports games, and it's all due to kettles being turned on. :p

I say get rid of it. It is nothing more than a bunch of elitists hoarding stuff at the expense of the poor. :mad:

I say keep it but chuck the Windsors out.

King Michael Palin :hail:

Seriously though we should chuck the monarchy in the national skip

I say keep it but chuck the Windsors out.

King Michael Palin :hail:

Seriously though we should chuck the monarchy in the national skip

So this would be our anthem?

"I'm a Lumberjack and I'm ok! I sleep all night and I work all day!" etc :D

You know, no other country in the world has as large power surges after popular TV programmes or sports games, and it's all due to kettles being turned on. :p

You know what the best thing about that is? We have to take power from the French national grid to temporarily make up the demand. See, we beat them in anyway :p

(In the South East, that's no joke, they do re route power from other areas, occasionally it has been France. )

am I right in assuming we would all rather just have a cup of tea and not deal with the hassle :)

Firstly, this.

Secondly. The monarch provides what I want a head of state to be fairly well.
If elected then a head of state would inevitably be somewhat political, whereas I'd prefer an apolitical one as far as possible. And it'd be open to popularity contest style thing (see one Boris Johnson).

In a head of state I just want someone who can turn up to functions representing Britain, do the ceremonial side well and not take sides.

To use an extended metaphor, I essentially want a figurehead of the ship of state. To have nothing to do with the steering or any of that nature, or even to be truely representative of the crew. Just be a slightly idealised/old fashioned/etc representative of the country who brings as little baggage as possible (to be the job rather than someone in the job), I can't think of a better way of achieving that to be honest.

And on the money side of it, off the top of my head the Royal family own a shedload of land and pay rather a large amount of taxes (I think). So the idea that they aren't contributing anything is somewhat misguided at least. If we did abolish the monarchy they'd in all probability carry on living extremely easily like many other members of the aristocracy we have in this country.

Abolish the monarchy, but don't bring in a President. Because then we'd have to faff around for ages working out how much power the President would have vs. the PM etc, and there'd be so much argument the idea would end up being shelved. If the President was to have only a figurehead role, all notions of responsible voting would go out the window and we'd probably end up electing someone like Jeremy Clarkson, David Beckham or Brian Blessed.

Abolish the monarchy, but don't bring in a President. Because then we'd have to faff around for ages working out how much power the President would have vs. the PM etc, and there'd be so much argument the idea would end up being shelved. If the President was to have only a figurehead role, all notions of responsible voting would go out the window and we'd probably end up electing someone like Jeremy Clarkson, David Beckham or Brian Blessed.

Having Clarkson, and Blessed on a panel of figure heads, along with Boris Johnson and Alan Rickman would be so so funny. Could be a play on the Swiss 7 heads of state system.

Having Clarkson, and Blessed on a panel of figure heads, along with Boris Johnson and Alan Rickman would be so so funny. Could be a play on the Swiss 7 heads of state system.

Can you imagine Clarkson being sent to meet or host foreign leaders or representatives? They'd declare war within five minutes.

Abolish the monarchy, but don't bring in a President. Because then we'd have to faff around for ages working out how much power the President would have vs. the PM etc, and there'd be so much argument the idea would end up being shelved. If the President was to have only a figurehead role, all notions of responsible voting would go out the window and we'd probably end up electing someone like Jeremy Clarkson, David Beckham or Brian Blessed.

And hand the PM even more power?

And hand the PM even more power?

Monarch doesn't have any real power, never vetoes laws, and all the royal prerogatives are now exercised by the PM. As far as I can see it, abolishing makes little or no practical difference to the balance of power.

The U.K. should adopt a military junta.

The U.K. should adopt a military junta.

Which military junta should they adopt? Burma? Isn't that a bit patronising and colonial in the modern age? :p

No, more like Chile's. Ideologically, at least. Probably less brutal would be better.

Politically the monarchy does little. The queen can't even vote ... though she could absolve parliment... but she doesn't really do much.

We should keep it because its a good source of income.

She also provides another layer of checks and balances within the political system which is important to maintain the stability and fairness of the political system. It keeps the PM and the rest of the executive in check.

Although the aspect of politic power has been mostly removed, there is the fact that the royal family has no need to earn a living as they are largely funded by the taxpayer.

So too would a President. However the Prince of Wales does pay income tax.

So too would a President. However the Prince of Wales does pay income tax.

A president is not in office for life.

Monarch doesn't have any real power, never vetoes laws, and all the royal prerogatives are now exercised by the PM. As far as I can see it, abolishing makes little or no practical difference to the balance of power.

I think it provides a mental concept of limitation for the PM, the knowledge that there is someone above him/her in the system, even if politically the Queen can do little.

Greed and death how could you say that? The US is in trouble but we did fine without the monarchy for years. You must british or a monarchist anyway. maybe your country is commonwealth.

No, more like Chile's. Ideologically, at least. Probably less brutal would be better.

Thank you for your entirely reasonable suggestion. Yes, what we need is an authoritarian capitalist system. For what reason do we need this? To enforce wages decreases on the majority? True, they'd then have no money to buy goods, but they could pay for them using magical pixie dust. Prolong the recession and destroy the rule of law, why not? Who cares about that? What an excellent idea. I'm in.

A president is not in office for life.

Well it can be but my point was that the President will be paid by the taxpayer as well. Though that counter argument works better for other Commonwealth countries rather than the UK.

Although I think I read that King Arthur is supposed to return when the monarchy is threatened. I don't think you want an angry dude who's been dead for a thousand years coming back. :p

Millions of evangelicals are eagerly awaiting the return of Christ, another guy with facial hair who is called King by quite a few people, so I don't see why the mighty King Arthur shouldn't be capable of returning as well. May his undead hands wield the sword of vengeance well. Cleanse the United Kingdom from the republican traitors!

Thank you for your entirely reasonable suggestion. Yes, what we need is an authoritarian capitalist system. For what reason do we need this? To enforce wages decreases on the majority? True, they'd then have no money to buy goods, but they could pay for them using magical pixie dust. Prolong the recession and destroy the rule of law, why not? Who cares about that? What an excellent idea. I'm in.

Socialism is impoverishing the UK, and the UK government is too soft to effectively confront terrorism.

Socialism is impoverishing the UK, and the UK government is too soft to effectively confront terrorism.

Yes. That must be it. The IRA must have just collapsed on its own.

Yes. That must be it. The IRA must have just collapsed on its own.

The UK gives Islamist extremists a free rein to say and do what they want.

Socialism is impoverishing the UK, and the UK government is too soft to effectively confront terrorism.

Do you do stand up? When is your next gig? The UK is socialist? Thats the funniest thing I've heard in years. And Britain has compared to most democratic countries very rigid anti-terror laws. Which in fact are alienating Muslims and contributing to creating more terrorists. You honestly think if you started arbitarily jailing and killing Muslims attacks would decrease?

You're funny. Please don't get yourself banned. We need a good laugh.

Do you do stand up? When is your next gig? The UK is socialist? Thats the funniest thing I've heard in years. And Britain has compared to most democratic countries very rigid anti-terror laws. Which in fact are alienating Muslims and contributing to creating more terrorists. You honestly think if you started arbitarily jailing and killing Muslims attacks would decrease?

You're funny. Please don't get yourself banned. We need a good laugh.

All countries (with the possible exception of Somalia) are socialist.

All countries (with the possible exception of Somalia) are socialist.

Oh, without doubt. And all kittens can shoot laser beams out their backsides. See, I can make ridiculous statements too!

All countries (with the possible exception of Somalia) are socialist.

So according to you, the only country that is not socialist is a complete shambles? Hardly the greatest criticism of socialism that I've seen.

All countries (with the possible exception of Somalia) are socialist.

All countries (with the possible exception of Somalia, maybe a few others that I don't know about) are somewhere on the long spectrum between absolute free-market and absolute command economy. Does that mean that they're all socialist? Of course not. It means that they incorporate some elements of command economy into a mostly free market system, or sometimes vice versa. Are all grey things actually white?

So every country with a working infrastructure, a more or less stable government and a more or less functioning economy is socialist by default? That explains everything!

The UK gives Islamist extremists a free rein to say and do what they want.

Aren't we nice. We don't lock them up in Naval Bases in the middle of nowhere and torture them without due process.

A president is not in office for life.
But there would always be a President, so the effect on the taxpayer would be the same (unless you're talking about the effect on the office-holder).


Socialism is impoverishing the UK, and the UK government is too soft to effectively confront terrorism.

Like hell we are, look at what we did to that dangerous terrorist outpost of Iceland!

I'm pretty sure selling much of the Royal Horseshit (property, jewels, other meaningless crap) might just go some way toward solving budget crises. Okay, I'm not sure, but damn, they own a lot of stuff.

All countries (with the possible exception of Somalia) are socialist.

1/10

- Must try harder.

I'm Canadian and I say f* the Queen - she just owns way too much land. Like 90% of Canada is Crown Land -- and all she ever does with it is let logging companies log it and export the raw logs to the states. I think it's time to nail the last nail in the British Empires coffin.

Mind you, we Canadians need to start our own empire... no one fears us, the Americans walk all over us, the British sold us bad subs. We need to start kicking ass .... starting with Greenland.

Oh, without doubt. And all kittens can shoot laser beams out their backsides. See, I can make ridiculous statements too!

Dude ... just tape a laser-pointer to you cat. Mind you -- it's funnier to aim the thing forwards. What you end up with is a laser-guided fur-ball of clawed-destruction.

in the UK we have to pay taxes to fund the lifestyle of a few inbred useless royals who dominate media attention, something like 60p per taxpayer goes to funding there largess, money better spent on our lovely massive public debt or new hospitals/schools/whatever.

I would advocate a middle way, keep the office of king/queen as it is a historic post but make it an elected post and therefore relevant to modern society with real powers. this would help in spreading more power through more posts in government and not just concentrating most of them in the prime minister.

the current system of arbitrary succession is just wrong and can result in idiots (such as the current monarch) holding positions of prestige. all remnants of the feudal system in Britain should be removed.

any claim that they finance themselves through tourism is bogus, the tourist revenue would still exist and could go to helping the people of the UK rather then some spoilt brats.

I am against the idea of one person being born another another. All titles should be earnt instead of given regarless of anything the individual ever did or didnt do.

I say abolish it and put in a President. There's no chance in fake Hell that the monarchy will ever gain any significant power back, and as such it would simply continue to exist due to mindless obedience to tradition. However, with a President there could be a chance for a de facto unitary executive, like with Putin in Russia, who could run the country better, even if it would not be perfect. The only risk is that some weak-minded fool could gain the office and waste that power, but since this seems to be the norm in many countries it really wouldn't make anything worse.

Long live the Queen!

Give the monarchy more power!

If the Queen is so wonderful, why can't i vote for her?

I assume the only reason why the UK has a monarchy is for historical/traditional reasons or maybe it's the geneology? It does put Shakespeare in perspective. But I am tending to think that a Monarchy is an outdated system that encourages class inequality. Not saying that the US has it's only inequalities. But a monarchy seems to promote it in an extreme manner.

I can only imagine the only problem of getting rid of the Uk's monarchy is what to do with them? Hard to get rid of a bunch of royal elites that are stuck to the country like super glue.

(Note: I am an American)

Us should retrun to UK and adopt the monarch. monarchs are cool.

the current system of arbitrary succession is just wrong and can result in idiots (such as the current monarch) holding positions of prestige. all remnants of the feudal system in Britain should be removed.

Can you explain why HM is an idiot?

i think the monarchy is mostly window dressing, but it does on occasion have its redeaming uses. what i think, as if it were any of my bussiness not being from there, is that if its costing too much, ok, so reduce its budget. big deal.

maybe just maintain one symbolic palace or something, and only part of it be the personal domain of the monarchy. just like the u.s. president's private appartments IN the whitehouse. the rest of it being primarily institutional office and or reception space.

i really don't see why people are having such a big problem with the idea of there BEING one. i think it would be perfectly legitimate for parliment to tell the older generation of the royals not to meddle in the sex and marital lives of their offspring.

No, it's great.

If the Queen is so wonderful, why can't i vote for her?
Because she can't stand for political office (or vote, for that matter).
I assume the only reason why the UK has a monarchy is for historical/traditional reasons or maybe it's the geneology?
Also it's a final check on any government (as a monarch can dissolve parliament), is a solid earner in terms of tourism, doesn't cost us much money and gives us another figurehead for when the PM is unappealing, as well as doing a lot diplomatically. Plus national pride and all that.

Other than that, aye, waste of time.

Because she can't stand for political office (or vote, for that matter).

She doesn't really need to vote, it's her government after all.

The pain and suffering of not being able to vote really would be reduced slightly by being able to single-handedly pick who gets to be PM, should the need arise.

She doesn't really need to vote, it's her government after all.

The pain and suffering of not being able to vote really would be reduced slightly by being able to single-handedly pick who gets to be PM, should the need arise.
Was just giving the reason and all :tongue:

If the President was to have only a figurehead role, all notions of responsible voting would go out the window and we'd probably end up electing someone like Jeremy Clarkson, David Beckham or Brian Blessed.
An election would probably be irresponsible, that's why the position should be the grand prize of a TV gameshow. "Who Wants to Be Head of State?"
It'd be great, you could have a trivia portion (to make sure they were smart), a physical challenge (to make sure they were healthy), a talent stage (to make sure they were interesting) and a See How Much Custard You Can Hold In Your Underpants Competition at the end.

Yootopia. You don't get it. Why can't I vote for her to be Queen?
Is it that the, "No",vote would be a step towards enlightenment you are not prepared to take?

I'm an American and I really would like the UK to keep the monarchy, for the entertainment value if nothing else. Watching the Royals be disfunctional does wonders for taking the collective American mind off the foibles of our own pseudo-aristocracy (I could only wish that the most entertaining Royals were better looking). Besides, the last time the UK dispensed with Royals, they took on Oliver Cromwell, and that was, well, a royal disaster.

But there would always be a President, so the effect on the taxpayer would be the same (unless you're talking about the effect on the office-holder).

This analogy still fails: A president is in office for a set amount of years, another replaces him/her, so there is ONE person plus their spouse and/or children. The royal family includes the monarch, all children, all grandchildren, and funds them for them entire lives. These are not comparable in scope.

This analogy still fails: A president is in office for a set amount of years, another replaces him/her, so there is ONE person plus their spouse and/or children. The royal family includes the monarch, all children, all grandchildren, and funds them for them entire lives. These are not comparable in scope.

Those are not comparable in scope. However that is also not an accurate representation of what happens.

Only the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh actually get paid for by the state. The funding for the rest of them is paid back from the private income of the Queen.

There is also the Crown Estate is theoretically at least the property of the Royal Family and contributes far more than they get.

The Royal family have huge private incomes, the idea that they're totally reliant on the state and have everything paid for them is wildly wrong.

This analogy still fails: A president is in office for a set amount of years, another replaces him/her, so there is ONE person plus their spouse and/or children. The royal family includes the monarch, all children, all grandchildren, and funds them for them entire lives. These are not comparable in scope.

Is it? Are not the grand children going out and working? I know 3rd and 4th in line are currently serving in the Royal forces, I know the beautiful Princess Beatrice is working. The Prince of Wales is paying income tax. Besides, why not just say to those apart from the Monarch will not be paid.

Yootopia. You don't get it. Why can't I vote for her to be Queen?
Oh, right, you mean "why can't we have an elected head of state?".

For me, it's the stability of the modern monarch. After William of Orange, the monarch has held relatively little power, and is very tightly restricted by parliament. The monarch can't do that much bad, especially with the fairly strong Republican movement.

On the other hand, if we get a really bad government, it can be dismissed by the Monarchy, which has no party affiliation. It's our final check on the power of a democratically elected government.
Is it that the, "No",vote would be a step towards enlightenment you are not prepared to take?
No, it's that saying "yes" would be a step towards having a party-affiliated head of state. The monarchy is, on paper at least, non-partisan. I wouldn't want the country to be forced to suffer a really bad government because they voted in someone who will protect it to the end of their time in office.

Meh I just don't care really.

yes. what the fuck did she do to deserve what she has?

On the other hand, if we get a really bad government, it can be dismissed by the Monarchy, which has no party affiliation. It's our final check on the power of a democratically elected government.
That's never going to happen. The monarchy doesn't want to commit political suicide. On the other hand, we do need more control over the executive and the way it dominates Parliament, in my opinion.

Those are not comparable in scope. However that is also not an accurate representation of what happens.

Only the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh actually get paid for by the state. The funding for the rest of them is paid back from the private income of the Queen.

There is also the Crown Estate is theoretically at least the property of the Royal Family and contributes far more than they get.

The Royal family have huge private incomes, the idea that they're totally reliant on the state and have everything paid for them is wildly wrong.

I did say 'largely reliant' on the taxpayer in my original post. Yes, it is fair to say they have incomes from private land ownership and tourism that supports some of the family, but I'd probably argue that the income from land is from land granted them by the state (even if done so a long time ago), though I suppose the same applies to other minor titles like Earl and Marquis.

I did say 'largely reliant' on the taxpayer in my original post. Yes, it is fair to say they have incomes from private land ownership and tourism that supports some of the family, but I'd probably argue that the income from land is from land granted them by the state (even if done so a long time ago), though I suppose the same applies to other minor titles like Earl and Marquis.

Heh most likely the land they own is land that they never granted the state and kept for themselves.

Should the UK continue the tradition of having a monarch or should it become a republic with a president?

Of course it should become a republic. If the british citizens say so.
Of course it should remain a monarchy. If the british citizens say so.

Pilatesque, isn't it.

Although I think I read that King Arthur is supposed to return when the monarchy is threatened. I don't think you want an angry dude who's been dead for a thousand years coming back. :p.

Yay for ZOMBIE MONARCHY!

yes. what the fuck did she do to deserve what she has?

She got born in the right family, and that's it.


As for the OP's question:

I don't really care, but if I really had to make a choice. I'd say we keep the monarchy simply because it's fun.

Oh, right, you mean "why can't we have an elected head of state?".

For me, it's the stability of the modern monarch. After William of Orange, the monarch has held relatively little power, and is very tightly restricted by parliament. The monarch can't do that much bad, especially with the fairly strong Republican movement.

On the other hand, if we get a really bad government, it can be dismissed by the Monarchy, which has no party affiliation. It's our final check on the power of a democratically elected government.

No, it's that saying "yes" would be a step towards having a party-affiliated head of state. The monarchy is, on paper at least, non-partisan. I wouldn't want the country to be forced to suffer a really bad government because they voted in someone who will protect it to the end of their time in office.

Interesting concept that the ability to dismiss a democratically mandated government is perceived by you as possessing; "...relatively little power."

Nerertheless. Absolutely, I would prefer an elected head of state. It's called democracy.

I leave you with a rhetorical footnote.

In the due process of time the current monarch will pass and the heir will succeed the throne. By accident of birth, that will be Charles. By decree of marriage, his queen will be Camilla.

And the reason this footnote is rhetorical is that my opinion, your opinion and the opinion of every subject in the monarchy is irrelevant. And this is undemocratic. And that is why the monacrchy should be abolished.

Only if Stephen Fry gets to take their place. I mean Stephen Fry would be the best Head of State ever and you know it

Interesting concept that the ability to dismiss a democratically mandated government is perceived by you as possessing; "...relatively little power."

Nerertheless. Absolutely, I would prefer an elected head of state. It's called democracy.

I leave you with a rhetorical footnote.

In the due process of time the current monarch will pass and the heir will succeed the throne. By accident of birth, that will be Charles. By decree of marriage, his queen will be Camilla.

And the reason this footnote is rhetorical is that my opinion, your opinion and the opinion of every subject in the monarchy is irrelevant. And this is undemocratic. And that is why the monacrchy should be abolished.

There is a lot of sense here. However is democracy the only valid way?

Only if Stephen Fry gets to take their place. I mean Stephen Fry would be the best Head of State ever and you know it

I would vote Stephen Fry for King, umm or perhaps Queen!

I would vote Stephen Fry for King, umm or perhaps Queen!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/features/images/stephenfry_qi_gal.jpg

I would go as far as to call him the personification of classic Britishness. Intelligent, humourous, a nice chap and camp. GO ahead and tell me Stephen Fry couldn't solve all the worlds problems over a cup of tea!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/features/images/stephenfry_qi_gal.jpg

I would go as far as to call him the personification of classic Britishness. Intelligent, humourous, a nice chap and camp. GO ahead and tell me Stephen Fry couldn't solve all the worlds problems over a cup of tea!

Well yes, I think he could. Ohh wait, did you just say that part of classic Britishness is campness?

Shit, I...I..think you are...right!

Is there even a point to having a monarchy any more?

Is there even a point to having a monarchy any more?

They are good to laugh at, Charles seems a decent enough chap, they do bring in the tourist dollar.

Well yes, I think he could. Ohh wait, did you just say that part of classic Britishness is campness?

Shit, I...I..think you are...right!

It's quite obvious really once you look at historical records. The day Stephen Fry announces he will run for political office, is the day street partys will erupt making the classic V Day celebrations look like a joke.

They are good to laugh at, Charles seems a decent enough chap, they do bring in the tourist dollar.

So, no?

That's never going to happen. The monarchy doesn't want to commit political suicide.
No way to tell, and if they went out after dismissing a terrible government, that'd be a fitting swansong.
Interesting concept that the ability to dismiss a democratically mandated government is perceived by you as possessing; "...relatively little power."
Outside of this, the monarchy has very little political power. The Queen can ostensibly pick who gets to be PM, but will always pick the party leader of the winning party.
Nerertheless. Absolutely, I would prefer an elected head of state. It's called democracy.
Democracy is a means to an ends and nothing more. I would be perfectly happy to live in a non-democratic state if it was well-run.
I leave you with a rhetorical footnote.

In the due process of time the current monarch will pass and the heir will succeed the throne. By accident of birth, that will be Charles. By decree of marriage, his queen will be Camilla.

And the reason this footnote is rhetorical is that my opinion, your opinion and the opinion of every subject in the monarchy is irrelevant. And this is undemocratic. And that is why the monacrchy should be abolished.
I absolutely disagree, but this is more a matter of opinion than anything else.

Is there even a point to having a monarchy any more?
Aye, tourism money, national pride, a final check on parliament, all of the diplomatic work done by the monarchy and also a non-partisan head of state.

Aye, tourism money, national pride, a final check on parliament, all of the diplomatic work done by the monarchy and also a non-partisan head of state.

That all seems pretty minor.

That all seems pretty minor.

Minor or not, I belive it answers your question. Is there a point, it sems there are a few, yes.

Minor or not, I belive it answers your question. Is there a point, it sems there are a few, yes.

National pride? What are the English going to do with national pride? They're English, they crave disappointment. They don't need national pride.

National pride? What are the English going to do with national pride? They're English, they crave disappointment. They don't need national pride.

Meh that was just one of the points. Not one I strictly ahdere to. Actualy what we crave is tea and biscuits.

The only thing I can think of that's good is a tourism, and even so, how much does the royal family cost taxpayers every year? Can't be much of a net gain.

Nerertheless. Absolutely, I would prefer an elected head of state. It's called democracy.It's not if the majority of the British people prefers to keep the monarchy.
Besides, the monarch is the figure head of state, more than the head of state.

yes. what the fuck did she do to deserve what she has?What did the heirs of the Rockefeller fortune do to deserve what they have? what did I do to deserve being born here rather than, say, in central Africa?
Nothing. But so what?
Heck, for quite a few heads of state the answer to what they did to "deserve" what they have is "cheat, lie and steal". Not deserving it doesn't sound half bad in that context. :P

The only thing I can think of that's good is a tourism, and even so, how much does the royal family cost taxpayers every year? Can't be much of a net gain.They cost 40 million pounds a year (2004-ish). (This is excluding security arrangements, but that'd have to be done for any head of state.) However, the revenue of their estate goes to the treasury and yields the taxpayer 211 million pounds (2008).
I suppose you could always seize their property when they're deposed.

No way to tell, and if they went out after dismissing a terrible government, that'd be a fitting swansong.
Every government has its supporters.

Yes, give it up.

That all seems pretty minor.
And what reason is there to get rid of it?

Because everyone else has? Aye, whoopedy doo.
The only thing I can think of that's good is a tourism, and even so, how much does the royal family cost taxpayers every year? Can't be much of a net gain.
Net gain is about £150 mil in tourism alone. Their diplomatic work is also pretty beneficial.

Every government has its supporters.
So?

I'm sure that if we got rid of the monarchy then Elizabeth would not want tourists in her house.

Should we dissolve the Monarchy? Not while there are bullets in my gun and breath in my body.

I have argued my point over and over again on these forums and all over the place. And discovered there is little you can say to change the republicans closed mind.

So, to those who don’t like the Queen, go fuck yourself. The Monarchy is there and it is working, it will not be got rid off anytime soon. I would fight for the Monarch just as hard as you may fight to remove her, so bring it on.

*overpatriotic cat is overpatriotic*
Could have toned it down a bit, sonny Jim -_-

Could have toned it down a bit, sonny Jim -_- Well I tried that, and give up. Sick and tired of people saying the Royal Family is lazy, overpaid, useless etc. Well enough is enough, why should I tone down what I think when they seem to confident in rubbishing our greatest asset.

Well I tried that, and give up. Sick and tired of people saying the Royal Family is lazy, overpaid, useless etc. Well enough is enough, why should I tone down what I think when they seem to confident in rubbishing our greatest asset.
Because yapping like a dog makes your argument look weak.

Well, we could keep the monarchy in a ceremonial position, without the castles and the like.

here is little you can say to change the republicans closed mind.

So, to those who don’t like the Queen, go fuck yourself.

Nice and open minded there.

I think we should keep it because monarchy acts as a guardian of a nation’s heritage, a living reminder of the events and personalities that have shaped it. As such it is a powerful focus for loyalty and a source of strength in times of crisis, for example World War II, and a reminder of enduring values and traditions. Separating the positions of Head of State and Head of Government also makes great practical sense; the monarchy undertakes much of the ceremonial work at home and abroad, leaving the Prime Minister free to focus more effectively upon governing.

Monarchy is highly cost-effective when compared to the expense of maintaining a Presidency with a large staff and equally stringent security requirements. Royal residences are held in trust for the nation, and would require the same upkeep costs whether they were inhabited by a monarch or not. Instead monarchy more than pays its way through its generation of tourist revenue as millions visit sites associated with royalty, and through its role in promoting trade and industry abroad on royal visits.

Monarchy is preferable to the alternative; an elected Presidency. It avoids the partisan nature of a Presidency, inevitably associated with one of the political parties, and thus incapable of uniting the nation as monarchy can. In all countries public trust of politicians is sinking to new lows, another reason why an elected Presidency fails to provide a focus for national feeling. Constitutional monarchy is also a more effective system of government, vesting real power clearly in the hands of democratically accountable leaders with a mandate to govern, without all the dangers of political gridlock that can result from conflict between two differently elected bodies (e.g. in the USA or France).

Monarchy can lead public opinion. Although above party politics, modern monarchs have proved able to raise important and sometimes unpopular issues that would otherwise have been ignored. For example, Prince Charles has legitimised discussion of environmental issues and stimulated a lively debate about the purpose of architecture, while Princess Diana’s work with Aids sufferers helped shift public opinion.




Yet the risk of abuse of power by monarchs is very high. I don't think gov't is good at all. Esp now that the UK will begin monitoring all internet communiques and other such things.

Well, we could keep the monarchy in a ceremonial position, without the castles and the like.
Most of the castles belong to the National Trust.
Yet the risk of abuse of power by monarchs is very high. I don't think gov't is good at all. Esp now that the UK will begin monitoring all internet communiques and other such things.
Aye the queen is always bossing us around -_-

Oh, without doubt. And all kittens can shoot laser beams out their backsides. See, I can make ridiculous statements too!

Well, the kid calls himself "I LOVE Pinochet", so he's probably pretty good in being ridiculous. Lunatic Goofballs is still superior in that area, though.

Meh, I don't mind England's royals. I don't mind any royals. Just take away some of that exhorbitant amount of money they possess.

Meh, I don't mind England's royals. I don't mind any royals. Just take away some of that exhorbitant amount of money they possess.
Seeing as they make our economy money, that'd be like stripping Richard Branson of his money to make a point. Eugh.

Seeing as they make our economy money, that'd be like stripping Richard Branson of his money to make a point. Eugh.

I didn't say strip them of their money. Just take some of it away.;)

I didn't say strip them of their money. Just take some of it away.;)
*sighs*

Other than the reigning monarch, who makes the economy about £150mil. per year, they all pay taxes.

Should the UK continue the tradition of having a monarch or should it become a republic with a president?

Prime Ministers already fuck enough up without the extra prestige of being a President. Besides, there's no real advantage to getting rid of the UK monarchy. It wouldn't save money. If we want to save money, we should get rid of the ridiculous levels of government waste.

Yes. UK should keep its monarchy, but I should be the king and the queen and all the other bed sizes

Other than the reigning monarch, who makes the economy about £150mil. per year, they all pay taxes.Even she pays taxes, since 1993.

Even she pays taxes, since 1993.
Huzzah :D

Keep it, don't keep it - I have nothing personally against any of them.

I do however have some issues with the British cult of celebrity and obsession that surrounds their every breath. It's tacky, lacks class and denigrates any 'Royalty' to the level of a reality tv 15 minute of famer.

These people are there by birth - not because of skill, experience, talent, or aptitude. There is nothing that should warrant the media frenzy that surrounds them. X went out and drank - who fucking cares? Y got divorced - big deal. Z - didn't smile on camera - yawn.

/my $0.02

I believe England's Monarchy does keep a national heratage alive.
I do wish, however that my own country can get back to her roots very soon.
I feel as if a democracy is going socailist. of course, I could be just plan paranoid.

Keep the monarchy. They have an 80% popularity rate in Britain. Far higher than any president could ever have. They make money and bring in tourists. The monarchy would probably cost less than a president too and would you make them a president like in Ireland where they just to ceremonial things, like France where they deal with a certan area of politics or like America where they would have more power than the PM?

would you make them a president like in Ireland where they just to ceremonial things

Just so you know, the Irish President does have one very important function

Reference of bills to the Supreme Court: The President may, upon consultation with the Council of State, refer a bill to the Supreme Court to test its constitutionality. The Supreme Court then tests its constitutionality in toto and the President may not sign the bill into law if it is found to be unconstitutional. This is the most widely used reserve power and was indeed used by six of the eight presidents (most frequently by presidents Patrick Hillery and Mary Robinson), but this power may not be applied to: a money bill, a bill to amend the Constitution, or an urgent bill the time for the consideration of which has been abridged in the Senate.

So she does a little bit to keep them in. Her role sunds very similair to the House of Lords

It should be up to the British public. If they want to have a monarchy, that's cool I guess. It is kinda good to have a national figurehead that's above partisanship. If they want to end the monarchy, that's their choice, too.

Is there even a point to having a monarchy any more?

Wait self styled conservative wants to change the old ways?

BUt their are still good points in keeping a monarch, such as it provides another layer of checks and balances within the political system.

Yet the risk of abuse of power by monarchs is very high. I don't think gov't is good at all. Esp now that the UK will begin monitoring all internet communiques and other such things.

Well you see the difference here is that it is the government that is doing that, not the monarch. So really we risk abuse of the government, who by the way without a neutral head of state to ensure they don't abuse their power to much will actually stop this.

Meh, I don't mind the royal family. Keeps the tourists comming in. :)

If we take a purely monetary look at it then it brings in the tourists which generates money for the economy plus an elected presidency would cost us more.

Unless the United Kingdom's monarchy wishes to become absolute monarchs, which I doubt, I see no harm in having the monarchy for ceremonial purposes. It's not like the Queen has any real power these days.

The only reason I could see as a possible justification for ridding the U.K. of its monarchy is if having a monarch bleeds the Exchequer dry. And I believe there are far worse drains on the treasury than having a monarch.

I don't mind the Queen. She strikes me as a passionately hard worker for Britain and I quite like Charles of big ears . I'm of his generation and he occasionally says things that I applaud. Yet I voted for the monarchy going. Why? Because it is outmoded and although it doesn't impede British democracy, it underpins an aristocracy that should go. The very notion of "gentlemen" and "blue bloods" became outdated with capitalism.

The Americans got that one right in 1776 and the French in 1789. Yet, I don't think that a powerful president is an improvement on the monarch. I find that Presidents with too much executive power are a threat to democracy. I like the idea of a President whose role is mainly ceremonial except in times of Constitutional impasse.

Oh! And I like the phrase, "All men (and women) are created equal."

I think the monarchy should be given more executive power. The trick of course is to make sure that the heirs are given good upbringings - I think the current royal family has excellent potential.

Disclaimer - I'm from the US.

No, bad idea. The monarchy is currently primarily symbolic, and that's the way they should stay.

There is no justification for handing executive power to people merely on the basis of their birth, and it almost invariably leads to incompetent leaders in a few generations. As with giving power to any office, you have to be sure that not only the current owner, but all the future inheritors, will be able to wield it effectively and justly*. With a case such as the monarchy, where there is no reason for a monarch to be at all competent, there can thus be no justification for giving them real power.

*This can be developed quite nicely into opposition to all government, as it happens.

am I right in assuming we would all rather just have a cup of tea and not deal with the hassle :)

Damn straight.

I don't mind the Queen. She strikes me as a passionately hard worker for Britain and I quite like Charles of big ears . I'm of his generation and he occasionally says things that I applaud. Yet I voted for the monarchy going. Why? Because it is outmoded and although it doesn't impede British democracy, it underpins an aristocracy that should go. The very notion of "gentlemen" and "blue bloods" became outdated with capitalism.

The Americans got that one right in 1776 and the French in 1789. Yet, I don't think that a powerful president is an improvement on the monarch. I find that Presidents with too much executive power are a threat to democracy. I like the idea of a President whose role is mainly ceremonial except in times of Constitutional impasse.

Oh! And I like the phrase, "All men (and women) are created equal."
are they still YOUR (australian) royal family in some way?

Yes.....when she eventually dies most of us will feel that our grandmother has passed away. Aussies have a real ambivalence toward the Queen. Likewise Kiwis. There's definitely affection there but Australians lean towards a republic (It's how the President should be chosen that divided Australians on the Republican referendum. That's why it failed. But polls indicate that a majority of Australians are republican. I think as long as nothing dramatic happens, will remain a constitutional monarchy for the forseeable future.

Yes.....when she eventually dies most of us will feel that our grandmother has passed away. Aussies have a real ambivalence toward the Queen. Likewise Kiwis. There's definitely affection there but Australians lean towards a republic (It's how the President should be chosen that divided Australians on the Republican referendum. That's why it failed. But polls indicate that a majority of Australians are republican. I think as long as nothing dramatic happens, will remain a constitutional monarchy for the forseeable future.
do y'all have to support the monarchy financially?

What's the point in keeping them? What do they add to the country?

Come on, Great Britain without the Monarchy is like BBQ without BBQ sauce... You can have it and it can work, but it's just kind of bland without it..

It's a long standing tradition in Britain to have a monarchy and I respect tradition greatly... It's not like they have any power over you.

I like the idea of a President whose role is mainly ceremonial except in times of Constitutional impasse.


Why have a ceremonial president which would probably cost the taxpayers more when one could have a monarchy which is widely respected has a 80% approval rating in the UK and brings in tourism and trade?

They really don't do any harm.

Meh, I don't mind the royal family. Keeps the tourists comming in. :)
Does it? I haven't seen any figures on wether royalty actually attracts tourists. I'd be surprised if it was the case, only very few tourists even catch a look at the royal family and I'm sure they know that will be the case before they come here.

It's a long standing tradition in Britain to have a monarchy and I respect tradition greatly... It's not like they have any power over you.
Actually they do. As the queen is immune from the law she could kick down my door any second, steal my PS3 and murder me and my entire family. It's a fear that keeps me awake every night. :(

Actually they do. As the queen is immune from the law she could kick down my door any second, steal my PS3 and murder me and my entire family. It's a fear that keeps me awake every night. :(

She can do that?!:eek:

do y'all have to support the monarchy financially?

No we don't. We do have to pay to upkeep the Governor General and he would be cheaper than a President.

I just thought of something. (About time I hear you all saying :p)

But what would we then call the United Kingdom should we get rid of the monarchy?

I just thought of something. (About time I hear you all saying :p)

But what would we then call the United Kingdom should we get rid of the monarchy?

The united presidency? Or the united states of great Britain and Ireland? Ugh.

She can do that?!:eek:

Yep. The monarch is above the law.

The united presidency? Or the united states of great Britain and Ireland? Ugh.

*Shudders*

I just thought of something. (About time I hear you all saying :p)

But what would we then call the United Kingdom should we get rid of the monarchy?
How about the Commonwealth of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Or the British Commonwealth/Great British Commonwealth?

How about the Commonwealth of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Or the British Commonwealth/Great British Commonwealth?

Yeah not bad ideas. Or the United British Isles.

Totally get rid of the monarchy, because having presidents, is just like, so cool and fashionable this week....

No. This idea is wrong on many levels.

1. The monarchy is not a popularity contest. It's role and existence do not depend on what >50% of the population think. It is. It always shall be. You don't elect the King or Queen.

2. Under UK law to overturn the monarchy is illegal, as is (technically) advocating republicanism.

3. What would the process be for having a presidency? No one has ever put forward a meaningful, detailed proposal for an alternative system.

4. The monarchy is one of the few intact cultural institutions we have left. Why do we wish to trade it for an idiocracy?

5. Our local, general and European elections always provide plenty of time for gutter politics, pandering to the lowest common denominator and crass populism. I don't see a pressing need for yet more of it.

6. There is no way to guarantee the President won't just become another party political tool, as the Commons has tried to do with the Lords. The chance of a new institution to carving out a space for itself in the face of a power-hungry Commons is very slim indeed.

7. In light of the power wielded by party politics and the Commons in this country, and the undermining of the Hereditary Peers, an elected HOS will serve only to further destabilise the system, introducing more party politics and short term political maneuvering to the highest levels of the government.

8. The country needs spokesmen who can put forward points, issues and views that are apolitical, long term, informed, cultured, and not beholden to the populism and knee jerk reactions of the hoi polloi. There is no one better than our monarch to do this.

9. On a personal level, my loyalty to this country is entirely due to my loyalty to the monarch. I have nothing but contempt for 95% of our politicians, and the common man doesn't exactly distinguish himself, either. Consider that, before you ask people to give their loyalty to a uncultured, semi-literate rat in a cheap suit.

I just thought of something. (About time I hear you all saying :p)

But what would we then call the United Kingdom should we get rid of the monarchy?

We'd change our name to an unpronounceable symbol and call ourselves "the state formerly known as the United Kingdom".

She can do that?!:eek:
No.

I say keep the Queen. It's not like she's hurting anyone.

Well what was Britain called under Oliver Cromwell? Probably Great Britain.

Most English monarchs were better than that dictator: "The Lord Protector" Oliver Cromwell. Cromwell was a bigot an the Irish still hate him for what he did to them. Charles the Second was a welcome relief for Britain - but Charles the first probably deserved his "short back and sides".

The current monarch Lizzy 2 is well respected as was her father George 6th but his brother, Edward the 8th would have had Hitler over to Buckingham Palace for scones and tea - but Adolf would have stayed.
It is true that Britain has been fairly lucky with its monarchs but it has NEVER been a proper Republic with the "checks and balances of the US" so we are speculating on cost and effectiveness.
The British aristocracy costs a fortune and most of them are arrant knaves - there I said it! Lop my head off, I dare you! Prove me wrong?

In the Western world, almost anyone can be something. There are countless stories of poor people who became a doctor, a lawyer, an architect, a statesman or whatever.

Sure, it’s clear that people which are raised in a nice environment have more chances to succeed.

The problem with kings, queens and princesses is the fact that their children have virtually no choice to select the destination they want. From their birth they are raised in an environment with a truly unhealthy condition. The people and the media are watching them all the time. From going to elementary school for the first time, to their first date. It’s all ‘news’.

A successful actor, performer, politician selected his/her destination and he or she is aware that beside the eventual money and fame, there is a catch: they can’t have a normal life anymore. For many of them, something simple as drinking a beer in a pub could turnout in a nightmare.

I life in a small country and our famous people do not experience the adventures of their American brothers and sisters. But even for them… Ten years ago, some local famous actor entered a hamburger restaurant with his children. He had no chance to eat something from his burger. An endless line of people started to ask a signature, a picture or a little chat. Poor soul. I’m wondering what would happen when Brad Pitt entered a McDonalds in New York…

The children of the kings and queens didn’t select this life. We selected this for them.

In a way, it’s a kind of child harassment.

Would you like it that your father-plumber is raising you as a plumber and that you have no voice in this matter?

If we take a purely monetary look at it then it brings in the tourists which generates money for the economy plus an elected presidency would cost us more.

They cost 40 million pounds a year (2004-ish). (This is excluding security arrangements, but that'd have to be done for any head of state.)...

in the UK we have to pay taxes to fund the lifestyle of a few inbred useless royals who dominate media attention, something like 60p per taxpayer goes to funding there largess, money better spent on our lovely massive public debt or new hospitals/schools/whatever.
...

The only thing I can think of that's good is a tourism, and even so, how much does the royal family cost taxpayers every year? Can't be much of a net gain.

I do not understand the obsession some people have with how much tax revenue goes toward meeting the costs of the royal family? In every country (except Somalia, of course) some of your taxes will go toward paying the costs of the Head of State.

Also, I don't think in any reasoned debate concerning the spending of tax revenue do we obsessively follow the inaccurate and misleading trend of using the amount per per head, using the total population.

In any country, taxes you pay are used to fund the function of government, the UK is no different.

Yep. The monarch is above the law.

Nope. UK is a constitutional monarchy. The monarch is subjected to certain limitations, is subject to British law and has been for many centuries.

we'd change our name to an unpronounceable symbol and call ourselves "the state formerly known as the united kingdom".

roflmao

While I'm no republican, I would like to pick at a few of these...

2. Under UK law to overturn the monarchy is illegal, as is (technically) advocating republicanism.
As wrong as a legal ban on debating the status of the monarchy in the Commons is, I'm sure that this wouldn't be a problem of there was any kind of popular support for overturning the monarchy. It probably violates the European Convention on Huamn Rights anyway.

3. What would the process be for having a presidency? No one has ever put forward a meaningful, detailed proposal for an alternative system.
This is because there is no real support for abolishing the monarchy, therefore any debate on abolishing it is based around theory rather than practicalities.

6. There is no way to guarantee the President won't just become another party political tool, as the Commons has tried to do with the Lords. The chance of a new institution to carving out a space for itself in the face of a power-hungry Commons is very slim indeed.

7. In light of the power wielded by party politics and the Commons in this country, and the undermining of the Hereditary Peers, an elected HOS will serve only to further destabilise the system, introducing more party politics and short term political maneuvering to the highest levels of the government.
This, I think, is just as much, if not more, an argument for reform of the House of Commons than it is for the retention of the monarchy.

8. The country needs spokesmen who can put forward points, issues and views that are apolitical, long term, informed, cultured, and not beholden to the populism and knee jerk reactions of the hoi polloi. There is no one better than our monarch to do this.
So long as this is done in private, as it is now. If this were done in public, this would compramise the political independence of the monarchy.

Consider that, before you ask people to give their loyalty to a uncultured, semi-literate rat in a cheap suit.
Prince Philip, anyone?;)

On a personal level, my loyalty to this country is entirely due to my loyalty to the monarch.
I'm a bit conflicted about the idea of the monarchy, on the rare occasions that I give it any thought, but I can categorically state that I feel no real loyalty to the monarch.

On the face of it it does seem ridiculous, in this day and age, that we as taxpayers have to fund the whole edifice - especially given the huge personal fortunes that many of the people involved have at their disposal. However, the argument falls flat in light of the fact that the Crown Estate actually pays more in taxes than the Civil List pays out.

On the other hand there are some good things that can be said for having a monarch as a titular head of state without any real political power. For example, it provides a continuity of some relations that you simply do not get from any leaders who are elected for limited-term posts. This in turn perpetuates tradition and creates an anchor for cultural occasions, which is an undeniable boost for tourism. I suspect that the majority of the world's population would recognise a picture Queen Elizabeth (although I suspect that a significant number of them would refer to her as the 'Queen of England', which grates a little).

On the third hand(?), some people don't like the idea of a monarchy, period. They dislike the idea of people being born into positions of power, sans merit or oversight, on principle. I can see where they're coming from.

We're living in unusual times, of course. Elizabeth is currently the 2nd longest-reigning head of state in the world (after King Bhumibol Adulyadej, of Thailand) and the current reign is the 3rd longest that the UK has known. It has encompassed the proliferation of national broadcasting and the advent of globally-produced mass media communications, which I believe has led to the idea of Elizabeth as Queen being fixed in the minds of the population to the point where they don't really give it any thought. The majority of people in the UK have never known anyone else to be on the throne, and I suspect that they'll start to question it all a bit more when the time comes for the next succession (especially if Charles looks like he's about to take on the job).

Overall I think I'm happy enough with the way things run at present but I think I'd like to see a few changes when the current reign ends. I'd certainly like to see an end to the concept of the 'national church', and I think I'd prefer if we started to do away with the lip service that we currently pay to things like the monarch 'inviting' people to form a government. Beyond those, I don't much care at present.

. The IRA must have just collapsed .....

News to me.

Maybe, we should arrange it a little. I'm thinking about a lottery.

The winner should have the right to be the king/queen with all the privileges for a year or something.

That would be fairer.

Maybe, we should arrange it a little. I'm thinking about a lottery.

The winner should have the right to be the king/queen with all the privileges for a year or something.

That would be fairer.
It might well seem 'fairer' but it would make absolutely no sense whatsoever. It'd do away with all the beneficial aspects (the maintenance of tradition, recognisability of the head of state, et cetera) whilst providing absolutely nothing of value. Your idea makes as much sense as putting the winner of some kind of annual 'talent' show in charge of the world.

Maybe, we should arrange it a little. I'm thinking about a lottery.

The winner should have the right to be the king/queen with all the privileges for a year or something.

That would be fairer.

In the 1960's in Australia, we used to have a program for housewives called "Queen for a day". Nowadays that could be misinterpreted.:fluffle:

On the third hand(?),

I knew there was something odd in the water in Scotland..... :p

Several good points there, I agree with much of it.

Nope. UK is a constitutional monarchy. The monarch is subjected to certain limitations, is subject to British law and has been for many centuries.

Yes. The UK is a constitutional monarchy, but the constitution only limits the monarch's political power. Although the Crown can have lawsuits brought against it, the monarch cannot be sued in person and cannot be charged under criminal law.

Having seen Peanut Jimmy, a pair of Bushes and THE Billy Clinton and having looked around at the UK equivalents I can only say

God save the Queen

Nope. UK is a constitutional monarchy. The monarch is subjected to certain limitations, is subject to British law and has been for many centuries.

Note that the UK does not actually have a constitution ;)

Note that the UK does not actually have a constitution ;)
Not a codified one, but a constitution nonetheless.

Yes. The UK is a constitutional monarchy, but the constitution only limits the monarch's political power. Although the Crown can have lawsuits brought against it, the monarch cannot be sued in person and cannot be charged under criminal law.

Given that we have in the past put monarchs on trial, and rather notably executed one of them I'm am somewhat skeptical of your claims.

Note that the UK does not actually have a constitution ;)

Note that this is false. The UK does have a constitution, as AS level Politics (for example) would teach you.

Why should they?
They're amusing.

Given that we have in the past put monarchs on trial, and rather notably executed one of them I'm am somewhat skeptical of your claims.

We only executed that monarch after a revolt by Parliament. It wasn't entirely legal.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/may/17/monarchy.stephenbates

Source provided.

We only executed that monarch after a revolt by Parliament. It wasn't entirely legal.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/may/17/monarchy.stephenbates

Source provided.

Hmm, interesting. Not been tried in a long time (or ever really). I think it would shake out that you could prosecute the queen, but only with her consent, and she'd be technically prosecuting herself. Maybe.

It could happen, in the past we've had monarchs who've technically been at war with themselves, and all kinds of other hilarious state of affairs.

who really cares?

who really cares?

I'd imagine the Queen would be interested.

Note that the UK does not actually have a constitution ;)

Yeah...it really does. Unless my year studying constitutional law was a dream.

Time for John Cleese's letter on the subject methinks:

John Cleese’s “Letter to America”
15

02

2008
Ads by Google
John Cleese Australia
Attend his half day seminar Creativity in Leadership
www.redcarpetpresents.com





Originally uploaded by Browserd.Dear Citizens of America,


In view of your failure to elect a competent President and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately.

Her Sovereign Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories (except Kansas, which she does not fancy), as from Monday next.


Your new prime minister, Gordon Brown, will appoint a governor for America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire may be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed.


To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:


1. You should look up “revocation” in the Oxford English Dictionary. Then look up “aluminium,” and check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it.


2. The letter ‘U’ will be reinstated in words such as ‘colour’, ‘favour’ and ‘neighbour.’ Likewise, you will learn to spell ‘doughnut’ without skipping half the letters, and the suffix “ize” will be replaced by the suffix “ise.”


3. You will learn that the suffix ‘burgh’ is pronounced ‘burra’; you may elect to spell Pittsburgh as ‘Pittsberg’ if you find you simply can’t cope with correct pronunciation.


4. Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels (look up “vocabulary”). Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler noises such as “like” and “you know” is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication.


5. There is no such thing as “US English.” We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take account of the reinstated letter ‘u’ and the elimination of “-ize.”


6. You will relearn your original national anthem, “God Save The Queen”,
but only after fully carrying out Task #1 (see above).


7. July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday. November 2nd will
be a new national holiday, but to be celebrated only in England. It will be called “Come-Uppance Day.”


8. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you’re not adult enough to be independent. Guns should only be handled by adults. If you’re not adult enough to sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist then you’re not grown up enough to handle a gun.


9. Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a vegetable peeler. A permit will be required if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.


10. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and this is for your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean.


11. All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you will start driving on the left with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric immediately and without the benefit of conversion tables… Both roundabouts and metrification will help you understand the British sense of humour.


12. The Former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been calling “gasoline”) - roughly $8/US per gallon. Get used to it.


13. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call french fries are not real chips, and those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called “crisps.” Real chips are thick cut, fried in animal fat, and dressed not with catsup but with malt vinegar.


14. Waiters and waitresses will be trained to be more aggressive with customers.


15. The cold tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will be referred to as “beer,” and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as “Lager.” American brands will be referred to as “Near-Frozen Gnat’s Urine,” so that all can be sold without risk of further confusion.


16. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as good guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors as English characters. Watching Andie MacDowell attempt English dialogue in “Four Weddings and a Funeral” was an experience akin to having one’s ear removed with a cheese grater.


17. You will cease playing American “football.” There is only one kind of proper football; you call it “soccer”. Those of you brave enough, in time, will be allowed to play rugby (which has some similarities to American “football”, but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like a
bunch of Jessies - English slang for “Big Girls Blouse”).


18. Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the “World Series” for a game which is not played outside of America. Since only 2.1% of you are aware that there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable and forgiven.


19. You must tell us who killed JFK. It’s been driving us mad.


20. An internal revenue agent (i.e. tax collector) from Her Majesty’s Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all monies due, backdated to 1776.


Thank you for your co-operation.
John Cleese

Time for John Cleese's letter on the subject methinks:

No.

It is never time for that dross.

Jeez! He's funny, man!

Funny he may be (and whether or not he actually has been funny at any point since Fawlty Towers finished is a matter for much debate), but there are two points to be made here:
1) That wasn't written by him,
2) That isn't funny,
3) Regurgitating something that is 8 years old and has been seen by anybody who's even come into contact with a computer in that period of time is not big, is not clever, and is not funny, and
4) I lied when I said there would be two points.

Funny he may be (and whether or not he actually has been funny at any point since Fawlty Towers finished is a matter for much debate), but there are two points to be made here:
1) That wasn't written by him,
2) That isn't funny,
3) Regurgitating something that is 8 years old and has been seen by anybody who's even come into contact with a computer in that period of time is not big, is not clever, and is not funny, and
4) I lied when I said there would be two points.

0. Yes he has
1. True
2. It was, just a case of been around too many times now
3. True
4. Damn you foul trickster *shakes fist*

Sigh! Okay it may not be that funny to a lot of people but:
1. It makes fun of Americans and that HAS to be funny
1. It ridicules the monarchy - and that's a good thing
3. It sends up the snobbery of the English - and who's going to argue with that besides the English?
True it's been around a while but so has the queen as as we can see from the variuos posts, in the Queen's case it seems to be a major selling point. Now I understand that the Queen and a joke are not synonymous - otherwise I'd be saying that the Queen is a joke.
....in fact, I don't laugh at her....she's a bit too sweet and dignified for that... But I do enjoy a bit of irreverence and lese majeste.

Sigh! Okay it may not be that funny to a lot of people but:
1. It makes fun of Americans and that HAS to be funny
1. It ridicules the monarchy - and that's a good thing
3. It sends up the snobbery of the English - and who's going to argue with that besides the English?
True it's been around a while but so has the queen as as we can see from the variuos posts, in the Queen's case it seems to be a major selling point. Now I understand that the Queen and a joke are not synonymous - otherwise I'd be saying that the Queen is a joke.
....in fact, I don't laugh at her....she's a bit too sweet and dignified for that... But I do enjoy a bit of irreverence and lese majeste.

Anyone who actually gets upset by it needs to grow a thicker skin...
I personally wouldn't say its terribly funny, but it is amusing if you picture John Cleese reading it...

England needs another Lord Protector.

England needs another Lord Protector.

*Volunteers*

England needs another Lord Protector.
That didn't work out too well last time...

That didn't work out too well last time...

It'll be different this time...
See post above yours...

:D