|
Post by oggyoggy on Sept 10, 2022 9:44:50 GMT
Which, if any, of our elected officials over the last, say, 30 years, would you have preferred as our Head of State to the Queen? If it is not a long list, that’s the reason why a monarch with a lack of hard power is a very good thing. It’s not about the Queen it’s about the institution I had no real issues with her as an individual. I’m happy to see a slimmed down version as a bridge to what I’d personally like to see in the future, but when I say slimmed down I mean seriously slimmed down to get rid of all the parasites and hangers on. And whilst we’re at it we could start nationalising some of their multi billion pound property portfolio and the ridiculous amount of crowns, jewels, and general opulent shite much of which was stolen from other countries…… You cannot do away with the institution without replacing it with something, i.e an elected president with hard power most likely. I prefer our current system. I agree they could slim down and I think they will. But they bring in millions of tourists and give us a place on the world stage more than anything else. The multi billion pound portfolio of assets is an interesting one. It is mostly land. Let’s face it, if nationalised the tories would have sold it to their property developer donors, particularly with our small state governance of the last 12 years, and Tahtcher certainly would have sold it off. At the moment, the £1bn estate William just inherited as Prince of Wales massively supports charities and small businesses. When Charles was in charge, he overpaid enormously in tax voluntarily. Would the property developers do that!? I actually think it is a good thing to have a monarch who owns large swathes of land in the country, because they are held to a moral standard which means they must put people before profit else face the wrath of the people. Private landowners generally don’t do things that way.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Sept 10, 2022 9:47:20 GMT
Or on the flip side after another 8/9 days of this state sponsored forced grief people might start to get pissed off and realise the sheer absurdity of it all, you never know? There is no “agenda”, it’s a football message board and I’m killing time until the test match starts…….. The key to abolishing the monarchy (short of a revolution) is to come up with a truly credible and detailed alternative the majority would vote for - it's not enough just to come up with a list of things you don't like about Charles, Meghan or Andrew (or rhetoric about priviledge etc). Almost all alternatives involve an elected politician or ex politician. Faith in politicians has never been lower so I reckon few would vote for the alternative. I have no real opinion on any individuals (other than the obvious ones). But a completely slimmed down version of the Royal Family and those who receive money from the public purse would be an easy win. And it looks like Charles is in favour also in principal so happy days. It must include them handing back some of their obscene property portfolio though, William and Kate now sit on a billion pound asset which they don’t deserve or need. It’s certainly a positive start…
|
|
|
Post by a on Sept 10, 2022 9:50:31 GMT
I like the monarchy. I also like how much it gets under peoples skin, because it ain’t goin anywhere 😂 Long live the King! 😁 It certainly doesn’t get under my skin, they are largely irrelevant to me. But that doesn’t stop it from being a ridiculous outdated institution. When it impacts on football though things start to get more serious…… 😂 yea stopping football does seem odd, especially given horse racing which is crap is still going ahead in some places.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Sept 10, 2022 9:55:34 GMT
I like the monarchy. I also like how much it gets under peoples skin, because it ain’t goin anywhere 😂 Long live the King! 😁 It certainly doesn’t get under my skin, they are largely irrelevant to me. But that doesn’t stop it from being a ridiculous outdated institution. When it impacts on football though things start to get more serious…… I think they messed up that. The football should have gone ahead, with players and fans up and down the country showing their respect for our monarch with a minutes silence/applause, and singing the national anthem. It was a chance for collective respect from many and to come together. Cancelling fixtures was a bad idea
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2022 10:17:32 GMT
I'm all for it. Where do I sign?
|
|
|
Post by maxplonk on Sept 10, 2022 10:25:09 GMT
I do 'get' the abolishment idea. But I don't agree with getting rid of something just because you can. Which is what abolishment would essentially be without a complete appraisal of what the monarchy actually gives to the nation. And I don't think such an appraisal will ever take place.
"Get rid of the old, and you won't hold on to the new for very long." -unknown source.
|
|
|
Post by a on Sept 10, 2022 11:23:58 GMT
I'm all for it. Where do I sign? I’m sure there’s some lefty liberal groups that have created some futile petition that you could sign 😂 genuinely there probably is Edit: yup 😂 www.republic.org.uk/petition
|
|
|
Post by desman2 on Sept 10, 2022 12:20:01 GMT
I'm pro monarchy. Pro monarchy and pro royal are two totally different things. I took my oath of allegiance when I joined the army in 1976 and it's for life. When you give that oath it's an oath to your fellow countrymen and women which is accepted on their behalf by the monarch. In my opinion, to rescind that unilaterally would result in a loss of self respect and dignity. Even today, I would not wish to give my oath to any politician, elected or otherwise. One thing from today which did stand out abit was the lack of what we call everyday people having a part to play in that ceremony. It seemed to be confined to those with rank or titles or previous rank or titles. The ordinary folk were behind barriers being kept back. Maybe introduce an amendment where people could either apply or be appointed to take part in these events, maybe a representative of each county and people of no rank or position. Unless something like that takes place then some will always see it as ground only to be occupied by privilege. Hence to out of touch comments which get used. By the way, some of those we saw today would not be classed as either great or good.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Sept 10, 2022 12:48:03 GMT
I am pro monarchy for many reasons stated in the past.
Looking forward I think Charles will make a lot of changes. I expect him to slim down the royal enterage, reduce the real estate, and aim to be carbon neutral as quickly as practicable.
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Sept 10, 2022 12:52:42 GMT
I think most people will now reassess The Monarchy given what's just happened. Given what politicians have done since WW2 Churchill and post-war Attlee, there's been very little to make us proud of our nation except for the supreme efforts of our armed forces during the Falklands Campaign, and their continuing sense of duty to the nation now. The last 12 years have literally knocked the stuffing out of the ordinary people in this country and there's very little sign that anything is going to get better for us. Perversely, it's taken the death of our monarch to remind us that there are things unique to our islands that we can be proud of and which can, largely, bring us together. I still don't like patronage, mainly because I hate the way The Establishment hand out titles and gongs to truly shit people like those who buy patronage by buying their way into gaining power to political parties. It demeans the very nature of what they should represent... a special status to those who really deserve them, like David Attenborough and Bobby Moore, et al, and many more ordinary people who go on and beyond normal existence to care for others less fortunate. I also agree with those who say their are far too many hangers-on within the royal family. So trim the buggers down, and those outside the sphere of the new king and those who follow in his footsteps, give them a bloody job and pay them accordingly as in what they're truly worth.
But I have changed my mind about any republican sympathies I might have. The thought that a politician, of any persuasion, could truly represent what we are, makes me puke. I was helped in those thoughts by watching King Charles 3rd make his very moving speech yesterday. I think he's going to make a good king and I also think William will too, after him.
Just my opinion.
OS.
|
|
|
Post by fullmetaljacket on Sept 10, 2022 13:02:23 GMT
I think most people will now reassess The Monarchy given what's just happened. Given what politicians have done since WW2 Churchill and post-war Attlee, there's been very little to make us proud of our nation except for the supreme efforts of our armed forces during the Falklands Campaign, and their continuing sense of duty to the nation now. The last 12 years have literally knocked the stuffing out of the ordinary people in this country and there's very little sign that anything is going to get better for us. Perversely, it's taken the death of our monarch to remind us that there are things unique to our islands that we can be proud of and which can, largely, bring us together. I still don't like patronage, mainly because I hate the way The Establishment hand out titles and gongs to truly shit people like those who buy patronage by buying their way into gaining power to political parties. It demeans the very nature of what they should represent... a special status to those who really deserve them, like David Attenborough and Bobby Moore, et al, and many more ordinary people who go on and beyond normal existence to care for others less fortunate. I also agree with those who say their are far too many hangers-on within the royal family. So trim the buggers down, and those outside the sphere of the new king and those who follow in his footsteps, give them a bloody job and pay them accordingly as in what they're truly worth. But I have changed my mind about any republican sympathies I might have. The thought that a politician, of any persuasion, could truly represent what we are, makes me puke. I was helped in those thoughts by watching King Charles 3rd make his very moving speech yesterday. I think he's going to make a good king and I also think William will too, after him. Just my opinion. OS. Agree. The way Boris et al have behaved I'd be far more inclined to do away with the politicians first. That picture of the queen all alone at her husbands funeral following protocol is heartbreaking.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Sept 10, 2022 13:37:15 GMT
I think most people will now reassess The Monarchy given what's just happened. Given what politicians have done since WW2 Churchill and post-war Attlee, there's been very little to make us proud of our nation except for the supreme efforts of our armed forces during the Falklands Campaign, and their continuing sense of duty to the nation now. The last 12 years have literally knocked the stuffing out of the ordinary people in this country and there's very little sign that anything is going to get better for us. Perversely, it's taken the death of our monarch to remind us that there are things unique to our islands that we can be proud of and which can, largely, bring us together. I still don't like patronage, mainly because I hate the way The Establishment hand out titles and gongs to truly shit people like those who buy patronage by buying their way into gaining power to political parties. It demeans the very nature of what they should represent... a special status to those who really deserve them, like David Attenborough and Bobby Moore, et al, and many more ordinary people who go on and beyond normal existence to care for others less fortunate. I also agree with those who say their are far too many hangers-on within the royal family. So trim the buggers down, and those outside the sphere of the new king and those who follow in his footsteps, give them a bloody job and pay them accordingly as in what they're truly worth. But I have changed my mind about any republican sympathies I might have. The thought that a politician, of any persuasion, could truly represent what we are, makes me puke. I was helped in those thoughts by watching King Charles 3rd make his very moving speech yesterday. I think he's going to make a good king and I also think William will too, after him. Just my opinion. OS. Agree. The way Boris et al have behaved I'd be far more inclined to do away with the politicians first. That picture of the queen all alone at her husbands funeral following protocol is heartbreaking. Unforgivable, as it was for everybody else put in that situation.
|
|
|
Post by GrahamHyde on Sept 10, 2022 13:48:07 GMT
I'm pro-monarchy.
1. I don't think there's an alternative that's any better, nor do I think Republicans would find it any better in practice. An elected politician serving as HoS would not have anywhere near the same connection with the people and would inevitably be impartial.
2. Countries who don't have monarchies seem to have this bizarre fascination with ours, which translates into status and £££.
3. Monarchies tend to be, on average, happier nations than Republics.
As those above have said though, I do accept that there are changes which can be made regarding trimming it down and revisiting the order of chivalry.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Sept 10, 2022 13:49:39 GMT
I think most people will now reassess The Monarchy given what's just happened. Given what politicians have done since WW2 Churchill and post-war Attlee, there's been very little to make us proud of our nation except for the supreme efforts of our armed forces during the Falklands Campaign, and their continuing sense of duty to the nation now. The last 12 years have literally knocked the stuffing out of the ordinary people in this country and there's very little sign that anything is going to get better for us. Perversely, it's taken the death of our monarch to remind us that there are things unique to our islands that we can be proud of and which can, largely, bring us together. I still don't like patronage, mainly because I hate the way The Establishment hand out titles and gongs to truly shit people like those who buy patronage by buying their way into gaining power to political parties. It demeans the very nature of what they should represent... a special status to those who really deserve them, like David Attenborough and Bobby Moore, et al, and many more ordinary people who go on and beyond normal existence to care for others less fortunate. I also agree with those who say their are far too many hangers-on within the royal family. So trim the buggers down, and those outside the sphere of the new king and those who follow in his footsteps, give them a bloody job and pay them accordingly as in what they're truly worth. But I have changed my mind about any republican sympathies I might have. The thought that a politician, of any persuasion, could truly represent what we are, makes me puke. I was helped in those thoughts by watching King Charles 3rd make his very moving speech yesterday. I think he's going to make a good king and I also think William will too, after him. Just my opinion. OS. I'm more than happy to concede that abolishing the monarchy is a minority view, that said there is somewhere in between a republic, and an archaic system that costs too much, involves way too pomp and ceremony and needs modernising. There are 19 fully paid up members of the Royal Family (excluding Harry and Meghan who have left) which is way too many. The likes of Denmark, Sweden and Spain have between 6 and 10, the children often go to state school and live relatively "normal" lives and in the case of somewhere like Spain the cost per citizen is pretty much zero........
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 10, 2022 14:50:06 GMT
I think most people will now reassess The Monarchy given what's just happened. Given what politicians have done since WW2 Churchill and post-war Attlee, there's been very little to make us proud of our nation except for the supreme efforts of our armed forces during the Falklands Campaign, and their continuing sense of duty to the nation now. The last 12 years have literally knocked the stuffing out of the ordinary people in this country and there's very little sign that anything is going to get better for us. Perversely, it's taken the death of our monarch to remind us that there are things unique to our islands that we can be proud of and which can, largely, bring us together. I still don't like patronage, mainly because I hate the way The Establishment hand out titles and gongs to truly shit people like those who buy patronage by buying their way into gaining power to political parties. It demeans the very nature of what they should represent... a special status to those who really deserve them, like David Attenborough and Bobby Moore, et al, and many more ordinary people who go on and beyond normal existence to care for others less fortunate. I also agree with those who say their are far too many hangers-on within the royal family. So trim the buggers down, and those outside the sphere of the new king and those who follow in his footsteps, give them a bloody job and pay them accordingly as in what they're truly worth. But I have changed my mind about any republican sympathies I might have. The thought that a politician, of any persuasion, could truly represent what we are, makes me puke. I was helped in those thoughts by watching King Charles 3rd make his very moving speech yesterday. I think he's going to make a good king and I also think William will too, after him. Just my opinion. OS. I'm more than happy to concede that abolishing the monarchy is a minority view, that said there is somewhere in between a republic, and an archaic system that costs too much, involves way too pomp and ceremony and needs modernising. There are 19 fully paid up members of the Royal Family (excluding Harry and Meghan who have left) which is way too many. The likes of Denmark, Sweden and Spain have between 6 and 10, the children often go to state school and live relatively "normal" lives and in the case of somewhere like Spain the cost per citizen is pretty much zero........ The pomp and ceremony is what draws millions of tourists to this country
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Sept 10, 2022 14:58:45 GMT
I'm more than happy to concede that abolishing the monarchy is a minority view, that said there is somewhere in between a republic, and an archaic system that costs too much, involves way too pomp and ceremony and needs modernising. There are 19 fully paid up members of the Royal Family (excluding Harry and Meghan who have left) which is way too many. The likes of Denmark, Sweden and Spain have between 6 and 10, the children often go to state school and live relatively "normal" lives and in the case of somewhere like Spain the cost per citizen is pretty much zero........ The pomp and ceremony is what draws millions of tourists to this country "Millions?" I very much doubt that.........
|
|
|
Post by Veritas on Sept 10, 2022 14:59:21 GMT
I'm more than happy to concede that abolishing the monarchy is a minority view, that said there is somewhere in between a republic, and an archaic system that costs too much, involves way too pomp and ceremony and needs modernising. There are 19 fully paid up members of the Royal Family (excluding Harry and Meghan who have left) which is way too many. The likes of Denmark, Sweden and Spain have between 6 and 10, the children often go to state school and live relatively "normal" lives and in the case of somewhere like Spain the cost per citizen is pretty much zero........ The pomp and ceremony is what draws millions of tourists to this country Bogus argument that is always trotted out as justification for maintaining the status quo. Why do millions visit countries without monarchies?
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Sept 10, 2022 15:21:58 GMT
I think most people will now reassess The Monarchy given what's just happened. Given what politicians have done since WW2 Churchill and post-war Attlee, there's been very little to make us proud of our nation except for the supreme efforts of our armed forces during the Falklands Campaign, and their continuing sense of duty to the nation now. The last 12 years have literally knocked the stuffing out of the ordinary people in this country and there's very little sign that anything is going to get better for us. Perversely, it's taken the death of our monarch to remind us that there are things unique to our islands that we can be proud of and which can, largely, bring us together. I still don't like patronage, mainly because I hate the way The Establishment hand out titles and gongs to truly shit people like those who buy patronage by buying their way into gaining power to political parties. It demeans the very nature of what they should represent... a special status to those who really deserve them, like David Attenborough and Bobby Moore, et al, and many more ordinary people who go on and beyond normal existence to care for others less fortunate. I also agree with those who say their are far too many hangers-on within the royal family. So trim the buggers down, and those outside the sphere of the new king and those who follow in his footsteps, give them a bloody job and pay them accordingly as in what they're truly worth. But I have changed my mind about any republican sympathies I might have. The thought that a politician, of any persuasion, could truly represent what we are, makes me puke. I was helped in those thoughts by watching King Charles 3rd make his very moving speech yesterday. I think he's going to make a good king and I also think William will too, after him. Just my opinion. OS. I'm more than happy to concede that abolishing the monarchy is a minority view, that said there is somewhere in between a republic, and an archaic system that costs too much, involves way too pomp and ceremony and needs modernising. There are 19 fully paid up members of the Royal Family (excluding Harry and Meghan who have left) which is way too many. The likes of Denmark, Sweden and Spain have between 6 and 10, the children often go to state school and live relatively "normal" lives and in the case of somewhere like Spain the cost per citizen is pretty much zero........ Doesnt the Sovereign Grant cost effectively the UK government and taxpayer nothing? One would have seen in today's accession that the monarch gifts royal property to the government. In return for public access to treasures for the Sovereign Grant.
While the figure is reviewed every five years, the Sovereign Grant is normally calculated at 15% of the crown estate profits.
But to support the refurbishment of Buckingham Palace, the grant was increased in 2017/18 to 25% of profits, with the intention of returning to 15% in 2027/28.
The reigning British monarch receives a sovereign grant from the government each year to support their official duties – such as receptions and garden parties – and to cover running costs – such as for royal travel and building maintenance. The monarchy received a sovereign grant of £86m in 2020/21, making it the largest declared source of royal income.
The grant is calculated as a proportion of profits from the ‘Crown Estate’, which is a holding of land and properties valued collectively at £15bn in 2021. The Crown Estate includes almost £8bn of properties in London, particularly the West End, as well as about half the land along the shoreline of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is owned by whoever is the British monarch at the time.Edit I think £1.29p per taxpayers is the often quoted figure for the Sovereign Grant if you font count the wealth generation of the Crown Estate. The money is a specious argument.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Sept 10, 2022 15:49:04 GMT
I think most people will now reassess The Monarchy given what's just happened. Given what politicians have done since WW2 Churchill and post-war Attlee, there's been very little to make us proud of our nation except for the supreme efforts of our armed forces during the Falklands Campaign, and their continuing sense of duty to the nation now. The last 12 years have literally knocked the stuffing out of the ordinary people in this country and there's very little sign that anything is going to get better for us. Perversely, it's taken the death of our monarch to remind us that there are things unique to our islands that we can be proud of and which can, largely, bring us together. I still don't like patronage, mainly because I hate the way The Establishment hand out titles and gongs to truly shit people like those who buy patronage by buying their way into gaining power to political parties. It demeans the very nature of what they should represent... a special status to those who really deserve them, like David Attenborough and Bobby Moore, et al, and many more ordinary people who go on and beyond normal existence to care for others less fortunate. I also agree with those who say their are far too many hangers-on within the royal family. So trim the buggers down, and those outside the sphere of the new king and those who follow in his footsteps, give them a bloody job and pay them accordingly as in what they're truly worth. But I have changed my mind about any republican sympathies I might have. The thought that a politician, of any persuasion, could truly represent what we are, makes me puke. I was helped in those thoughts by watching King Charles 3rd make his very moving speech yesterday. I think he's going to make a good king and I also think William will too, after him. Just my opinion. OS. It may be just your opinion but I think very wise. I think your example of how bad patronage is managed is a prime example of what happens when politicians get involved. Royals and politicians are all human and subject to human failings particularly when exposed to temptations of unscrupulous people seeking to influence and corrupt them. I think the "royal family" should extend solely to the monarchs immediate family (parents, siblings, and children) plus the monarchs spouse. Anyone else such as spouses of the monarchs immediate relatives, in laws, etc. should not be "on the list". This effectively means when the monarch dies, some people such as uncles and aunts of the new monarch, although close relatives, cease to be members of the official royal family. That might seem harsh but I think the only practical way of curtailing the numbers. They could be given a pension like ex MPs. They could be reinstated in the event of unexpected fatalities. Just my opinion as well. Not thought out at length.
|
|
|
Post by Veritas on Sept 10, 2022 15:53:52 GMT
The whole system is anachronistic and not suited to a modern democracy. If Edward VIII has chosen the crown over love in 1936 we would have gone into WWII with a Nazi sympathiser as head of state. If Charles had died before he married we would now have King Andrew I. Great system.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Sept 10, 2022 15:59:14 GMT
I'm more than happy to concede that abolishing the monarchy is a minority view, that said there is somewhere in between a republic, and an archaic system that costs too much, involves way too pomp and ceremony and needs modernising. There are 19 fully paid up members of the Royal Family (excluding Harry and Meghan who have left) which is way too many. The likes of Denmark, Sweden and Spain have between 6 and 10, the children often go to state school and live relatively "normal" lives and in the case of somewhere like Spain the cost per citizen is pretty much zero........ Doesnt the Sovereign Grant cost effectively the UK government and taxpayer nothing? One would have seen in today's accession that the monarch gifts royal property to the government. In return for public access to treasures for the Sovereign Grant.
While the figure is reviewed every five years, the Sovereign Grant is normally calculated at 15% of the crown estate profits.
But to support the refurbishment of Buckingham Palace, the grant was increased in 2017/18 to 25% of profits, with the intention of returning to 15% in 2027/28.
The reigning British monarch receives a sovereign grant from the government each year to support their official duties – such as receptions and garden parties – and to cover running costs – such as for royal travel and building maintenance. The monarchy received a sovereign grant of £86m in 2020/21, making it the largest declared source of royal income.
The grant is calculated as a proportion of profits from the ‘Crown Estate’, which is a holding of land and properties valued collectively at £15bn in 2021. The Crown Estate includes almost £8bn of properties in London, particularly the West End, as well as about half the land along the shoreline of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is owned by whoever is the British monarch at the time.Edit I think £1.29p per taxpayers is the often quoted figure for the Sovereign Grant if you font count the wealth generation of the Crown Estate. The money is a specious argument. Whether it specious or not depends who you think owns the crown estate. If you believe it belongs to the nation not the Crown the the profits are the nation's. At the end of the day whether or not you believe in having a monarchy or not, is a decision each person makes on its merits and the merits of the alternatives.
|
|
|
Post by andystokey on Sept 10, 2022 16:15:00 GMT
Doesnt the Sovereign Grant cost effectively the UK government and taxpayer nothing? One would have seen in today's accession that the monarch gifts royal property to the government. In return for public access to treasures for the Sovereign Grant.
While the figure is reviewed every five years, the Sovereign Grant is normally calculated at 15% of the crown estate profits.
But to support the refurbishment of Buckingham Palace, the grant was increased in 2017/18 to 25% of profits, with the intention of returning to 15% in 2027/28.
The reigning British monarch receives a sovereign grant from the government each year to support their official duties – such as receptions and garden parties – and to cover running costs – such as for royal travel and building maintenance. The monarchy received a sovereign grant of £86m in 2020/21, making it the largest declared source of royal income.
The grant is calculated as a proportion of profits from the ‘Crown Estate’, which is a holding of land and properties valued collectively at £15bn in 2021. The Crown Estate includes almost £8bn of properties in London, particularly the West End, as well as about half the land along the shoreline of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is owned by whoever is the British monarch at the time.Edit I think £1.29p per taxpayers is the often quoted figure for the Sovereign Grant if you font count the wealth generation of the Crown Estate. The money is a specious argument. Whether it specious or not depends who you think owns the crown estate. If you believe it belongs to the nation not the Crown the the profits are the nation's. At the end of the day whether or not you believe in having a monarchy or not, is a decision each person makes on its merits and the merits of the alternatives. What can you get for £1.29 per annum? Three days electricity standing charge, half a cup of coffee two Mars bars? I wouldn't trust the UK government to give me anything of equivalent value. The expression of soft power abroad for £1.29. I'd say the money was irrelevant yes and I'm not a royalist by the way.
|
|
|
Post by professorplump on Sept 10, 2022 16:29:23 GMT
The whole system is anachronistic and not suited to a modern democracy. If Edward VIII has chosen the crown over love in 1936 we would have gone into WWII with a Nazi sympathiser as head of state. If Charles had died before he married we would now have King Andrew I. Great system. And if Jeremy Corbyn had won the last election, we would now be supporting Russia against Ukraine. Democratic systems aren't always great either.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Sept 10, 2022 17:03:01 GMT
The whole system is anachronistic and not suited to a modern democracy. If Edward VIII has chosen the crown over love in 1936 we would have gone into WWII with a Nazi sympathiser as head of state. If Charles had died before he married we would now have King Andrew I. Great system. And if Jeremy Corbyn had won the last election, we would now be supporting Russia against Ukraine. Democratic systems aren't always great either. Absolute bollocks.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Sept 10, 2022 17:06:59 GMT
And if Jeremy Corbyn had won the last election, we would now be supporting Russia against Ukraine. Democratic systems aren't always great either. Absolute bollocks. I was wondering whether that would be allowed to pass unchallenged.
|
|
|
Post by Veritas on Sept 10, 2022 17:06:59 GMT
The whole system is anachronistic and not suited to a modern democracy. If Edward VIII has chosen the crown over love in 1936 we would have gone into WWII with a Nazi sympathiser as head of state. If Charles had died before he married we would now have King Andrew I. Great system. And if Jeremy Corbyn had won the last election, we would now be supporting Russia against Ukraine. Democratic systems aren't always great either. But the people would have chosen it, not that it was ever going to happen.
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Sept 10, 2022 17:40:15 GMT
Not going to happen anytime soon Especially with William and Kate
|
|
|
Post by peterthornesboots on Sept 10, 2022 18:02:18 GMT
I have read through this thread with great interest and, for what they are worth, here are some of my thoughts (and questions).
- The monarchy, to me, is part of an outdated system that creates division along class lines. The idea that someone 'rules' over us simply because of the family they are born into is, well, bizarre.
- The hereditary privilege which the royals are ultimately born in to is no guarantee that they are fit for office (I'm looking at you Prince Andrew).
- I know that there is an argument about the monarchy creating revenue and representing us on the world stage. However, the number of visitors to the Palace of Versailles completely dwarfs the number that visit Buckingham Palace. In fact, I'm pretty sure that Chester Zoo attracts more visitors, but we don't need to put a giraffe as our head of state. (I do admit that calculating the impact of the monarchy is much more complex than simply looking at visitor figures).
- Does the queen/king really have any power anymore? If so, they don't exercise those formal powers - this responsibility seems to fall to the Prime Minister and government (with no real oversight). I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing, more of a "what is the point/what do they do?" question.
- Having said all of that, if the monarchy is abolished, then what does it get replaced by? Because it will need to be replaced by some structure or position.
|
|
|
Post by desman2 on Sept 10, 2022 19:33:23 GMT
I have read through this thread with great interest and, for what they are worth, here are some of my thoughts (and questions). - The monarchy, to me, is part of an outdated system that creates division along class lines. The idea that someone 'rules' over us simply because of the family they are born into is, well, bizarre. - The hereditary privilege which the royals are ultimately born in to is no guarantee that they are fit for office (I'm looking at you Prince Andrew). - I know that there is an argument about the monarchy creating revenue and representing us on the world stage. However, the number of visitors to the Palace of Versailles completely dwarfs the number that visit Buckingham Palace. In fact, I'm pretty sure that Chester Zoo attracts more visitors, but we don't need to put a giraffe as our head of state. (I do admit that calculating the impact of the monarchy is much more complex than simply looking at visitor figures). - Does the queen/king really have any power anymore? If so, they don't exercise those formal powers - this responsibility seems to fall to the Prime Minister and government (with no real oversight). I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing, more of a "what is the point/what do they do?" question. - Having said all of that, if the monarchy is abolished, then what does it get replaced by? Because it will need to be replaced by some structure or position. A really good post and a good read. On your first point. The Monarch doesn't "rule" but reigns which is a watered down version of rule . The monarchy itself creates revenue in various ways. Yes, some comes from tourism etc but most is derived from the crown estates, which is a dept. of government but managed by independent trustees. The main stakeholder is the exchequer and investors who consist of those who manage pension funds etc. All the castles and palaces are part of the estates and the Monarch is granted residence in them while serving. The monarch only owns 2 properties, Holyrood and Sandringham, People sometimes say the Monarch has investment portfolios in property and yes maybe they do, but if you have investments yourself ie pensions bonds etc then so do we . The total cost of the Monarchy is about £1,20 per person, per year. Does the monarch have any power. Yes they do. When a Prime minister resigns or is defeated by election. After the resignation, the monarch becomes the head of government until the new PM is installed. Also no legislation can be active until signed by the monarch. Another thing that people mistake is concerning the armed forces. Many people thin that the prime minister is the commander in chief . It's actually the monarch who is the official commander in chief of all UK Forces. What would it get replaced by. Well, going on form we would probably end up with a ballot paper full of characters belonging to political parties simply chasing the glory and the money. If it was political, then we would be in less secure situation that we are now. The republic movement want a non executive head of state which in effect would just change the personnel but the system would more or less be the same. If anyone seriously thinks that being a republic means that we have the power will be disappointed. Politics will rule everything and any neutrality will be gone.
|
|
|
Post by Goonie on Sept 10, 2022 19:42:44 GMT
The British constitution is the greatest piece of legal Catch 22 ever created
The monarch is the most powerful person in the land just so long as they don't use it. If they do, parliament can take it away from them, yet parliament must seek their permission to create laws
It's the most elegant check and balance and the role of the monarch is one of total contridction: wealth but no power, privileged but a public servant, freedom to live how they wish but forever in the public eye, free to have opinion but not allowed to express them openly, freedom to never work but always on duty, sovereignty over subjects but dedicated to serving, rooted in ritual and archaicly juxtaposed to the fragmented digital era
A true embodiment of Ying and Yang in everyway
To rid ourselves of this would be a catastrophe and create an existential crisis in a land full of those already obsessed with their identify. It opposes chaos through its order
|
|