The British Monarchy

Don think you’ll see or hear of him much from now on.
He was Lizzy’s favourite son allegedly which is probably the only reason he was entertained recently.
He was stripped of everything and banished but for personal events.

But I think it will get worse for now as Charles likely feels even more strongly about getting rid.
 
There appears to be an implicit assumption the alternative is a superior solution but there are plenty of examples of power abuse and idiotic behaviour by elected heads of state (Donald Trump, anyone?) for that to be taken as read. For myself, I shall reserve judgement until after the new King has demonstrated how he carries out the role.

You've chosen a very bad example by going for a country that has a combined head of state + head of goernment.

The comparison you're looking for would be more like Macron & Borne in France or Steinmeier & Shulz in Germany.

An elected head of state that sits above the head of government.
 
I am less bothered by the consitutional role of the Monarch (it acts as a check and balance on politicians)

In what way does it check or balance politicians?

That's what a head of state should do, provide a long term stable presence that isn't geared towards the next election and stops the government getting out of line.

The monarchy can't do that though, because it's sworn to not do anything political.

So when Boris Johnson illegally prorogues parliament to force through law, the Queen could not do anything.

When Boris Johnson made Lebedev a lord, the Queen could not do anything.
 
In what way does it check or balance politicians?

That's what a head of state should do, provide a long term stable presence that isn't geared towards the next election and stops the government getting out of line.

The monarchy can't do that though, because it's sworn to not do anything political.

So when Boris Johnson illegally prorogues parliament to force through law, the Queen could not do anything.

When Boris Johnson made Lebedev a lord, the Queen could not do anything.
What you say is true. But I think the thing politicians fear the most (admittedly not Boris) is being tried in the court of public opinion. I think the Monarchy is capable of influencing public opinion in a covert and subtle way and that puts pressure on politicians. I am not arguing against having a Head of State. It might be a smart move. But my point is that the whole political process needs to change and the Royals are only a small part of it.
 
You've chosen a very bad example by going for a country that has a combined head of state + head of goernment.

The comparison you're looking for would be more like Macron & Borne in France or Steinmeier & Shulz in Germany.

An elected head of state that sits above the head of government.
Whoever has the role of head of state, by whatever system of government they get there, they are a human with human frailties. What matters is how they personally carry out the role. The monarchy has survived in this country because the Queen did it very well. If the new King does a sh*t job and annoys everyone then the monarchy probably won't last - we've chopped off the King's head in the past for taking the p*ss (not that I'm suggesting that would happen again).

One of the advantages of the current monarchy, in my opinion, is the apolitical nature of the role and the way it carries on as continuity and a point of reference despite frequent changes of government of different political persuasions (when you join the armed forces you swear allegiance to the monarch, not the Prime Minister who might be out of the door next week, even though the latter is the one actually giving the orders). I don't think you get that to the same extent with an elected head of state who changes every 5 years.

Now, don't get me wrong, I completely understand the 'anachronistic' and 'medieval' argument and, on the face of it, it may look a bit strange. But the balance so far seems to be very much in favour of keeping the status quo. However, a lot will depend on how the new King shapes up (as noted above) and that balance could change.

That is, perhaps, why there is a lot of grief about - because we are losing something that was stable and unwavering in period of change and adding yet more uncertainty into the mix.

Anyway, just my 2p.
 
The two things this country excels at are History & Pagentry, the Royal Family is a very big part of that.

Brings billions into the country in tourist revenue.

I respect peoples opinions about the institution but I for one think we should retain it, in a slimmed down version.
Great post !!
I mentioned yesterday the monarchy and of what puts the Great into Britain.
Yes of course Royalty has not behaved but to abolish it we need to be careful.
Oliver Cromwell was a right Cnut.
 
Great post !!
I mentioned yesterday the monarchy and of what puts the Great into Britain.
Yes of course Royalty has not behaved but to abolish it we need to be careful.
Oliver Cromwell was a right Cnut.
i'm not sure a modern Republic would be done in quite the same way as a 17th century militant did it....but i suppose you never do know!

i personally think the Great in Great Britain is the people, not the royal family. (even though it's just geographical).
 
i'm not sure a modern Republic would be done in quite the same way as a 17th century militant did it....but i suppose you never do know!

i personally think the Great in Great Britain is the people, not the royal family. (even though it's just geographical).
Good points.
Some posters have referred to previous Kings behaviour so it works both ways. Personally would want to see what a Republic would look like first.
Of course it’s the people but that includes the monarchy.
I’m very proud to be British despite some of our past. My pride is based on factors of which History is not the sole consideration.
 
seeing a lot of Africans and people of African heritage on Twitter posting about mass murder and stealing diamonds and painting the Queen and Royals in a very bad light
Never heard about this, does anyone know what it’s referencing?

I can google it I know just seeing if anyone was knowledgeable about this
 
seeing a lot of Africans and people of African heritage on Twitter posting about mass murder and stealing diamonds and painting the Queen and Royals in a very bad light
Never heard about this, does anyone know what it’s referencing?

I can google it I know just seeing if anyone was knowledgeable about this
Earlier this year, Belgium started the process of handing back something like 8,000 artifacts in Belgian museums that were pillaged from its former colonies in Africa
 
I am anti-Royalist so - for me - the death of the Queen is the perfect end to it all. She seemed like she was well regarded internationally, and she appeared to be well liked in the UK (from what I can gather). There are too many incidents of power abuse and idiotic behaviour for the family to justify its born right to 'rule' others. Anyway, as I say, I think the Queen would have been a dignified way to dissolve the royal family, but obviously that will never happen.

Just my opinion. I feel like the Queen was a high point on which to end a completely out is date, born to rule system. Plenty of other countries have managed to get over their monarchies.
 
seeing a lot of Africans and people of African heritage on Twitter posting about mass murder and stealing diamonds and painting the Queen and Royals in a very bad light
Never heard about this, does anyone know what it’s referencing?

I can google it I know just seeing if anyone was knowledgeable about this

This would probably be a decent place to start if you wanted to learn about it.

 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top