Well no, there are always multiple reasons but most commentators put the election method as the most common one for switching from yes to no.
Public opinion was in favour before that decision.
Private property, there lies the problem!Highly inaccurate. For example, Windsor Castle belongs to the king or the royal family not the nation, which is why you can visit the gallery of Buckingham Palace as the ticket income paid for the repairs to Windsor after the fire and for other upkeep.
Sandringham and Balmoral Castle are the private property of the king……etc.
The case was quite the opposite. Don’t let facts get in the way, tho’.Most commentators probably didn't know diddly-squat. It's easy to rationalise something one way or the other after the fact. Not so easy to predict something that may happen. As all this just confirms.
I'm no republican, but it's clear the case for having a royal family is diminishing over time and I imagine all those problems are solvable. I am more worried that such a significant constitutional change would be fucked up by "politicians". If we have learned anything in the last decade it must be that structural changes must have overwhelming support and be properly thought through. I have zero confidence in the British political class to see that through. I am much more confident that keeping the royal family will cause much less chaos, tbh.
The case was quite the opposite. Don’t let facts get in the way, tho’.
My dad still has a 'Joe Royle's Blue & White Army' mug if that's any good?Thanks for your input mate, can I interest you in a commemorative mug starring the royal of your choice ;-)
The case was quite the opposite. Don’t let facts get in the way, tho’.
Because fascist fuckpigs respect their king and don't use him for social media likes.Why did Starmer get heckled and booed when he went a visited within a few days after the attack having only been in power a couple weeks, yet Charles visits weeks later and is labelled courageous and inspiring?
If the monarchy falls, so does the aristocracy, the ludicrous British Empire honours system etc. It won’t make a financial difference but, over time, it will make a big difference to the social/class system, the law and the constitution.It’s what you replace the monarchy with a “republic” ? technically nothing changes it won’t affect me or mine in any way.
I would still be taxed for the upkeep of the president and his estate, unless it’s proposed to re-distribute the Crown estate wealth and give us all a handout, the king gets to keep all his personal wealth and property “nothing changes” there is no point in agitating for change.
Change makes no difference to me or mine I could probably watch all the castles and houses go into private hands or fall into disrepair as so many do and I get to vote for a president in an election which has to be paid for out of public money I’m happy with the way it is.
I know how as a country we work surely that’s the point the case for a republic is long gone and in the past, when the majority of people were poor with no future.
Indeed. Thread carefully brother.I'm no republican, but it's clear the case for having a royal family is diminishing over time and I imagine all those problems are solvable. I am more worried that such a significant constitutional change would be fucked up by "politicians". If we have learned anything in the last decade it must be that structural changes must have overwhelming support and be properly thought through. I have zero confidence in the British political class to see that through. I am much more confident that keeping the royal family will cause much less chaos, tbh.
I don't think this follows at all. Why does removing the monarchy lead to the removal of the aristocracy (they have dukes in France and Italy despite not having a monarch)? Also, the aristocracy is actually a fairly small number of people and the bulk of the British political class is actually upper middle class (i.e. rich, posh, went to Eton, but not aristocracy). None of that changes with the removal of the monarchy.If the monarchy falls, so does the aristocracy, the ludicrous British Empire honours system etc. It won’t make a financial difference but, over time, it will make a big difference to the social/class system, the law and the constitution.
As things stand one wonders how it would come about since our constitution forbids parliament from discussing it. (Bit of a clue there. Don’t forget the sovereign is immune, he cannot be arraigned in his own courts.)
If the monarchy falls, so does the aristocracy, the ludicrous British Empire honours system etc. It won’t make a financial difference but, over time, it will make a big difference to the social/class system, the law and the constitution.
As things stand one wonders how it would come about since our constitution forbids parliament from discussing it. (Bit of a clue there. Don’t forget the sovereign is immune, he cannot be arraigned in his own courts.)
I was rather assuming that once the monarchy had gone, a Republican House would abolish titles etc. How could they not given the upheaval that removal of the monarchy would need since they can’t be legislated out or existence. One of the reasons for politicians being predominantly upper class is the existence of the monarchy.I don't think this follows at all. Why does removing the monarchy lead to the removal of the aristocracy (they have dukes in France and Italy despite not having a monarch)? Also, the aristocracy is actually a fairly small number of people and the bulk of the British political class is actually upper middle class (i.e. rich, posh, went to Eton, but not aristocracy). None of that changes with the removal of the monarchy.
There are arguments for and against having a monarch as a head of state but saying removing it will necessarily lead to real political change is wide of the mark IMO.
I don't think this follows at all. Why does removing the monarchy lead to the removal of the aristocracy (they have dukes in France and Italy despite not having a monarch)? Also, the aristocracy is actually a fairly small number of people and the bulk of the British political class is actually upper middle class (i.e. rich, posh, went to Eton, but not aristocracy). None of that changes with the removal of the monarchy.
There are arguments for and against having a monarch as a head of state but saying removing it will necessarily lead to real political change is wide of the mark IMO.
I don’t think technology would lead to a change in the constitution, after all it didn’t last time. Direct action would be required. You have to imagine the conditions that would lead to the removal of the monarchy. To see if it would make a difference look at federal republics and compare. A good measure, for example, is the tenure of farming land.I amazed you think that not having a royal family will be any sort of driver for change in the social / class system. The main driver for that will be technology and the jury is out on whether that will be good or bad, replacing one sort of elite for another. Granted technological and the following social change may make a royal family unsustainable, but it may not.
Again, in my view, kingdom or republic would make little substantial difference to you or me. So I would advise being very careful that what you wish for doesn't end up as something worse.
Noting my examples of aristocratic titles still existing in a number of European countries that are republics, it would seem that isn't a safe assumption. Also, as I was saying before, getting rid of the monarchy doesn't get rid of rich, posh people who went to Eton so why would the politicians change? A large proportion of the French political class or civil service went to the École Nationale and they haven't had a monarch for a very long time.I was rather assuming that once the monarchy had gone, a Republican House would abolish titles etc. How could they not given the upheaval that removal of the monarchy would need since they can’t be legislated out or existence. One of the reasons for politicians being predominantly upper class is the existence of the monarchy.
Yes, but working class people have a chance to go to the Ecole Nationale. Not sure how many go to Eton. And surprise surprise it was founded by de Gaulle, a noted changer of constitutions.Noting my examples of aristocratic titles still existing in a number of European countries that are republics, it would seem that isn't a safe assumption. Also, as I was saying before, getting rid of the monarchy doesn't get rid of rich, posh people who went to Eton so why would the politicians change? A large proportion of the French political class or civil service went to the École Nationale and they haven't had a monarch for a very long time.
Class divisions are a feature of pretty much everywhere. Ours is just a different manifestation of it - with more bling.
I don’t think technology would lead to a change in the constitution, after all it didn’t last time. Direct action would be required. You have to imagine the conditions that would lead to the removal of the monarchy. To see if it would make a difference look at federal republics and compare. A good measure, for example, is the tenure of farming land.