The British Monarchy

bluemoon32 said:
I'm not a royalist, i hope her health issues improve and certainly wish her no harm.
I do think that, after she passes, we should have a vote about whether we keep the monarchy or not
Click to expand...

west didsblue said:
I think referenda have proven themselves to be not the best of ideas. If enough people felt strongly enough about it, one of the parties could include it in their manifesto at the next election and then we could see if they get into power on the basis of abolishment of the monarchy.
Click to expand...
People should also keep in mind that the monarchy is a fundamental component of the British system of government. The monarch serves as the Head of State and has a very important and fundamental constitutional role in how the government works. That role is not often visibly seen and directly called upon. But it is still very, very important and fundamental. So that when it is called upon it is usually over a matter of grave, grave constitutional importance; something that shakes or appears to shake the very foundations of the country and the political system.

In other words, when monarchy is directly and visibly called upon then things are getting closer to blood being spilled. And when matters of blood being spilled become urgent then people's thought processes get affected. People may rush to judgment or rush to all sorts of other things.

I have written the above to alert you that if one indeed wants to think about abolishing monarchy, one must think about what to replace it with. And that is a very, very difficult constitutional question. Doing that would basically amount to something of a revolution. A whole new political system would have to be devised.

Below is a video that can perhaps be instructive about the role that monarchy has in how the British government works:



Perhaps the very most important moment in that video is this one:



When monarch says to the prime minister that she is indeed correct and that she has the power to request that what was requested. The most powerful person in the British government is the prime minister. But all of prime minister's power is yielded as requests or as pieces of advice to the monarch, which then get approved and instituted and given authority. That's how laws are passed. And monarchs have and retain the power and the right to refuse certain prime-ministerial requests or pieces of advice but only under specific conditions. That is how British government works.
 
Last edited:
ShakesSpeare said:
I have written the above to alert you that if one indeed wants to think about abolishing monarchy, one must think about what to replace it with. And that is a very, very difficult constitutional question. Doing that would basically amount to something of a revolution. A whole new political system would have to be devised.
Click to expand...
Well the fact the one we’ve got now plainly isn’t working should be a basis for effectuating meaningful change, but it won’t happen, of course.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Well the fact the one we’ve got now plainly isn’t working should be a basis for effectuating meaningful change, but it won’t happen, of course.
Click to expand...
Why do you think the current British monarch "isn't working"?

ps The current British monarch wouldn't be "working" if he couldn't hold a conversation. It's that kind of a job. And that actually is a very relevant and pertinent question right now when it comes to British monarchy. Because I think that the current monarch has perhaps been diagnosed with cancer. If his health condition were to deteriorate to the point of him not being able to hold conversations then he would indeed not be able to "work" and hold that position. So that a new monarch would have to be instituted which, I think, would be the current monarch's eldest son.

pps And in the history of the British monarchy that what I have explained in the ps has been a very, very important and often extremely critical matter. Because the individuals holding the position of monarch would often themselves believe that they are able to hold conversations and exercise rational judgment while others around them would disagree. Those would be matters of grave importance. And the monarchy would, in fact, often hide the health status of its monarchs. That is a huge part of the British history.
 
Last edited:
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I was referring to our anachronistic, unrepresentative and sinfully wank political system.
Click to expand...
Oh, ok then. I thought you were referring to the current monarch.

What threw me off is that however bad the current political system is, it is still nevertheless working. When a political system stops working then you have complete anarchy or some sort of a state of great societal revolution.
 
Last edited:
How on earth do other countries manage without an unelected monarch and, come to that, an unelected House of Lords?

Somehow, they contrive not only to survive but to flourish. And yet the British are so uniquely thick that we could not devise an alternative constitutional arrangement?

Our friends across the Irish Sea were under exactly the same constitution as us until they decided to secede. They had no difficulty at all in making new arrangements. The precedent is there.

Making some mystic complexity of the business is just an excuse to do nowt. It doesn't wash.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.