Monarchy or Republic?

[Dick Knights Mumm]

I would be very interested to see who "owns" what, and what that ownership is based on. Including estates, presents given to heads of state etc.

In not so many years in the future I hope people will look back and laugh at how this nonsense went on for so long.

 

[Beach Hut]

Hang on a minute. Her "own" income. Which comes from where exactly? All the rents etc based on the fact that she is the biggest landowner in the country. If her royal privilege was stripped- this money would be passed to the state. No??

I think you will also find that the queen has probably the most valuable art collection in the world.

 

[Brovion]

Oh not this again. Republic. And that does NOT mean 'President Blair' or 'President Thatcher' or any other bogeyman that the forelock-tugging Royalist toadies threaten us with. We won't adopt the American system, we'll keep our Parlimentary system with the Prime Minister in day-to-day charge but with an elected Head of State.

I also want a Bill of Rights, a written constitution and an elected second chamber but I won't hold my breath.

PS - Tourists will still come. The President can live in Buckingham Palace and lots of men in red coats can still march up and down outside it if that's what they want to see.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

can they still have real guns and everything ?

 

[Yorkie]

can they still have real guns and everything ?

Oh yes.

My brother did his stint whilst in the Marines.

 

[fatbadger]

Two words:

President Blair

Three words:

Kings Charles III

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

Oh not this again. Republic. And that does NOT mean 'President Blair' or 'President Thatcher' or any other bogeyman that the forelock-tugging Royalist toadies threaten us with. We won't adopt the American system, we'll keep our Parlimentary system with the Prime Minister in day-to-day charge but with an elected Head of State.

I also want a Bill of Rights, a written constitution and an elected second chamber but I won't hold my breath.

PS - Tourists will still come. The President can live in Buckingham Palace and lots of men in red coats can still march up and down outside it if that's what they want to see.

So like Ireland then... no thanks. I dont want some past it singer as my head of state that has probably been voted in by about 5% of the country.

 

[Bwian]

Two words:

President Blair

More 2 word sets:

"Prince Charles"

"The Queen"

"Prince Philip"

"Princess Horse"

"Royal Family"

"Her Subjects"-I am NOBODY'S SUBJECT least of all hers!

It's time this country grew up and realised that an accident of birth making a chinless wonder our head of state is no longer a valid option. Our head of state should be elected-allowing everybody the opportunity to get there.


Keep the Buildings though.

 

[Bwian]

I think you will also find that the queen has probably the most valuable art collection in the world.

And where did the money come from to pay for this collection?

 

[Brovion]

So like Ireland then... no thanks. I dont want some past it singer as my head of state that has probably been voted in by about 5% of the country.

Well that's 5% more than voted for the Queen. But yes, like Ireland. Fair enough if you don't want it (I'm just glad the subject is being debated as opposed to just accepting we're a Monarchy for ever) but at least you've understood that there is more than one model for a Republic.

PS - Why is it that the best argument Monarchists can come up with is Tourism? People would still visit Britain for it's history, neither Hampton Court or the Brighton Pavilion have been used a Royal residences for years but people still visit them.

 

[perth seagull]

The US presidential system is the worst type of republic you could have.

 

[zefarelly]

I think we could learn a lot from republics like America.

like what not to do and how not to piss of the rest of the world ?

My main problem with our system is that it is predominantly class based. How can we ever become a less class based society if the head of state is there because of a born right?

would you rahter the country was run by some illiterate monkey from Salford who learnt to shoot straight before his first teeth fell out ?


The Royal family are a joke I agree, but whats the sensible alternative ?

 

[somerset]

Who pays for the upkeep of the Palace of Versailles because that does not seem to look too shabby.

How about the old Tzar's palace's in Russia?

This is a crap argument against a republic.

How can people not see that to have a political system that flows from the top down, from someone who is born into the position of head of state is completely undemocratic?

Yes but we are a constitutional monarchy, the queen is head of state but has no say in matters of state, in theory she has the right of veto, but I dont think it has ever been used in practice. The queens speach at the opening of parliament each year is written by the prime minister ( or his minions).

Our attraction to foriegn visitors is our history ( some of it still living), that history is based almost entirely around our various monarchs and what was achieved during their respective reigns, ( with the exception of stonehenge of course), the various cathederals around the country were constructed under the direction of various kings/queens.

However as I said before, I am not making a statement for or against the original question, only padding out the argument a bit ( I hope).

 

[Brovion]

Somerset: The last monarch to refuse Royal Assent was Queen Anne in 1707 (I think). Not exactly recent I'll grant you but the fact remains that the Queen has a constitutional right to meddle in Politics if she wanted to. No, I don't think she will either - but I'm not so sure about that idiot son of hers.

Apart from the Queen what are the rest for? Charles's sole job in life is to wait for his mother to die. What a waste of a life. Andrew and Edward were the 'reserves' (now William is) and Anne doesn't figure because she a woman and men take priority.

For me these are all reasons for reform; our entire political system is built on nudges and winks and it needs to be straightend out. Even the little things are wrong: we've got a flag which represents the union of England, Scotland and Ireland. Most of Ireland's been independant since 1924 and Wales is completely ignored on the grounds it's a Principality. The National Anthem (God save the Queen) is routinely booed in large parts of Her Majesty's realm because it's associated with England. The Honors system is a total Ruritanian joke.

Some might see all these as sweet idiosyncranicies - I see them as the mark of a backward nation that is quite happy having a past and doesn't want a futire.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Wales is completely ignored on the grounds it's a Principality.

your point being ....................

 

[rool]

So like Ireland then... no thanks. I dont want some past it singer as my head of state that has probably been voted in by about 5% of the country.

If you are referring to Dana, I think there is more chance of Oliver Cromwell getting voted in. As for the current one, Mary McAleese, it is almost a foregone conclusion that she will get in again even if anyone can bother to compete with her. Most of the population feel she has been a great ambassador for the country.

 

[Brighton Breezy]

Yes but we are a constitutional monarchy, the queen is head of state but has no say in matters of state, in theory she has the right of veto, but I dont think it has ever been used in practice. The queens speach at the opening of parliament each year is written by the prime minister ( or his minions).

What about when it is a hung parliament, I think it has happened twice.

 

[Beach Hut]

And where did the money come from to pay for this collection?

I think you'll find she inherited it, as opposed to buying it on ebay with tax payers money

 

[fatbadger]

Somerset: The last monarch to refuse Royal Assent was Queen Anne in 1707 (I think). Not exactly recent I'll grant you but the fact remains that the Queen has a constitutional right to meddle in Politics if she wanted to. No, I don't think she will either - but I'm not so sure about that idiot son of hers.

More to the point, as long as the monarchy exists, so will Royal Prerogative. This covers a whole host of things which are formally the monarch's responsibility but which are carried out by the elected head of government. Some people seem to think that because the constitutional role of the monarch is merely formal, that makes everything OK. Actually, it is what is so bad about our monarchy. It means that a massive amount of governance can be carried out by a party leader (with his/her own ideological prejudices) without any immediate or direct democratic responsibility.

So, for instance, the Prime Minister can go to war without recourse to Parliament.

That, however, is just the tip of the iceberg. Last year, one MP asked the Cabinet Office to provide a list of the things which the Prime Minister can do under Royal Prerogative. They refused to do so because they had neither the time nor the manpower to put together what would be an enormous list.

Royal Prerogative need never be altered until the monarch is done away with; and no Prime Minister is going to do it until that day. It is Royal Prerogative which is preventing the creation of a genuine democracy in this country - and it is the existence of the monarchy which is preventing the removal of Royal Prerogative.

 

[Brighton Breezy]

It is Royal Prerogative which is preventing the creation of a genuine democracy in this country - and it is the existence of the monarchy which is preventing the removal of Royal Prerogative.

EXACTLY!