The save the wild life so that I can shoot it merchant has retired, oh wow.

[ippy]

History and continuity of positive tradition are worth  more than, in my opinion!, negative ideas of an alternative to royalty which would be so dull, colourless, boring, lacking in pageantry, spectacle and interest. I bet it would cost a whole lot more too and certainly wouldn't bring in as many tourists!



so ther

Obviously this is subject on which we will never agree Susan.

For me it's an insult to my intelligence, to be dependent on luck as to whether we get a good and hard working head of state is ludicrous.

ippy

[Anchorman]

Obviously this is subject on which we will never agree Susan.

For me it's an insult to my intelligence, to be dependent on luck as to whether we get a good and hard working head of state is ludicrous.

ippy

Yep.
Betty is a reasonable old stick - but the fact that we have absolutely no say on who is, or is not, our head of state is an insult to our intelligence.

[SusanDoris]

Ippy

I think you are probably right there, i.e. that this is an area of disagreement!! By the way, did you notice I edited my post?

[Gordon]

History and continuity of positive tradition are worth  more than, in my opinion!, negative ideas of an alternative to royalty which would be so dull, colourless, boring, lacking in pageantry, spectacle and interest. I bet it would cost a whole lot more too and certainly wouldn't bring in as many tourists!

Just get rid: don't replace them.

The tourists will still come since there is ample history involving the monarchy for those that like such stuff.

[Gordon]

I see the ever-sycophantic BBC still have this as the lead story on their website: presumably the received wisdom is that this is more important than anything else.

Odd though that they don't have a 'comments' option for this story. 

[DaveM]

An outsiders view.  Before chucking out the royals, who have no real power and a rather minimal impact on everyday life, perhaps you should first concentrate of getting rid of your present undemocratic system which allows a party with no more than about 40% of the popular vote to rule unilaterally and enact binding legislation which the majority do not support and do not want.  And in the process get rid of your ridiculous and outdated State Church setup which is a millstone around the neck of the Christian faith in the UK.

[Nearly Sane]

An outsiders view.  Before chucking out the royals, who have no real power and a rather minimal impact on everyday life, perhaps you should first concentrate of getting rid of your present undemocratic system which allows a party with no more than about 40% of the popular vote to rule unilaterally and enact binding legislation which the majority do not support and do not want.  And in the process get rid of your ridiculous and outdated State Church setup which is a millstone around the neck of the Christian faith in the UK.

I would happily do both. In part though the three issues, and more see HoL, are linked. The monarchy and state church are entwined and the voting system is part of the establishment control that uses the soap opera of the monarchy to distract from the lack of democracy. The 'dignified' (as per Bagehot) parts of the constitutional institutions work in harmony to cause sclerosis .

[Bubbles]

As always on this subject, I'm with Floo. It is a system that works - it doesn't need fixing!!

Me too 

[Anchorman]

An outsiders view.  Before chucking out the royals, who have no real power and a rather minimal impact on everyday life, perhaps you should first concentrate of getting rid of your present undemocratic system which allows a party with no more than about 40% of the popular vote to rule unilaterally and enact binding legislation which the majority do not support and do not want.  And in the process get rid of your ridiculous and outdated State Church setup which is a millstone around the neck of the Christian faith in the UK.

-
Hi, Dave;
We're working on it!
Only the mess in Westminster has a senile electoral system for the rabble chamber AKA the 'commons', with the coffin dodgers being appointed by the great and the good to become more unelected great and the good in the house of 'lords'.
I'm with you on the State church thing - the CofE should not have representation in the Hol - because the UK HAS no state church - nor should it have.
What England does is England's affair.
At least in Scotland,the elections to Holyrood and Brussels are more democratic, being semi-proportional representation. Even yesterday's local elections were PR, rather than England's first past the post.
As for the Windsors?
I've met a few - one in particular, Anne, is personable, down to earth and interesting to talk with.
Trouble is, of course, we have no say in who is our head of state in the long run.
Elizabeth Windsor seems a nice old lady - never met her or Phil - but that's the trouble: we judge by what we have now.
We have no choice in who we have next.
Chairlie's a well meaning prat - but still a prat.

[Harrowby Hall]

Chairlie's a well meaning prat - but still a prat.

You have no evidence of this, only a perception heavily influenced by populist media.

You may be right, he may well be a prat but on the other hand he may simply be a well-meaning intelligent man trapped into a lifetime of virtual non-activity by the curses planted on him at the time of his conception. Certainly he has had his problems (not least of them an arranged marriage with a highly photogenic bimbo) but he has had to experience them in the full glare of publicity projected through the distorting lens of the gutter press.

Who knows, I might regard you as a prat were it not for the fact that your deeds and misdeeds are cloaked in near total anonymity. Murdoch and the Mail have never heard of you and so have never made your indiscretions and momentary follies public property.

However, he (in his public role), his family, his milieu, the constitutional spiders web which entraps him, the deceits and conceits and barely legitimate devices which permit a political dictatorship the pretence that it is "democratic" have all long passed their dissolution date and we desperately needsome kind of renewal. We won't get it by fulfilling Mrs May's dream of becoming the Venezuela of Europe.

[Robbie]

As always on this subject, I'm with Floo. It is a system that works - it doesn't need fixing!!

Me too.

I think the Queen is a quite remarkable woman and my respect for her has grown over the years (I was quite anti royalas a young person).She sets a fine example & has not been afraid to change with the times albeit slowly.
(Never heard her referred to as "Betty" except on here!)

[Anchorman]

You have no evidence of this, only a perception heavily influenced by populist media.

You may be right, he may well be a prat but on the other hand he may simply be a well-meaning intelligent man trapped into a lifetime of virtual non-activity by the curses planted on him at the time of his conception. Certainly he has had his problems (not least of them an arranged marriage with a highly photogenic bimbo) but he has had to experience them in the full glare of publicity projected through the distorting lens of the gutter press.

Who knows, I might regard you as a prat were it not for the fact that your deeds and misdeeds are cloaked in near total anonymity. Murdoch and the Mail have never heard of you and so have never made your indiscretions and momentary follies public property.

However, he (in his public role), his family, his milieu, the constitutional spiders web which entraps him, the deceits and conceits and barely legitimate devices which permit a political dictatorship the pretence that it is "democratic" have all long passed their dissolution date and we desperately needsome kind of renewal. We won't get it by fulfilling Mrs May's dream of becoming the Venezuela of Europe.

Sorry:
I've met the so-called Duke of Rothesay now on a number of occasions.
He has a flat in Dumfries House, where he and Camilla spend quite a lot of time, and walk their mutts in the estate. I've met him there - twwice, and sa couple of tiimes on other occasions at Kirk 'do's'.
My observation was ome of personal. first hand experience, not of media swallowing.

[SusanDoris]

HH #34

Ah, very well said. 

Robinson #35

When anyone refers to, e.g. the Queen as Betty, that is to me an attempt to diminish that person, to imply that they are just run-of-the-mill and such views betray a certain amount of envy and jealousy, as well as a lack of self-esteem and a need to make others sound less worthy to boost it.
Well, it wasn't her fault the Queen was born into a family where circumstances meant that she became Queen. I admire her dedication, and life-long commitment and wouldnot take on such a job for a fortune.

. In physiological terms, they are flesh and blood like the rest of us, at their particular point in an unbroken evolutionary line and are, as such, equal to every other human being. They should not be worshipped, or one need not be humvble in their presence, but much respect is due for what they are as equal human beings doing the job they do.

[Anchorman]

HH #34

Ah, very well said. 

Robinson #35

When anyone refers to, e.g. the Queen as Betty, that is to me an attempt to diminish that person, to imply that they are just run-of-the-mill and such views betray a certain amount of envy and jealousy, as well as a lack of self-esteem and a need to make others sound less worthy to boost it.
Well, it wasn't her fault the Queen was born into a family where circumstances meant that she became Queen. I admire her dedication, and life-long commitment and wouldnot take on such a job for a fortune.

. In physiological terms, they are flesh and blood like the rest of us, at their particular point in an unbroken evolutionary line and are, as such, equal to every other human being. They should not be worshipped, or one need not be humvble in their presence, but much respect is due for what they are as equal human beings doing the job they do.

-
Susan:
Elizabeth Mountbatten Windsor is no better, no worse than the average persion.
She is no more worthy of respect than the average person.
I treat the role she claims with scorn and ridicule for several reasons, the most important being the lack of election involved.
The other reasons are, in order of importance,
1) My nation's attitude to the monarchy was always different to that of England.
At best, the monarch was seen as first among equals, and at worst, an inconvenience to be circumvented when necessary. Only three - perhaps four - monarchs ever really dominated the Scots court.
After the union of the Crowns, the monarch was seen as an absentee landlord, and as interfering in Scots internal affairs. (After all, we started the so-called "English" civil war.
2. The South West of Scotland was infamous for the 'killing time' when Scots Presbyterians were asked to swear allegiance to the monarch as head of the Church - and the hills, moors and cemetaries are dotted with the memorials of thoswe who would not do so. Many bore the slogan "We have no King, save Christ".
It still holds for many of us.
I have no loyalty to the unelected head of state who bears unearned titles because of accident of birth, regardless of how nice she may, or may not, be.

[Nearly Sane]

HH #34

Ah, very well said. 

Robinson #35

When anyone refers to, e.g. the Queen as Betty, that is to me an attempt to diminish that person, to imply that they are just run-of-the-mill and such views betray a certain amount of envy and jealousy, as well as a lack of self-esteem and a need to make others sound less worthy to boost it.
Well, it wasn't her fault the Queen was born into a family where circumstances meant that she became Queen. I admire her dedication, and life-long commitment and wouldnot take on such a job for a fortune.

. In physiological terms, they are flesh and blood like the rest of us, at their particular point in an unbroken evolutionary line and are, as such, equal to every other human being. They should not be worshipped, or one need not be humvble in their presence, but much respect is due for what they are as equal human beings doing the job they do.

It's her fault that she doesn't see the bowing as demeaning to people or that being the head of an established church in England  promulgates irrationality, and inequality.

[Robbie]

Well I don't agree with her being the established head of the CofE. I've no doubt she believed in it when she took her vows at her coronation but she may have changed her views since then, we can't tell.

Agree wholeheartedly with what Susan said.

As for the Queen being a 'bimbo', she is far from that. She was not academically well educated, not unusual for 'young ladies' of her era,but when she became queen she ensured she had some more education. No doubt she took her role very seriously.

One can argue tht her role is anachronistic but her dedication cannot be in doubt & she has leraned from mistakes. She's great as far as I'm concerned & when she passes it will be a sad day for England but we have hope in the form of the DUke of Cambridge & his children - by which time everything will have changed. No point in trying to prophesy about it,what will be will be.

[Nearly Sane]

Well I don't agree with her being the established head of the CofE. I've no doubt she believed in it when she took her vows at her coronation but she may have changed her views since then, we can't tell.

Agree wholeheartedly with what Susan said.

As for the Queen being a 'bimbo', she is far from that. She was not academically well educated, not unusual for 'young ladies' of her era,but when she became queen she ensured she had some more education. No doubt she took her role very seriously.

One can argue tht her role is anachronistic but her dedication cannot be in doubt & she has leraned from mistakes. She's great as far as I'm concerned & when she passes it will be a sad day for England but we have hope in the form of the DUke of Cambridge & his children - by which time everything will have changed. No point in trying to prophesy about it,what will be will be.

don't think anyone has said Liz is a bimbo, think you have misread somewhere.

And if she has changed her mind on being head of the church and supporting inequality then surely she should say so?

[Bubbles]

don't think anyone has said Liz is a bimbo, think you have misread somewhere.

And if she has changed her mind on being head of the church and supporting inequality then surely she should say so?

It was Princess Diana that was being referred to as " a photogenic bimbo" in HH post

[ProfessorDavey]

As always on this subject, I'm with Floo. It is a system that works - it doesn't need fixing!!

Does it really work?

I imagine most of us have known no monarch other than the Queen. We will only know whether the monarchy actually works when we get the next few. If they aren't as good (or as loved) as the Queen views may change.

I seem to remember there was a survey that showed a majority wanted the monarchy to skip a generation and go to William rather than Charles. The very notion that this seems to be a popular idea indicates that our current hereditary monarchy system doesn't actually work, because (by definition) you get whoever is first in line for the throne, whether they are good or bad, and you don't get a say.

[SusanDoris]

don't think anyone has said Liz is a bimbo, think you have misread somewhere.

And if she has changed her mind on being head of the church and supporting inequality then surely she should say so?

Not at the moment, no.  The situation is safer, more stable, as things are and the Queen has enough experience and common sense to realise that. There is no  strong,  invincible, successfully constructed, humanist alternative and if the CofE vacated its position, then far more dangerous, probably violent, religious ideologiess would seek to replace it.

The change, which I think is inevitable, will have to be clear and well managed.That is why it wil take such a frustratingly long time.  It will not happen during my remaining years, even if I manage another 8 or 10.

[Nearly Sane]

Not at the moment, no.  The situation is safer, more stable, as things are and the Queen has enough experience and common sense to realise that. There is no  strong,  invincible, successfully constructed, humanist alternative and if the CofE vacated its position, then far more dangerous, probably violent, religious ideologiess would seek to replace it.

The change, which I think is inevitable, will have to be clear and well managed.That is why it wil take such a frustratingly long time.  It will not happen during my remaining years, even if I manage another 8 or 10.

Is that what has happened in Scotland then?

[SusanDoris]

Does it really work?

I imagine most of us have known no monarch other than the Queen. We will only know whether the monarchy actually works when we get the next few. If they aren't as good (or as loved) as the Queen views may change.

I seem to remember there was a survey that showed a majority wanted the monarchy to skip a generation and go to William rather than Charles. The very notion that this seems to be a popular idea indicates that our current hereditary monarchy system doesn't actually work, because (by definition) you get whoever is first in line for the throne, whether they are good or bad, and you don't get a say.

It simply means they did not ask enough people! Also it is the position of the monarchy that is important, not which particular person holds it. People have all sorts of opinions, but they change at the drop of a hat, and to alter the system on some sort of popular/populist referendum would be a disaster.

[Nearly Sane]

It simply means they did not ask enough people! Also it is the position of the monarchy that is important, not which particular person holds it. People have all sorts of opinions, but they change at the drop of a hat, and to alter the system on some sort of popular/populist referendum would be a disaster.

Yes, far better to continue on that 'rational' position of hereditary. That's how I choose my doctors

[Gordon]

It simply means they did not ask enough people! Also it is the position of the monarchy that is important, not which particular person holds it. People have all sorts of opinions, but they change at the drop of a hat, and to alter the system on some sort of popular/populist referendum would be a disaster.

You mean it would be better to stick with an anachronistic arrangement which provides one family with a privileged sinecure for life with no real usefulness (unless you count waving and cutting ribbons now and then) instead of actually electing someone to perform a designated role for a time limited period after which they are exposed to re-election.

Better perhaps to just get rid, don't replace and adjust the current political governance system so as to remove all the non-elected (such as the House of Lords), ensure that all those we elect accountable via regular elections and adjust the arrangements to include checks and balances - we should also replace the current voting system.

Not even sure we need a ceremonial Head of State in the first place.   

[ProfessorDavey]

It simply means they did not ask enough people! Also it is the position of the monarchy that is important, not which particular person holds it. People have all sorts of opinions, but they change at the drop of a hat, and to alter the system on some sort of popular/populist referendum would be a disaster.

I don't think they'd have got a different answer by asking more people. I think there is a very sizeable block who want William rather than Charles when the Queen dies and as you rightly point out, to do so means you aren't really in favour of a hereditary monarchy.

I think there have been quite a number of properly conducted polls that have found the same thing. This is perhaps the most recent, from just last year:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/make-william-next-king-say-8708800

And it wasn't even close, more than twice as many people wanted William rather than Charles.