The Monarchy - should we abolish it?

[SteveH]

The subject of the monarchy came up on another thread. Floo posted one of her trenchantly intellectual comments defending it, while others like me, thought that it should be scrapped. I have no grudge against the individual members of the royal family, though they are a pretty mediocre lot judged as ordinary individuals, but surely a hereditary head of state is an anomaly in a democracy in the present age. Heads of state and government should be directly elected, either as such or at least as an MP (as our prime minsters are). If anyone wants to defend the monarchy, please go ahead, as that's what this thread is for, but please don't come out with the tired old second-hand joke that the best argument against republicanism is two words - "President Thatcher" (or Blair, depending on your politics. Thatcher and Blair, whatever their faults, were elected, and were evwentually got rid of. Anyway, the Prime Minister, as head of government, has the real power in this country, the Queen being a mere figurehead.

[Walter]

yes, we the people choose our government but the Monarch is chosen by God . You wouldn't want to get involved in that would you?

[SusanDoris]

It ain't broke; don't fix it.

If you want to abolish the monarchy, then something better, as colourful, as loved, as envied by others, as traditional, as stable, as fee from mammothly expensive electioneering, as anti-drab, as tourist-attracting, as able to back up trade by association, with as many links to historical events and properties, as photogenic, etc, will be required.
Oh, yes, I meant to add - your post sounds as if it is written by a killjoy (I used this word, I think it was this anyway, the last time the subject came up. )

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It ain't broke; don't fix it.

If you want to abolish the monarchy, then something better, as colourful, as loved, as envied by others, as traditional, as stable, as fee from mammothly expensive electioneering, as anti-drab, as tourist-attracting, as able to back up trade by association, with as many links to historical events and properties, as photogenic, etc, will be required.
Oh, yes, I meant to add - your post sounds as if it is written by a killjoy (I used this word, I think it was this anyway, the last time the subject came up. )

Nice post, plenty of flourish.

[Gordon]

Yep - bin it: just get rid of this odious anachronism - by this afternoon would be good.

[Harrowby Hall]

The subject of the monarchy came up on another thread. Floo posted one of her trenchantly intellectual comments defending it, while others like me, thought that it should be scrapped. I have no grudge against the individual members of the royal family, though they are a pretty mediocre lot judged as ordinary individuals, but surely a hereditary head of state is an anomaly in a democracy in the present age. Heads of state and government should be directly elected, either as such or at least as an MP (as our prime minsters are). If anyone wants to defend the monarchy, please go ahead, as that's what this thread is for, but please don't come out with the tired old second-hand joke that the best argument against republicanism is two words - "President Thatcher" (or Blair, depending on your politics. Thatcher and Blair, whatever their faults, were elected, and were evwentually got rid of. Anyway, the Prime Minister, as head of government, has the real power in this country, the Queen being a mere figurehead.

Why does everyone always assume that a replacement for the monarchy must be an executive president? Just because some countries (eg USA, France) have executive presidencies the lazy conclusion is that all countries must have them.

Have a look at Germany or Ireland or even Russia, and tell me whether the presidents of those countries have any real executive power?

We already, in the monarchy have a suitable model for a presidency. Let's not define Head of State as the result of some random act of coitus but as a temporary reward for someone who has brought great credit to the country - say, David Attenborough or Simon Rattle or J K Rowling?

[Gordon]

Don't replace it: just get rid and ensure that in future all who hold any political office are elected, and that there are regular re-elections.

[SteveH]

Why does everyone always assume that a replacement for the monarchy must be an executive president? Just because some countries (eg USA, France) have executive presidencies the lazy conclusion is that all countries must have them.

Have a look at Germany or Ireland or even Russia, and tell me whether the presidents of those countries have any real executive power?

We already, in the monarchy have a suitable model for a presidency. Let's not define Head of State as the result of some random act of coitus but as a temporary reward for someone who has brought great credit to the country - say, David Attenborough or Simon Rattle or J K Rowling?

Yes, quite - one can also have a figurehead elected President, with the Prime Minister holding the real power. That is also the Israeli model.
Also, the top bod doesn't have to be called "President": how about reviving "Lord Protector"?

[Robbie]

I find the monarchy very interesting, more so as I have got older, and the Queen is great.  I'd feel sad if they were abolished but can't see that happening.

[Gordon]

I find the monarchy very interesting, more so as I have got older, and the Queen is great.  I'd feel sad if they were abolished but can't see that happening.

When we eventually get an independent Scotland I think within 5 years at most we'd ditch the monarchy.

[SusanDoris]

Don't replace it: just get rid and ensure that in future all who hold any political office are elected, and that there are regular re-elections.

What a dreary, colourless, boring country we would then be.

[Gordon]

What a dreary, colourless, boring country we would then be.

Not really, Susan: there is much to enjoy without that bunch of useless hangers-on and the sycophancy that surrounds them. There is already more than enough history to keep the tourists coming (assuming they like that sort of thing).

[Walter]

When we eventually get an independent Scotland I think within 5 years at most we'd ditch the monarchy.

Get ready for Queen Nicola Krankie STURGEON

[Robbie]

Doubt the monarchy will be ditched, too many people find the institution interesting.  I suppose if Scotland became independent it would have the choice to do so - though the royal family adore Scotland!  That's up to the Scots though.

I think the royals are great, love seeing them on TV and reading about them. I must be getting old.

[Shaker]

Get rid.

Not only are they almost by design a feckless and parasitic brood of dreary emotional cripples, but the idea that the hereditary principle is still accepted as the basis for anything in 2017 is an absurdity I can't get over.

Tony Benn said it best as he usually did: who would stay in the chair if your dentist, by the time he had his fingers and instruments in your mouth, revealed that he personally wasn't a dentist but his father was?

As someone once said apropos something else, they order these things better in France. And Russia, while we're at it.

[jeremyp]

Yep - bin it: just get rid of this odious anachronism - by this afternoon would be good.

It's not odious. It might be an anachronism but then so is Windsor Castle and nobody is suggesting we pull that down and replace it with modern buildings.

We have a constitutional head of state whose powers are tightly constrained by the constitution. I see no point in wasting our time having elections.

[floo]

I can't see the Monarchy being abolished in the foreseeable future, I hope it isn't. The Royal Family and their trappings are attractive to tourists. I reckon our friends across the Atlantic Ocean wouldn't mind having their own Monarchy.

[Shaker]

I can't see the Monarchy being abolished in the foreseeable future, I hope it isn't. The Royal Family and their trappings are attractive to tourists.

You do realise that the overwhelming majority of these tourists never actually see these ghastly stiffs in person, don't you? They come to gawp and take snaps of their obscenely many, obscenely large and frequently ugly homes.

I reckon our friends across the Atlantic Ocean wouldn't mind having their own Monarchy.

Reckon on what basis?

[jeremyp]

You do realise that the overwhelming majority of these tourists never actually see these ghastly stiffs in person,

I doubt if you have either, so why insult them? It makes you look bitter and envious rather than a rational republican.

They come to gawp and take snaps of their obscenely many, obscenely large and frequently ugly homes.
Reckon on what basis?

Which of their homes are ugly? Which are obscenely large?

[Shaker]

I doubt if you have either

I have no need or desire to do so, not being the fawning and forelock-tugging type.

so why insult them?

I enjoy invective against things I don't like. That's its purpose. That's what it's for.

It makes you look bitter and envious rather than a rational republican.

Envious, absolutely not. Not bitter either. You mistake dislike for bitterness and envy, much as in other contexts many people make the same error of mistaking dislike for fear.

Which of their homes are ugly?

Buckingham Palace and Sandringham especially.

Which are obscenely large?

All of them.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

I used to be an ardent republican as a youngster, now that I have more important things to worry about, less so.

My understanding is that Chuck has announced that the House of Windsor will end with his mum, and that he intends to begin the dynasty of Mountbatten-Windsor. Whilst I won't be standing outside the home that is rented from the Duke of Westminster when that happens, I won't be spending the day in Calais either.

[Shaker]

My understanding is that Chuck has announced that the House of Windsor will end with his mum

Yay!

he intends to begin the dynasty of Mountbatten-Windsor.

Ah shit. At least give people the bad news first 

[SusanDoris]

It's not odious. It might be an anachronism but then so is Windsor Castle and nobody is suggesting we pull that down and replace it with modern buildings.

We have a constitutional head of state whose powers are tightly constrained by the constitution. I see no point in wasting our time having elections.

Exactly. Well said. 

(Yah boo to the killjoys!)

[Shaker]

It's not odious. It might be an anachronism but then so is Windsor Castle and nobody is suggesting we pull that down and replace it with modern buildings.

Castles can stay. They're part of the nation's historical and archaeological heritage; and they can, and do, rake in tourist cash (if that's your concern, as it seems to be with so many) without the profligate inbreds still inside them.

[Udayana]

We sat behind Prince Charles at a performance of Macbeth in Stratford a few years back, his height and ears were a big nuisance. Get rid.

We could replace them by choosing, say, a hundred adults at random and have them fight it out to be king/queen for the next 10 years ... much more entertaining .. like GoT. They get all the trappings but no power and have to agree to be filmed 24x7 ... and executed if they get too boring (hmm.. is that too far?)

Bread and circuses.