'Harry and Meghan to step back as senior royals'

[Aruntraveller]

Our current constitution is structured with the Head of State is largely a ceremonial position, separated from Government with the PM as head of that Government. If we became a republic I see no reason why that would change - Boris wouldn't become President, he'd still be PM and there would be an elected Head of State in a broadly ceremonial position.

This is how it works in many countries, perhaps the nearest example being Ireland.

Yes. I was thinking more of the way things are operating in the presidential US system. I still think there are dangers within a presidential system that need careful planning to guard against the possibility of unintended consequences.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes. I was thinking more of the way things are operating in the presidential US system. I still think there are dangers within a presidential system that need careful planning to guard against the possibility of unintended consequences.

Agree. It's hard to build in an attitude of what the public think the role is. It's easy to think that David Attenborough might get elected but also possible Nigel Farage would. Arguably we don't need one at all but that has its own issues.

[Gordon]

I'd have to say that I don't see the point of having a ceremonial Head of State: after all, it would be a position without meaningful power, responsibility or accountability - nothing more than a bit of theatre for those that like that sort of thing. Do we really need someone to cut ribbons, unveil plaques, have regular banquets or inspect troops?

If we do then why not select a citizen randomly on an annual basis so we could have Trump met by, say, 'big Shuggie' (who I feel sure would acquit himself superbly in that role).

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes. I was thinking more of the way things are operating in the presidential US system. I still think there are dangers within a presidential system that need careful planning to guard against the possibility of unintended consequences.

I know, but I doubt we'd go down that route if we became a republic as it would a far greater constitutional change than just changing the mode of selection of the head of state.

[Nearly Sane]

I'd have to say that I don't see the point of having a ceremonial Head of State: after all, it would be a position without meaningful power, responsibility or accountability - nothing more than a bit of theatre for those that like that sort of thing. Do we really need someone to cut ribbons, unveil plaques, have regular banquets or inspect troops?

If we do then why not select a citizen randomly on an annual basis so we could have Trump met by, say, 'big Shuggie' (who I feel sure would acquit himself superbly in that role).

The question there is whether any of the theoretical powers of the monarchy need to be apportioned in some way. I think they can be sorted e.g. the loyalty of troops is to the country rather than an individual but it needs to be thought out.

I don't see why the meeting of those like Trump isn't just effectively done by the PM.

Some of the big Shuggies I know might not be as competent in such matters as other bug Shuggies.

[ProfessorDavey]

I'd have to say that I don't see the point of having a ceremonial Head of State: after all, it would be a position without meaningful power, responsibility or accountability - nothing more than a bit of theatre for those that like that sort of thing. Do we really need someone to cut ribbons, unveil plaques, have regular banquets or inspect troops?

If we do then why not select a citizen randomly on an annual basis so we could have Trump met by, say, 'big Shuggie' (who I feel sure would acquit himself superbly in that role).

I think the idea is that the ceremonial Head of State provides continuity, even with elected ones the term tends to be longer than that for head of government.

Secondly they tend to be a more unifying force within the country rather than a highly politicised president who will always be politically partisan.

Thirdly there is valuing in having someone to meet and great other heads of state and political leaders who sits above the major political issues of the day - in that way you can be more welcoming as a state to other leaders even if politically your countries are at it like cats and dogs.

[Nearly Sane]

I think the idea is that the ceremonial Head of State provides continuity, even with elected ones the term tends to be longer than that for head of government.

Secondly they tend to be a more unifying force within the country rather than a highly politicised president who will always be politically partisan.

Thirdly there is valuing in having someone to meet and great other heads of state and political leaders who sits above the major political issues of the day - in that way you can be more welcoming as a state to other leaders even if politically your countries are at it like cats and dogs.

I don't see how you can guarantee the second.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't see how you can guarantee the second.

You can't of course, but as the role is not political those putting themselves forward tend to do so on the basis of their ability to stand above the hurly burly of political debate. So I think the reality of elected, but ceremonial, presidents is that they tend to be a more unifying figurehead for the country than an elected head of government, whether PM (e.g. Boris) or President (e.g Trump).

[Gordon]

I think the idea is that the ceremonial Head of State provides continuity, even with elected ones the term tends to be longer than that for head of government.

Secondly they tend to be a more unifying force within the country rather than a highly politicised president who will always be politically partisan.

Thirdly there is valuing in having someone to meet and great other heads of state and political leaders who sits above the major political issues of the day - in that way you can be more welcoming as a state to other leaders even if politically your countries are at it like cats and dogs.

I suspect identifying someone with an existing public profile, but who is crucially non-political, but who knows the order of which knives/forks/spoons to be used in banquets and be proficient in using scissors and waving, and who would embody a sense of national allegiance and inspire patriotism (which isn't necessarily a good thing) is an impossible (and possibly undesirable) mix.

I'd have thought that the elected head of government would be the only sensible option, since they at least have some form of public mandate and of course they can be got rid of and replaced, either if they are useless or divisive (or both), or if political/constitutional conditions change - although, as the current political situation illustrates, they are unlikely to be unifying figures that inspire loyalty: mind you, the current RF aren't either.
   

[Nearly Sane]

You can't of course, but as the role is not political those putting themselves forward tend to do so on the basis of their ability to stand above the hurly burly of political debate. So I think the reality of elected, but ceremonial, presidents is that they tend to be a more unifying figurehead for the country than an elected head of government, whether PM (e.g. Boris) or President (e.g Trump).

I think that's a very rose coloured view. Countries are different and they don't all have a straight path to certain solutions. As noted in my replies to Gordon, there is an issue here about how you deal with residual theoretical powers. We maintain a polite fiction about the monarchy currently and it isb't clear that could be done with an elected head of state.

Any move needs to be part of a carefully considered redrawing of the constitution.

[Gordon]

I think that's a very rose coloured view. Countries are different and they don't all have a straight path to certain solutions. As noted in my replies to Gordon, there is an issue here about how you deal with residual theoretical powers. We maintain a polite fiction about the monarchy currently and it isb't clear that could be done with an elected head of state.

Any move needs to be part of a carefully considered redrawing of the constitution.

That is a good point: the presumption, I think, is that there is some ineffable 'something' that is embodied by successive generations of this family - so what is this 'something' and could, or should, it be embodied in some other form?

Any revised arrangements for this 'something', or its abandonment, would require some revision of current arrangements. 

[ProfessorDavey]

I think that's a very rose coloured view. Countries are different and they don't all have a straight path to certain solutions.

True - all I was doing was putting forward the main arguments that are used for a ceremonial elected head of state.

As noted in my replies to Gordon, there is an issue here about how you deal with residual theoretical powers. We maintain a polite fiction about the monarchy currently and it isb't clear that could be done with an elected head of state.

Any move needs to be part of a carefully considered redrawing of the constitution.

I agree - were we to move to being a republic there would need to be careful consideration of the constitution. You are correct that the Queen retains certain powers but does not use them largely because she has no democratic mandate. Were we to have an elected head of state they would have a mandate to use those powers. We'd need a debate about whether (possibly) we might think those powers are reasonable and should be used. Alternatively we'd need to remove those powers.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Harry and Meghan aren't employees so none of this is relevant. As far as I'm aware the only 'contract' Meghan has signed is a contract of marriage with Harry.

It is very relevant. You brought up the comparison of a company restructure and said the RF should be happy if H&M suddenly resigned and I pointed out why sudden resignations of key employees cause all kinds of headaches and logistical, continuity and reputational problems for company restructures.

H&M are treating this as a business if they are hoping to make money from their royal titles. If they are not, fine. Their statement suggests they keep their 'day job' but be part-time royals. Their statement says the taxpayer should continue to pay for their security. 

In your Gavin and Stacey comparison - I've never seen it so I don't know - did they set up with a nice little side earner promoting goods and services off the back of Gavin's family name and get the people of Essex to continue to pay for some of their living costs before running away from Essex?

[ProfessorDavey]

Thinking about this a little further I wonder whether there is a large dollop of sexism in all this as there is precedent for the spouse of the 'spare' to be happily allowed to continue with their previous career once they'd married into the RF. But interestingly only for men.

So when Margaret married Antony Armstrong Jones, not only was she much closer to the throne than Harry (she was 4th in line I think, he is 6th), but he simply continued with career as photographer and film maker as if nothing had happened.

Same with Princess Anne and Mark Phillips (she was 4th in line at the time).

Perhaps it is just a change over time, but you have to ask why it is perfectly OK for a man marrying into the RF to carry on being a photographer and film maker and earn money from that career, but not for a woman to effectively be allowed any kind of career or outside earnings.

[ProfessorDavey]

It is very relevant.

It isn't relevant because H&M aren't employees.

I only used the restructure line to indicate that it would appear that H&M's plans and Charles and William's plans align well as they both are consistent with a slimmed down RF.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Thinking about this a little further I wonder whether there is a large dollop of sexism in all this as there is precedent for the spouse of the 'spare' to be happily allowed to continue with their previous career once they'd married into the RF. But interestingly only for men.

So when Margaret married Antony Armstrong Jones, not only was she much closer to the throne than Harry (she was 4th in line I think, he is 6th), but he simply continued with career as photographer and film maker as if nothing had happened.

Same with Princess Anne and Mark Phillips (she was 4th in line at the time).

Perhaps it is just a change over time, but you have to ask why it is perfectly OK for a man marrying into the RF to carry on being a photographer and film maker and earn money from that career, but not for a woman to effectively be allowed any kind of career or outside earnings.

I agree.

Antony Armstrong Jones seems to have got flak from the Press in the 1960s and apparently questions were asked about his job in the House of Commons.

https://www.dailypost.co.uk/incoming/lord-snowdon-a-royal-rebel-12451930

Hope Meghan can cope with the press intrusion and the questions while earning money as a member of the RF. It seems to go with the role.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

It isn't relevant because H&M aren't employees.

It's relevant - they don't need to be employees or self-employed or have a contract in order to grasp the idea that if they suddenly make a public statement saying they are resigning their royal duties without giving any notice and without working out a handover and without making a jointly agreed statement with the RF, it is disruptive, makes them look unprofessional and unreliable and is gossip-fodder against the RF brand for the media to exploit.

I only used the restructure line to indicate that it would appear that H&M's plans and Charles and William's plans align well as they both are consistent with a slimmed down RF.

No they don't align well because apparently H&M did not sit down and have a professional discussion with Charles and William to identify what would align well with their plans, before H&M released their statement.   

[jeremyp]

I'd have to say that I don't see the point of having a ceremonial Head of State: after all, it would be a position without meaningful power, responsibility or accountability - nothing more than a bit of theatre for those that like that sort of thing. Do we really need someone to cut ribbons, unveil plaques, have regular banquets or inspect troops?

If we do then why not select a citizen randomly on an annual basis so we could have Trump met by, say, 'big Shuggie' (who I feel sure would acquit himself superbly in that role).

Why not have a bit of theatre? As long as the person providing the theatre has no real power, it seems fine to me.

[Gordon]

Why not have a bit of theatre? As long as the person providing the theatre has no real power, it seems fine to me.

It is theatre - but in normal circumstances you have to opt-in to see the show, and pay admission accordingly, whereas when it comes to the Windsors we are quietly charged by default, and then we have the 'performance' rammed under our noses via excessive media coverage irrespective of whether or not we are interested.

[ad_orientem]

I'd have to say that I don't see the point of having a ceremonial Head of State: after all, it would be a position without meaningful power, responsibility or accountability - nothing more than a bit of theatre for those that like that sort of thing. Do we really need someone to cut ribbons, unveil plaques, have regular banquets or inspect troops?

If we do then why not select a citizen randomly on an annual basis so we could have Trump met by, say, 'big Shuggie' (who I feel sure would acquit himself superbly in that role).

I could be that person. I'd take heads of state to the pub for a piss up and maybe somewhere for a bit of pie and mash or a ruby. I'd be good at that.

[jeremyp]

It is theatre - but in normal circumstances you have to opt-in to see the show, and pay admission accordingly, whereas when it comes to the Windsors we are quietly charged by default, and then we have the 'performance' rammed under our noses via excessive media coverage irrespective of whether or not we are interested.

It’s the same as any state supported show. E.g anything on the BBC or Channel 4 or anything supported by the Arts Council.

And nobody forces you to follow the Royal Coverage.

[Gordon]

It’s the same as any state supported show. E.g anything on the BBC or Channel 4 or anything supported by the Arts Council.

And nobody forces you to follow the Royal Coverage.

I don't, any more than I follow football, and I know where the 'off' switch is - in both cases there is often the presumption in the media that we are all in some way interested, and that pisses me off.

I realise I'm a carnaptious old grump - but the RF stuff is especially nauseating. 

[Anchorman]

 One of the (many) problems with the Windsor soap opera is the way their actors are brought up to expect the audience to defer to them. I cite an experience a friend of mine had in the Dumfries house estate last month. He and his friend were walking their dogs (on leads) when a flunky told them to go elsewhere. Knowing their legal right to roam here, they ignored him....and bumped into Chairlie and Camilla out for a stroll. The chappie paused, expecting some kind of acknowledgement. My friend sais "Aye, son, you're there". Silence. "Do you know to whom you're speaking?" "Aye...mind, they say senility come tae us a;!" Chairlie, apparently, turned red.... Camilla was heard to say "Bloody oiks". Later, flunkey caught up with them and tried to give them a lesson on etiquette. My friend Sandy takes lessons from no-one. In other words, Chairlie must have been miffed at the lack of deference, and asked flunkey to teach oik a lesson. Aye, right.

[Spud]

I don't think Harry and Meghan's problems can be resolved until she has sorted things out with her Dad.

[Robbie]

Guardian opinion today:-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/15/meghan-markle-mail-on-sunday-courage-media

Last week's Question Time kicked off with questions about Meghan and Harry and was very balanced (imo). Max Hastings and Clive Lewis were on the panel.

Last night's QT didn't start with these royals but there was some good discussion later on about them including questions & comments from the audience. Sharmi Chakrabarti was on.

No tittle tattle or hearsay which for me was a result!