Should the British Monarchy be abolished?

[Undesired Walrus]

Common reply: 'I don't want a President Blair'

Well at least you get a choice!

I think, at the dawn of the 21st century, it will be best if we do away with the archaic system. I'm surprised I am living in an age in which we still believe we should have human representatives to reign over us because of the position they happened to be born into.

Out of interest though, how would this system work? Would Britain keep a prime minister? What powers and influence would the president have?

[D'rok]

The symbolism of the separation of state and government is vitally important, IMO. It immunizes (more so, at least) dissent against the government from accusations of treason. The head of govt is there to do a job, not to be the living embodiment of the soul/honour/majesty of the state. If you combine those two roles into the head of government, it's a heck of a lot harder to kick that person to the curb. And It just doesn't works as well with a PM/President combo as it does with PM/Monarch.

But...please skip a generation come succession time. Charles, King of Canada, is really not the way we want to go here in the colonies.

[Undesired Walrus]

Ah yes, but what about seperation of church and state?

[D'rok]

Ah yes, but what about seperation of church and state?

Not a problem when the church is attached to the almost entirely symbolic head of state. Attach it to government and you've got a problem.

[egslim]

The symbolism of the separation of state and government is vitally important, IMO. It immunizes (more so, at least) dissent against the government from accusations of treason. The head of govt is there to do a job, not to be the living embodiment of the soul/honour/majesty of the state.
I agree. In addition the two roles require entirely different abilities that very few people combine in their person.

During the Monica affaire Clinton's government was more or less paralyzed, because anything he did was considered as a smokescreen for Monica. But during the entire soap opera around Diana the British government kept functioning just fine, and the Royal family functions as a lightning rod to keep paparazzi away from government officials who actually have work to do.

I think the concept of maintaining hereditary rulers is theoretically both archaic and ridiculous, but it does seem to work very well in practice. And I prefer function over form anytime.

[DaChew]

I believe that the Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, should hold aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, DaChew, am to carry Excalibur and be your King.

[ravdin]

I believe that the Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, should hold aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, DaChew, am to carry Excalibur and be your King.

If I went around saying I was your Emperor because some watery tart lugged a scimitar at me, they'd put me away. Supreme executive power derives from the masses!

[LibraryLady]

Can you keep the monarchy but get rid of that pesky royal family?

[Sefarst]

A quick question, forgive my ignorance of the British system, but is the House of Lords elected?

[DaChew]

If I went around saying I was your Emperor because some watery tart lugged a scimitar at me, they'd put me away. Supreme executive power derives from the masses!

Shut up! Bloody PEASANT!

[Undesired Walrus]

A quick question, forgive my ignorance of the British system, but is the House of Lords elected?

Some of them are non-hereditary.

[dudalb]

The Brits have a right to do what they want, but IMHO they should keep the Monarchy for one reason: The Royal Mystique is great for the Tourist industry.

[dudalb]

Can you keep the monarchy but get rid of that pesky royal family?


Bring The Auld Stuarts Back Again!

[brodski]

Some of them are non-hereditary.

All of them are now non hereditary. They are either appointed or former heredity Lords who where elected by the old Lords membership before the reforms.

[ravdin]

I think the idea of a head of state who is appointed for life and whose only qualification is to have the right parents is an anachronism. Like other relics, it's currently popular and it's also (at least in the UK) a draw for tourists. So maybe the British monarchy doesn't have to be abolished tomorrow, but I think it is inevitable that it will be abolished someday. I wonder if it will last long after QE2 is gone.

A word to my skeptical friends in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand: we decided in the USA over 230 years ago that we have no need for foreign monarchs. As you can see, we've done quite well for ourselves in the meantime. We were even able to break up with Great Britain and stay friends!

You have the option of declaring a republic with a vote, for crying out loud- you don't even have to fight your way out like we did. So why stay? Do you like having the Queen of England on your money?

[Pardalis]

It's the second time the thread title and the question poll are not the same. :confused:

So to the thread title I say yes, and to the question I say no.

ETA: and I have my say because the queen is still technically Canada's head of state.

[D'rok]

Another side benefit of Westminster systems...we have a Mace as our symbol of Parliamentary authority and power. A frickin' mace. How cool is that?

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/education/CanSymbols/galleries/parliament/HoC_mace-e.asp

The Speaker of the House oughta wield it and bash a few MP heads every now and again when they get out of hand. Just a thought.

[Professor Yaffle]

The monarchy should be kept for it's comedy value only.

[D'rok]

You have the option of declaring a republic with a vote, for crying out loud- you don't even have to fight your way out like we did. So why stay? Do you like having the Queen of England on your money?

See posts #2 and #5 for a start. Although I have always liked the idea of a domestic non-president head of state. (Like a First Nations elder or something equally honourable). Symbolism is important. The problem is, in Canada, we'd never be able to agree on how to modify the Constitution to do that. If we touch it, we'll probably break it.

[Pardalis]

What constitution?

[D'rok]

What constitution?

:rolleyes:

Just because you folks in Lower Canada pout about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[Pardalis]

Just teasing.

[D'rok]

Just teasing.

Go Sens!

:D

[Pardalis]

Go Sens!

:D

In your dreams. :p

[Architect]

You have the option of declaring a republic with a vote, for crying out loud- you don't even have to fight your way out like we did. So why stay? Do you like having the Queen of England on your money?

(cough) Who? (cough)

[tkingdoll]

I'm not qualified or informed enough to say, really. I have no idea what value the monarchy has to my country. I know what they cost, but I don't know what they add in terms of tourism, diplomatic relations, etc. No idea at all. So I can't make a judgement on whether or not we'd be better off without them.

I don't like the concept of a monarchy in 2008, that's for sure, and I don't like the influence Charles about alt medicine and the NHS, but it's entirely possible the benefits of the monarchy outweigh my objections.

Can we do a SWOT analysis?

[Architect]

The Speaker of the House oughta wield it and bash a few MP heads every now and again when they get out of hand. Just a thought.


The Westminster speaker is from Glasgow......it would be practically compulsory, I should imagine! ;)

[Architect]

Ah yes, but what about seperation of church and state?

Not a problem. The Queen is not head of the Church of Scotland.

[Upchurch]

Speaking as an American, King George is an unfair, unholy tyrant! I'll be happy if he never rules over anyone ever again!

[Jekyll]

During the Monica affaire Clinton's government was more or less paralyzed, because anything he did was considered as a smokescreen for Monica. But during the entire soap opera around Diana the British government kept functioning just fine, and the Royal family functions as a lightning rod to keep paparazzi away from government officials who actually have work to do.

Well that's just because you can't tell the difference between the Royal family being too paralysed to work and business as usual.

The Royal family doesn't do anything to protect the actual *working* government from the effects of scandal.

[Sefarst]

The Brits have a right to do what they want, but IMHO they should keep the Monarchy for one reason: The Royal Mystique is great for the Tourist industry.
Royal Mystique? A little old lady with a handbag does not Mystique make. To be honest, I would rather hear about Paris Hilton than the royal family. She's more relevant than any of them.

[ravdin]

(cough) Who? (cough)

Are you from Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland? Then I suppose the same question would apply to you as well.

[dudalb]

Another side benefit of Westminster systems...we have a Mace as our symbol of Parliamentary authority and power. A frickin' mace. How cool is that?

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/education/CanSymbols/galleries/parliament/HoC_mace-e.asp

The Speaker of the House oughta wield it and bash a few MP heads every now and again when they get out of hand. Just a thought.

I know the in the US the Senate uses a Fasces as it's symbol of power....swiped directly from the Roman Senate.
I think the House uses a mace,though.

[Almo]

I don't like the PM system. As long as the PM's constituency keeps voting for him, you have no choice about who's PM since the party decides who gets the post.

It's a different issue, but I don't like how in the UK the party in power creates the budget, with no discussion. The chancellor just presents it. Should have to be approved in the house of commons.

[dudalb]

Correction: The US House of Representatives DOES use a Mace as it;s symbol of power.
The Senate uses the Fasces.

[D'rok]

Oh yeah! Well, our Mace can kick your Mace's ass. Smashy, smashy! :p

[brodski]

Are you from Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland? Then I suppose the same question would apply to you as well.

You clerly do not udnertand the UK constution.

It is no more correct to refer to her as the Queen of England than it would be to refer to her as the Queen of Berkshire.

[Fiona]

.

It's a different issue, but I don't like how in the UK the party in power creates the budget, with no discussion. The chancellor just presents it. Should have to be approved in the house of commons.

It does have to be approved.

[brodski]

I don't like the PM system. As long as the PM's constituency keeps voting for him, you have no choice about who's PM since the party decides who gets the post. We get to influence the election of a PM by our choice of MP. If we want a greater say in the choice of the PM we join a political party.


It's a different issue, but I don't like how in the UK the party in power creates the budget, with no discussion. The chancellor just presents it. Should have to be approved in the house of commons.

Um, they have a debate and a vote on the budget every year. Where did you get the idea that it isn't voted on?

[egslim]

Well that's just because you can't tell the difference between the Royal family being too paralysed to work and business as usual.
Actually that's the whole idea: The Royal family isn't supposed to do any work, elected government officials do all that. The Royal's mere existance keeps paparazzi away from the head of government, so the government can do its job uninterupted by trivial tabloid matters.

Of course the government is still vulnerable to policy scandals, but that's a good thing.

[Sefarst]

Actually that's the whole idea: The Royal family isn't supposed to do any work, elected government officials do all that. The Royal's mere existance keeps paparazzi away from the head of government, so the government can do its job uninterupted by trivial tabloid matters.

Of course the government is still vulnerable to policy scandals, but that's a good thing.
Do you really need to house a hereditary dynasty in a palace, fly them all over the world, cover them in jewels, and put them on your money just because a few MPs don't want their pictures taken?

I think the difference is just that the Europeans are much more laid back when it comes to sex than Americans are. If Gordon Brown were to get into a sex scandal ala Eliot Spitzer, I'm sure the British papers would be all over it, same as in the US.

[brodski]

Of course the government is still vulnerable to policy scandals, but that's a good thing.

Ah so it was a policy matter which brought down Prescott, odd, I could have sworn that it was his *ahem* private interactions with his private office ;)

[Blue Mountain]

Having a continuous head of state that is independent of the comings and goings of elected government is a good thing. I know that the British PM meets with the Queen once a week. Because these meetings are private and are not reported (or even discussed, I believe), I have no idea if they are necessarily productive.

By "productive" I don't mean that the Queen has to listen to her PM moan about what some bloody MP from Flydale North is up to. It's possible that the Queen brings half a century's experience to the table in the field of international affairs and advises the PM accordingly ... or she could just chat about horses and corgies for an hour.

On the plus side, more than once within my memory the monarch has intervened directly to move the business of his (her) country forward, be it resolving a particularly knotty government standoff or even opposing a military revolt in progress. In times like those a strong monarch can give the people someone to rally around.

One the other hand, you get both good and bad people in the throne. Charles as King? That thought doesn't sit all that well with me. Imagine if you got a PM who's penchant for woo is as developed as Charles's. Those weekly meetings would have Randi casting firebolts from heaven :D

I don't know enough about William to know how he'd be as King. At 25 he's probably too young for the job.

[Fiona]

I think some folk are missing the point. It is a hereditary monarchy and the eldest son succeeds to the throne. We subjects don't get to cherry pick!!

[gumboot]

I voted keep it, mainly because I think if the UK became a republic New Zealand would be hot on its heels. I like our arrangement. I personally think if you have an elected person as head of state, what will naturally follow is a gradual shift of power from your government to said head of state - precisely what has been happening in the USA. Why? Anyone elected to power wants to actually wield it in the short time they have to use it.

A hereditary head of state has no particular interest in wielding said power because they have it their entire life.

Also, a monarch, unlike a President, is raised from birth with the sole purpose of serving and leading their nation. One thing I don't think you could say of a recent Monarch is that they ever used their office primarily for their own interests - a charge you could easily level at many Presidents the world over.

In New Zealand I think we have a particularly good deal because we have an absentee landlord, and one who has a lot of properties to deal with, so they don't tend to get involved very much, which is how I like it.

But, on the positive side, we have a great safety measure that the USA lacks. Let's pretend a tyrannical government gets into power. In a Republic, you can almost guarantee said tyrannical entity will be the President firstly, and with it all of the executive power of the state. No way to deal with the problem except through violent revolution (enter the second ammendment!).

Now take, say, New Zealand.

It wouldn't work to have the Queen as a tyrant, because she lacks the executive power to actually do anything... well... tyrannical. Aside from which she's living thousands of miles away. Even if the Governor-General was a tyrant, unless the Queen approved of said tyranny (unlikely!) the Governor-General is going to be rejected quick smart. Let's pretend the Queen and GG are tyrannical?

Government just stops raising taxes.

Okay, but what if the government becomes tyrannical? Helen Clark refuses to run elections this year and declares herself dictator for like, renaming Wellington "Helengrad" or similar?

In marches the Queen (or Governor-General) and simply dissolves parliament. The government has no actual power to do anything because both the New Zealand Police and the New Zealand Defense Force swear allegiance to the crown, not to the Government.

Parliament is dissolved, and because Her Majesty isn't interested in running a small snotty little country at the bottom of the world she gets new elections going and leaves us alone again.

Frankly it's a win-win.

Now, there's that whole religion-God thing, but I think of that as just ceremony and tradition. To be honest I seriously doubt any of the members of the Royal Family actually honestly believe they're the Royal Family because God said they were.

[D'rok]

I voted keep it, mainly because I think if the UK became a republic New Zealand would be hot on its heels. I like our arrangement. I personally think if you have an elected person as head of state, what will naturally follow is a gradual shift of power from your government to said head of state - precisely what has been happening in the USA. Why? Anyone elected to power wants to actually wield it in the short time they have to use it.

A hereditary head of state has no particular interest in wielding said power because they have it their entire life.

Also, a monarch, unlike a President, is raised from birth with the sole purpose of serving and leading their nation. One thing I don't think you could say of a recent Monarch is that they ever used their office primarily for their own interests - a charge you could easily level at many Presidents the world over.

In New Zealand I think we have a particularly good deal because we have an absentee landlord, and one who has a lot of properties to deal with, so they don't tend to get involved very much, which is how I like it.

But, on the positive side, we have a great safety measure that the USA lacks. Let's pretend a tyrannical government gets into power. In a Republic, you can almost guarantee said tyrannical entity will be the President firstly, and with it all of the executive power of the state. No way to deal with the problem except through violent revolution (enter the second ammendment!).

Now take, say, New Zealand.

It wouldn't work to have the Queen as a tyrant, because she lacks the executive power to actually do anything... well... tyrannical. Aside from which she's living thousands of miles away. Even if the Governor-General was a tyrant, unless the Queen approved of said tyranny (unlikely!) the Governor-General is going to be rejected quick smart. Let's pretend the Queen and GG are tyrannical?

Government just stops raising taxes.

Okay, but what if the government becomes tyrannical? Helen Clark refuses to run elections this year and declares herself dictator for like, renaming Wellington "Helengrad" or similar?

In marches the Queen (or Governor-General) and simply dissolves parliament. The government has no actual power to do anything because both the New Zealand Police and the New Zealand Defense Force swear allegiance to the crown, not to the Government.

Parliament is dissolved, and because Her Majesty isn't interested in running a small snotty little country at the bottom of the world she gets new elections going and leaves us alone again.

Frankly it's a win-win.

Now, there's that whole religion-God thing, but I think of that as just ceremony and tradition. To be honest I seriously doubt any of the members of the Royal Family actually honestly believe they're the Royal Family because God said they were.

zactly. Same goes for Canada.

Well said. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/13941466e6a1500730.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6323)

[Madalch]

And here I thought I'd be the only monarchist on the forum.....

[brodski]

I think some folk are missing the point. It is a hereditary monarchy and the eldest son succeeds to the throne. We subjects don't get to cherry pick!!

In fact none of that is strictly true. Remember what happened to another king Charlie ;)


Constitutionally speaking the crown is within the gift of Parliament and the Privy Council, the eldest closest male relative has not always inherited the crown and if they act up Parliament can always remove the Crown again (although they may remove a little more than the crown...)

[Fiona]

Well it is true we can abolish the monarchy: but I do not think you can reasonably argue we can keep it and yet decide to skip a generation or otherwise choose which member of the royal family becomes king (or queen). Rather undermines the whole point really :). I think that Charles the second was Charles the first's eldest son, so your example does not really establish your case. James the seventh is an example of what you suggest, and the Act of Settlement does show Parliament can choose, as you say. Though I had understood that all the states which are subject to the crown would have to agree?

[egslim]

Do you really need to house a hereditary dynasty in a palace, fly them all over the world, cover them in jewels, and put them on your money just because a few MPs don't want their pictures taken?

I think the difference is just that the Europeans are much more laid back when it comes to sex than Americans are. If Gordon Brown were to get into a sex scandal ala Eliot Spitzer, I'm sure the British papers would be all over it, same as in the US.
Considering the epic soap opera around Diana, while Europeans may be more laid back about sex, our tabloids love scandals as much as those on the other side of the pond. The difference is that they prefer to harass the Royal family because they're symbols, while leaving the elected government mostly alone.

The functions of head of state and head of government should never be combined in the same person, because they require very different capabilities.

Anyway, I'd rather fly the Royal family all over the world than cabinet officials who have administrative work to do. Those jewels are sunk costs, and a president costs money too.

[UserGoogol]

I have to admit not entirely sure what the functions of the head of state are. (Except for discretionary powers, which are rather theoretical.) Why does the job of "personifying the continuity and legitimacy of the state" have to be satisfied by a person at all? Why can't you just have a pile of rocks and call it the "head of state?" It seems like a bunch of silliness, and setting up a position purely so as to keep the silliness away from the serious job of government seems like an odd strategy, although perhaps there's some broader context where it's a good idea.

[TX50]

You clerly do not udnertand the UK constution.

It is no more correct to refer to her as the Queen of England than it would be to refer to her as the Queen of Berkshire.

Maybe he's just confusing her with the other Queen Elizabeth? :)

[egslim]

I have to admit not entirely sure what the functions of the head of state are. (Except for discretionary powers, which are rather theoretical.) Why does the job of "personifying the continuity and legitimacy of the state" have to be satisfied by a person at all? Why can't you just have a pile of rocks and call it the "head of state?" It seems like a bunch of silliness, and setting up a position purely so as to keep the silliness away from the serious job of government seems like an odd strategy, although perhaps there's some broader context where it's a good idea.
I agree there's a significant amount of sillyness involved, unfortunately, many people are silly, so it cancels out to make perfect sense. ;) The fact is that many seem to feel the need to revere, or almost worship their current (elected of hereditary) head of state. In practice that can translate into giving this person the benefit of the doubt beyond reason, denouncing criticism of him as unpatriotic and preferring a great leader-type figure to an able administrator.

Such reverence is always irrational and in case of a political figure dangerous, but it happens. So if people are going to revere someone, best make it a person who is both as apolitical as possible and exercises almost no power.

My point is that since irrationality plays a major role among the electorate, a poltical system that is entirely rational will function poorly in practice.

[Architect]

Maybe he's just confusing her with the other Queen Elizabeth? :)

Yeah, well, remember she's not QE II in Scotland.........

[brodski]

Well it is true we can abolish the monarchy: but I do not think you can reasonably argue we can keep it and yet decide to skip a generation or otherwise choose which member of the royal family becomes king (or queen). why not, its been done before, how do you think the current dynasty got the throne? Remember, Parliament is sovereign, not the, er, sovereign ;)


I think that Charles the second was Charles the first's eldest son, so your example does not really establish your case. of but it does, it w as that "incident" which established the precedent that the c rown as int eh gift of Parliament.

. Though I had understood that all the states which are subject to the crown would have to agree? Not necessarily, there would be nothing (barring the a lack of an act of Parliament) to stop Charlie being King of Canada (for example) whilst we got King Willie.

[pmckean]

The Queen creates a fundamental and indisputable inequiity at the heart of British society. We can never be equals whilst she and her husband receive handouts from the civil list, and mere birthright confers this privelige.

It's sometimes argued that they bring more in tourist revenue than they cost, and whilst I don't know how you'd quantify that, I'm not disputing the possibility.

The total cost of the Royals to UK taxpayers is £38m per annum.
The civil list (money we bestow to HRM and hubby just... because) is £11m.
Queen Elizabeth is one of the richest women in the world with a fortune of £270 in 2005.
She's only had to pay income tax since 1993.
When her mother died, the £20m inheritance tax bill was simply waived.

Is she better than me? Better than you? If you think not, then you surely must agree with me that the monarchy is unjust and should reformed or retired.

[brodski]

Yeah, well, remember she's not QE II in Scotland.........

Only because she chooses not to style herself that, Monarchs numbers need not bear any relationship to reality, ever hear of Napoleon III?

[Rolfe]

(cough) Who? (cough)


Oh leave it! Why care if they call her that? I'm quite pleased really. Let the English have her!

Rolfe.

[Architect]

I'm a secret monarchist at heart........


...but will Alex accept the throne, I ask myself?




p.s. The Scotsman, to answer an earlier question.

[Darth Rotor]

Walrus, how do you intend to go about abolishing a family?

Are you into regicide, serial murder, and lynching for the sake of principle?

DR

[WildCat]

Should the British Monarchy be abolished?

No! There's too much valuable data on inbreeding to be had, keeping the monarchy going will keep geneticists busy for many years to come.

[jimbob]

The monarchy should be kept for it's comedy value only.

With Edward (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_a_Royal_Knockout)
"You can turn a frog into a prince, but you can't turn a prince into a marine"

(head of state named after a tuber, that would be cool)

WTF did he choose to try for the royal marines?


...followed by Harry


These two should provide the institution with the respect it deserves. Harry especially for the whole royal birthright thingy, and he does like wearing a uniform (http://images.google.com/images?client=opera&rls=en&q=harry+nazi&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi) (even if it is black with a natty little red armband and swastica).

I want the monarchy but I want it to be universally ridiculed, and cheaper.

[Rolfe]

I'm a secret monarchist at heart........

...but will Alex accept the throne, I ask myself?

p.s. The Scotsman, to answer an earlier question.


I can't find the question, but if it was "which daily paper do you read?", then I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked.

Rolfe.

[Architect]

[aghast]

No, it was "where's your avatar from" !

[Rolfe]

Oh. OK, I see.

Rolfe.

[Undesired Walrus]

Walrus, how do you intend to go about abolishing a family?

Are you into regicide, serial murder, and lynching for the sake of principle?

DR

I was in the white car speeding away from that Parisian tunnel.

[Darth Rotor]

I was in the white car speeding away from that Parisian tunnel.

She's not of royal blood, all she did was perpetuate the blood line, then she split when the chance availed itself. Given Prince Charles' affections for Ms Bowles, not that surprising a turn of events.

Too bad for her, and her sons, that she was too stupid to wear a seat belt.

(Actually, that's not right, I think her family is related to the RF a few generations back.)

DR

[Dugsie]

The British monarchy is an anachronism. It is emblematic of privilege and unearned power and status. It enables the PM to do things in the name of the monarch that he wouldn't otherwise get away with.

We have a constitutional monarchy. It should be replaced with a constitutional presidency with no executive power.

[jimbob]

Indeed DR: Family net, not tree.

[egslim]

We have a constitutional monarchy. It should be replaced with a constitutional presidency with no executive power.
The trouble is, how are you going to elect a president to be an apolitical national symbol (to satisfy the needs of those who have urges for a symbolic leader)? Elections are per definition political.

[Professor Yaffle]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LA2jcaGRsE

[jimbob]

Now if there could be it's a POTUS knockout...

[D'rok]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LA2jcaGRsE

lLgttg2olmU

[Stone Island]

I wonder what would have happened in America if they would have made George Washington king (like some wanted)?

Someone once traced out the line of succession (through George's older brother). Our counter-historical king is now an accountant on Long Island.

[Darat]

Just a note - getting rid of the monarchy does not get rid of the "royal family" it would just sever their ties with the state.

If they would like to continue to (as is always claimed) "draw in the tourists" I am sure the British Tourism organisation can come to some arrangement with them to pay for their attendance at historical re-enactments.

[malbui]

Walrus, how do you intend to go about abolishing a family?

Are you into regicide, serial murder, and lynching for the sake of principle?

DR


Bring back the block in the Tower of London. Sell the TV rights to the highest bidder. Lots of cash for the NHS.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Just a note - getting rid of the monarchy does not get rid of the "royal family" it would just sever their ties with the state.

If they would like to continue to (as is always claimed) "draw in the tourists" I am sure the British Tourism organisation can come to some arrangement with them to pay for their attendance at historical re-enactments.

The French got rid of their royals a few years back, yet somehow they have managed still to attract tourists.

In fact they attract more tourists than any other country on the planet.

[Darat]

I've used that argument myself in the past - it is not as if every Tuesday and Thursday at 12pm and 4pm the Queen appears on the balcony at the back of her council house in London to wave at the tourists.

[NeoRicen]

I'm Australian, and a very strong Republican Australian, I want the monarchy (at least in Australia) to be completely abolished.

I have never ever seen a good argument for a monarchy and I despise monarchists, nothing could be politically worse. I'd never vote for a monarchist.

If you couldn't tell I feel quite strongly about the issue. It goes against all of our countries values.

[christie malry]

IMHO they should keep the Monarchy for one reason: The Royal Mystique is great for the Tourist industry.

I always love that one - 'cos it kind of implies no one ever goes to France for their holidays. "Where do you want to go this year dear?" "Well I was thinking about going to Antibes, seeing the Picasso collection in the chateau, trying some of the local wines, relaxing under a mediterranean sun, but then I remembered that they don't have a bunch of unelected spongers sitting at the top of the political system, so I think it's a week in Bognor for me."

Come on, we've got loads of great stuff! Giant ferris wheels! Hills! Castles! Tony Robinson and Phil Harding in a ditch! Industrial heritage! Cream teas! Stotties! Unrivalled queueing facilities! Bognor! Proper beer!

[/exits, humming Jerusalem]

[christie malry]

Oops, just spotted Jaggy Bunnet's post on pretty much the same thing. Sorry Jaggy. Never mind though, I think my way of putting it was funnier.:p

[Professor Yaffle]

Come on, we've got loads of great stuff! Giant ferris wheels! Hills! Castles! Tony Robinson and Phil Harding in a ditch! Industrial heritage! Cream teas! Stotties! Unrivalled queueing facilities! Bognor! Proper beer!

[/exits, humming Jerusalem]

Mmmmmm. Ham and pease pudding stotty!

[christie malry]

OK so not everything's great...

Seriously - pease pudding? It tastes like the fat off potted meat! Why not have a parmesan whilst you're at it?

I love my adopted homeland, honestly I do, but sometimes I despair. If it's not irrationally welcoming back a bloke who last time he managed your team stropped off in a huff, it's eating something that looks like the leftovers from a brewing process and tastes like artery coagulation...

And you've never heard of bonfire toffee. I know, I've checked...

[mummymonkey]

Voted for a republic. If only I could do that in real life.

[Architect]

I despise monarchists, nothing could be politically worse.

Well of course, that's not true. Neo-nazis for a start. But why let facts get in the way of a soundbite, eh?

[jimbob]

I think some folk are missing the point. It is a hereditary monarchy and the eldest son succeeds to the throne. We subjects don't get to cherry pick!!

In fact none of that is strictly true. Remember what happened to another king Charlie ;)


Constitutionally speaking the crown is within the gift of Parliament and the Privy Council, the eldest closest male relative has not always inherited the crown and if they act up Parliament can always remove the Crown again (although they may remove a little more than the crown...)

Was he tried for treason?

The events of 1688 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution#Legacy) might be an even better example than the first overthrow of a Stuart monarch

I was talking to my 9-yr old daughter earlier this week, and she asked me who my favourite English monarch was. I answered Charles I. She did see my point...

[Giraffe107]

I'm Australian, and a very strong Republican Australian, I want the monarchy (at least in Australia) to be completely abolished.

I have never ever seen a good argument for a monarchy and I despise monarchists, nothing could be politically worse. I'd never vote for a monarchist.

If you couldn't tell I feel quite strongly about the issue. It goes against all of our countries values.

Agreed. Even if the president turns out to be somebody stupid like Mark Waugh. I'm hoping Kevin will being the republican process again- I was too young to vote last time, dang old people.

[Architect]

I was talking to my 9-yr old daughter earlier this week, and she asked me who my favourite English monarch was. I answered Charles I. She did see my point...

Of course, there were no English monarchs per se after 1603, were there?

[Darat]

Without going to check I though Charles the first was Scottish?

[brodski]

Of course, there were no English monarchs per se after 1603, were there?

there where English Monarchs (with a brief break) right up until the abolition of the English crown in 1707.

[brodski]

Without going to check I though Charles the first was Scottish?

there is a difference between being a English monarch, or a Scottish monarch- and monarch who is English or a monarch who is Scottish.

Charles I was an English monarch, a Scottish monarch and an Irish monarch who was Scottish.

I don't know why people ever get confused ;)

[Dr Adequate]

I'm Australian, and a very strong Republican Australian, I want the monarchy (at least in Australia) to be completely abolished.

I have never ever seen a good argument for a monarchy and I despise monarchists, nothing could be politically worse. I'd never vote for a monarchist.

If you couldn't tell I feel quite strongly about the issue. It goes against all of our countries values. It doesn't go against all of your country's values.

For example it seems quite compatible with:

* cold lager;
* kangaroos;
* being good at some bat-and-ball game that I prefer not to mention;
* upspeaking.

It also seems admirably in accord with the bit in your Constitution that says that the monarch is your head of state.

This is what made Australia great. That and the marsupials.

[Fiona]

And you've never heard of bonfire toffee. I know, I've checked...

Is that the same as puff candy?

[Architect]

This is what made Australia great. That and the marsupials.

And Alan from Space 1999.

But not Neighbours, Home & Away, or Prisoner from Cell Block H.

[christie malry]

And where does Kath & Kim come in the Australian Index of Greatness? Somewhat higher than the rabbit-proof fence I hope, but does it reach to the great heights of that restaurant where you eat in the dark?

[Fitter]

Canada needs the monarchy. Without it we could hold no more royal commissions and without those Canada would come to a grinding halt.

[Blue Mountain]

Canada needs the monarchy. Without it we could hold no more royal commissions and without those Canada would come to a grinding halt.

We'll need to set up a Royal Commission of Inquiry to investigate this matter.

[Architect]

Just because we might abolish them doesn't mean you have to. Do you want us to send 'em over? Especially Edward?


We'll be keeping Ann in Scotland. She turns up for all our Rugby internationals, her son played for our under 18 team, and she's not as bad as her brothers......

[jimbob]

Now that's damming with faint praise.

I want "King Edward, the monarch you can buy by the kilo."

[Architect]

But not the IQ point?

[jimbob]

How about inbreeding coefficient?

"Harry, so much less inbred than his brother..."

[Architect]

Ohhhhhhh....nasty!

Of course, as a sceptics' siite, I should probably ask you for proof of that.

[brodski]

Ohhhhhhh....nasty!

Of course, as a sceptics' siite, I should probably ask you for proof of that.

Well, unless he dyes his hair, the genetics speak for themselves...

[JonWhite]

Of course, as a sceptics' siite, I should probably ask you for proof of that.

Not Harry of questionable parentage, but there's this...

British Royal Inbreeding (http://eclectech.co.uk/b3ta/royalchumps.jpg.html)

[Puppycow]

The peasants are revolting your majesty!

[a_unique_person]

Hurry up, you poms, we're too stupid to make our own republic.

[Beerina]

Shut up! Bloody PEASANT!

Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system. Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed! Oh, what a give-away. Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about. Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn't you?

[Beerina]

Oh yeah! Well, our Mace can kick your Mace's ass. Smashy, smashy! :p

Personally, I prefer a +5 vorpal 2-hander, though I do keep a Mace of Disruption in my bag for use against undead.

[Fnord]

It's too much of a problem to get rid of it.

Without the Royals, thousands of tabloid journalists and paparazzi would be out on the dole.

[aries]

Yes, it should.

All monarchies, including the Danish Mornarchy, should be abolished as soon as possible.

It is an institution that have outlived itself a very long time ago. It isn't valid to have in a modern society. The members are bourne to their position and enjoys the same privilegies that the nobility once did. And their children can't get married of their own volition e.g. they can't marry whomever they like...

Of course, neither the British Monarchy nor the Danish Monarchy is about the abolished soon....

But, in principle, I agree...

that all Monarchies, including the British should be abolished...

[Undesired Walrus]

How would it work exactly? What powers would the PM lose and the President pick up?

[christie malry]

Is that the same as puff candy?

No idea. Bonfire toffee is essentially dark treacle toffee, looks like (and is as sharp as) obsidian, tastes all burnt and caramelly. The North East has something called cinder toffee, also eaten on bonfire night, but it's all light and bubbly, not like bonfire toffee at all.

Like well-dressings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well_dressing), it's something that I hadn't realised no one else had until I moved away. Unlike well-dressings, it's something I think everyone else is missing out on...

Puff candy?

[aries]

How would it work exactly? What powers would the PM lose and the President pick up?

I think youre thinking way too much of the US presidential system in which the President of The US is 'the decider' i.e. he decides the policies of the nation etc.

In the UK (Britain/England) and Denmark we probably would just have a President as a ceremonial person that have ceremonial and representative functions - sort of the same as the Danish Queen does now.

[Sunstealer]

All you get with a Republic is more politicians and we know who they are interested in (themselves). The British system is unique but it works and it works extremely well. Does anyone think that the Royal Family wouldn't continue to be extremely privileged if they became citizens? The fact that the system is revenue positive is a great boon too. All another layer of politics would do is cost us more money. The Monarchy, Crown and Parliament (and Church I suppose) have a complicated relationship, but that relationship has stood the test of time and offers Britain great stability. Us subjects have far more respect for QEII than any of us have for politicians, doubly so with the lot that have governed us recently. Imagine being able to call upon someone with huge experience over decades once a week. Republicans in the UK tend to be the same old class warriors with some big chips on their shoulders.

When I look at the debacle and farce the other side of the pond I'm glad we don't have to go through that rigmorale every 4 years. Funny how it's only the extremely rich and well connected that can become POTUS. When you look at the political dynasties such as the Kennedys, Bushs and Clintons it's hard to see how anyone in the US can question our system (not that all Americans do of course).

[Darth Rotor]

I think youre thinking way too much of the US presidential system in which the President of The US is 'the decider' i.e. he decides the policies of the nation etc.
Nope. It is called the Executive Branch for a reason, not "The decider's branch." The idea is that he executes the policies and laws of the nations. He is also the signature authority, by convention, of laws originating in the two houses of Congress, without whose decisions and votes he has nothing to sign.

Please don't use an idiotic soundbyte as a substitute for how the system works.

You are invited to read the Articles I-VII of the US Constitution (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html).

DR

[christie malry]

Us subjects have far more respect for QEII than any of us have for politicians

I think you're speaking for yourself there, don't drag me in please. I can think of many politicians I've got more respect for than her. Tony Benn, obviously. But then, even Tommy ruddy Sheridan's better than her.

Having said that, when the revolution comes and the peoples' soviets take up the reigns of power, apart from confiscating her estates and big hat, I don't think she deserves a place against the wall. Bless 'er, she's like your nan. She's a bit stuck in her ways and probably a tory, but you have to humour her cos she's only got a few years left.

Besides, she's been on the throne since '52, she's the sovereign ruler of one of the richest countries on earth, and she spends her entire time looking like she's been sitting on the business end of a pine cone. Cheer up woman, for gods's sake!

[Undesired Walrus]

All you get with a Republic is more politicians and we know who they are interested in (themselves).

At least you get a choice. The next King we get marvels at the wonders of homeopathy and sticking hot cups on your back. We are in the 21st Century now, and have people in this position through nothing but an accident of birth. Doesn't that strike you as extraordinary?

The fact that the system is revenue positive is a great boon too.

An old argument. France, a republic, gets far more tourism than the UK.

Us subjects have far more respect for QEII than any of us have for politicians

Speak for yourself. I also have little respect for somebody who degrades themself to become a 'subject'.

Funny how it's only the extremely rich and well connected that can become POTUS.

Like Obama? A black man born to a teenage mother who's father left him at the age of 2?

The same guy who's campaign's enormous cash flow comes from his supporters?

[jimbob]

Sunstealer, what would you think about Edward being on the throne.

Christie malry, I have just decided that QEII, does look as if she has ben sitting on the (porcelain) throne for 50 years, and not a pinecone.

She has to look as though it is a chore, so Daily Wail readers can claim that she "works" hard.

[Undesired Walrus]

Nope. It is called the Executive Branch for a reason, not "The decider's branch." The idea is that he executes the policies and laws of the nations. He is also the signature authority, by convention, of laws originating in the two houses of Congress, without whose decisions and votes he has nothing to sign.


So under a hypothetical British Republic, our Prime Minister would go to the President (Instead of the monarch) in order to authorise a war, to be either turned down or accepted?

[jimbob]

There is one advantage of a monarchy.

I think having a figurehead as head of state is good as then criticism of the executive is harder to pass off an attack on the country's good name.

This card seems to be played a lot by certain presidents of many countries.

"L'etat, ce n'est pas moi"

[gumboot]

Many of the issues with the Monarchy seem to rest on the fact that it is hereditary. This is of course not a prerequisite.

I have issues with a head of state that only serves a temporary term. Firstly, they're more likely to be self serving. Secondly, they're going to be more concerned about getting the job again next time around than doing "the right thing" and if it's their last possible term well they can just "damn the consequences". Thirdly, people who only have power for a temporary period of time tend to have an itch to wield that power.

I think a head of state should be for life. Who replaces said head of state when they die is another matter entirely. However I think the replacement should know well in advance that they will be said head of state. The advantage of a hereditary system is that the person knows from birth that they will be head of state, and is raised accordingly.

Another alternative could be the Imperators of Ancient Rome who were not hereditary.

[christie malry]

Christie malry, I have just decided that QEII, does look as if she has ben sitting on the (porcelain) throne for 50 years, and not a pinecone.

A totally scientific survey of my household (n=4) suggests that 75% of the UK population believe she looks more like she's squatting on a pinecone than in dire need of some ex-lax...

She has to look as though it is a chore, so Daily Wail readers can claim that she "works" hard.

"Oi, Phil! Get your arse out of that bed! I've been down the balcony for the last 8 hours, grafting! Get me some more lemons to suck would you? I've had that bloody Paul Dacre on the phone again, he reckons if I don't do something I'll start looking radiant."

[Asolepius]

Ah yes, but what about seperation of church and state?Please sign my petition about this.

[Old Bob]

Don't you Yanks know that the Royals run the USA? Us too in Australia. Most of your Presidents are related to the Queen. Bush Clintons etc. The Westminster system of law worked. The Queen owns all land and title of land is(was) guaranteed by the Crown. Now here in Australia we have dropped the Commonwealth and are in no mans land regarding ownership and law. A big worry, guess it's for the N.W.O. WHERE NO LITTLE PEOPLE OWN LAND. If we go to a republic the Abo's will own all land, won't that be great. Any way which Crown would you get rid of? As England has two. England still controls the armed forces in Australia as they are still Commonwealth of Australia. Now they (the e-lite) can order the forces against the little hu-mans should we refuse the chip.

[Lothian]

Don't you Yanks know that the Royals run the USA? Us too in Australia. Most of your Presidents are related to the Queen. Bush Clintons etc. The Bush family and the British Royal family are clearly reptilians from Alpha Draconis and could be related but I have seen no compelling evidence that the Clintons are also from Draco. They both have strong Anunnaki tendencies but without holding them underwater we won't be able to tell for sure.

[Sunstealer]

An old argument. France, a republic, gets far more tourism than the UK.Then you misunderstand the relationship between the crown lands, the revenue it generates for the government and the adoption of the civil list. I suggest that you do some research before using redherrings like tourism.

[jimbob]

Don't you Yanks know that the Royals run the USA? Us too in Australia. Most of your Presidents are related to the Queen. Bush Clintons etc. The Westminster system of law worked. The Queen owns all land and title of land is(was) guaranteed by the Crown. Now here in Australia we have dropped the Commonwealth and are in no mans land regarding ownership and law. A big worry, guess it's for the N.W.O. WHERE NO LITTLE PEOPLE OWN LAND. If we go to a republic the Abo's will own all land, won't that be great. Any way which Crown would you get rid of? As England has two. England still controls the armed forces in Australia as they are still Commonwealth of Australia. Now they (the e-lite) can order the forces against the little hu-mans should we refuse the chip.

Old Bob:
whoa
CT theories thataway -------->

With racist rants

[jimbob]

Sunstealer, are you saying that "crown land" generates more income for the government by virtue of the state being a monarchy?

Wouldn't "state land" do the same?

[Sunstealer]

No you misunderstand the relationship. Crown Lands are what George III surrendered to Parliament in return for the civil list. Currently Crown Estates generate £190 million for the Treasury. The cost to the tax payer for Queen and Royal Family is about £40 million.

I think if we were to become a Republic that there would be a good case for the arrangement to be reversed. So it's quids in.

[christie malry]

No you misunderstand the relationship. Crown Lands are what George III surrendered to Parliament in return for the civil list. Currently Crown Estates generate £190 million for the Treasury. The cost to the tax payer for Queen and Royal Family is about £40 million.

I think if we were to become a Republic that there would be a good case for the arrangement to be reversed. So it's quids in.

What, rather than just allowing the treasury to realise the full revenue?

[Darat]

No you misunderstand the relationship. Crown Lands are what George III surrendered to Parliament in return for the civil list. Currently Crown Estates generate £190 million for the Treasury. The cost to the tax payer for Queen and Royal Family is about £40 million.

I think if we were to become a Republic that there would be a good case for the arrangement to be reversed. So it's quids in.

Why would there be a good case for it to be reversed? As far as I can see it's just like one of those "release the equity in your home" schemes for pensioners!

[jimbob]

Maybe if the royal family started paying for the navy again.

[Darat]

Just paying for their air-taxis to stag nights would be a start....

[jimbob]

true...

[jimbob]

Edit, but it probably shows that the "default position" for royals is that they are entitled to these because of their accident of birth.

"Work" hard...
pah

[jimbob]

To use Sue Perkin's latest phrase:

"He parked his chinook on his girlfriend's lawn, and that isn't a euphemism"

[Old Bob]

Old Bob:
whoa
CT theories thataway -------->

With racist rants

Get near the truth and out comes the race card, can't you face the facts? Marbo (legal law)sits level with the Crown, now the power of the Crown( the one that control land tenure) seems to have disappeared. All leased land will return to Marbo on muturity, and what of free (to) hold land ?? The Royal Crown has traitorised us and the other Crown(bankers) will buy the leases for a pittance and own the minerals as that little act get rid of grass root titles and paying royalty on ore. What I say has nothing to do with race just how we are being used and pitted against each other by Jew and Mason bankers.

[christie malry]

What I say has nothing to do with race just how we are being used and pitted against each other by Jew and Mason bankers.

OK, who else laughed out loud when they read that sentence?

Own up...

[martu]

Get near the truth and out comes the race card, can't you face the facts? Marbo (legal law)sits level with the Crown, now the power of the Crown( the one that control land tenure) seems to have disappeared. All leased land will return to Marbo on muturity, and what of free (to) hold land ?? The Royal Crown has traitorised us and the other Crown(bankers) will buy the leases for a pittance and own the minerals as that little act get rid of grass root titles and paying royalty on ore. What I say has nothing to do with race just how we are being used and pitted against each other by Jew and Mason bankers.

No, no, no - you have it wrong, easy mistake to make as there was a typo in the pamphlet. It's Jew and Mason bakers who run the world, keep off the bagels and you'll be OK.

Oh and tin foil hats aren't just for parties.

[Old Bob]

OK, who else laughed out loud when they read that sentence?

Own up...

I take it that you don't know about the 12 families that control the money of the world? and are mainly based in the city of London's 676 acres where the Queen has to get permission to enter. Who controls the federal reserve,did you vote for it.? Who controls interest rates and the money supply. As for Masons and Jews,mason temples are built with the two pillars "Booz and Jachin" three steps (trinity)from the entrance of the room with out windows. These were the names of the two pillars from Solomon Temple. If you look hard at the USA dollar bill it's full of mason symbols like Annuit NovuS Ordo secloruM The first and last letters spell "mason" high lighted in upper case.

[Darat]

Er you do realize that this is a discussion about the British Monarchy? So questions about the Federal reserve, that funny USA money and the like have nowt to do with it?

[Sunstealer]

What, rather than just allowing the treasury to realise the full revenue?No, the treasury do realise the full revenue that's the point. Come on folks google is your friend.

http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/annual_report/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate

[Darat]

But you've not put forward a good argument why this should "revert" back to the current monarch if she was demonarched.

[ohp]

The problem with the monarch in the UK system is that because the powers are symbolic, they're handed over to be exercised by the prime minister, who carries most of the powers of the queen. This makes the prime minister a little too powerful for my liking.

That, and the impending reign of his crackpot the prince of wales puts me in the camp in favor of a republic.

By all means, keep the monarchy for show, perhaps preserved in carbonite or something.

[Darat]

Can't see why we can't just get some actors to play them when we want some pomp and ceremony. Be a lot cheaper, even if we have to pick up travelling expenses and pay out residuals.

[Old Bob]

Er you do realize that this is a discussion about the British Monarchy? So questions about the Federal reserve, that funny USA money and the like have nowt to do with it?

Seeing that one of the two Crowns of England control the money supply in the UK USA and Australia and the Monarchy nudge the USA presidents in if related to the Royals. I am in the process of pointing out how difficult it would be to get rid of all the half reptilian bludgers. Sorry if I strayed to far off track.

[Darat]

We haven't used crowns for quite awhile.

[Old Bob]

We haven't used crowns for quite awhile.

We have a realy good beer here called Crownies

[Architect]

Seeing that one of the two Crowns of England control the money supply in the UK USA and Australia and the Monarchy nudge the USA presidents in if related to the Royals. I am in the process of pointing out how difficult it would be to get rid of all the half reptilian bludgers. Sorry if I strayed to far off track.


And you do realise that there's no such thing as the Queen of England, don't you?

[jimbob]

That, and the impending reign of his crackpot the prince of wales puts me in the camp in favor of a republic.


Hey, that is my reason for keeping the monarchy. I would have preferred Edward though. I think disrespect for the institution of head of state is a good thing on general principles, so I'd really be unhappy with a monarch who seems reasonable.

[christie malry]

No, the treasury do realise the full revenue that's the point. Come on folks google is your friend.

What Darat said. I mean, I'm no capitalist hyena, but if I was looking at a balance sheet and saw that there was a £40m operating cost that was for swan-neck pate and economy size pine cones, I think I'd be able to spot the efficiency saving right there...

are mainly based in the city of London's 676 acres where the Queen has to get permission to enter.

She has to get permission to enter the secret HQ of her evil world empire?

As for Masons and Jews,mason temples are built with the two pillars "Booz and Jachin" three steps (trinity)from the entrance of the room with out windows. These were the names of the two pillars from Solomon Temple. If you look hard at the USA dollar bill it's full of mason symbols like Annuit NovuS Ordo secloruM The first and last letters spell "mason" high lighted in upper case.

Of course! *slaps forehead* I forgot to check my copy of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion!

It says...

It says...




Conspiracy Theories are thataway ---->

;)

[Architect]

Sorry, I'm not on the Conspiracy forum, but I just feel that someone has to say it:



DA JOOOOS DID IT!

[Old Bob]

O well another thread ending with little to be learnt, seems we went to different schools. How is that when I try to tell bits you lot all yell. Wouldn't it be nice if you could add something. It would be easier to drive ants in a straight line. Believe me the Crown is not what it seems.

[christie malry]

another thread ending with little to be learnt

Well, you said it... ;)

[Darat]

Old Bob- I think you've finally posted something that we can all agree about! :)

[pdw709]

T

The total cost of the Royals to UK taxpayers is £38m per annum.
The civil list (money we bestow to HRM and hubby just... because) is £11m.
Queen Elizabeth is one of the richest women in the world with a fortune of £270 in 2005.
She's only had to pay income tax since 1993.
When her mother died, the £20m inheritance tax bill was simply waived.

.

I'm not a particulary devout Royalist myself, however I would like to point out the the Queen hands over the income from all the crown estates/properties and then recieves a payment back from the UK government. This "income" is smaller than that she hands to the goverment, so they don't actually cost us anything, infact they are a net contribute to the exchequer....

[christie malry]

But as I (and Darat for that matter) have been pointing out, why not just get rid of the cost of the royal family from this equation? If pmckean and sunstealer are right, we're effectively losing around 26% of the revenue from these lands into a very small number of private hands. Sounds pretty wasteful to me.

[Soapy Sam]

If we abolish the RF, the Sun will only have the Beckhams left to write about.

[christie malry]

They'd just have to fill it up with scurrilous gossip about leading scientists, academics, novellists, film makers and musicians instead.

Which would either lead to a catastrophic drop in circulation and the closing of the paper, or a new rennaissance.

Either way, it's win-win for humanity...

[pdw709]

Who was it that said:

"I would rather have someone forced to be king than someone who wants to be..............."

Despite all of Prince Charles shortcomings, if it came down to to him or King Blair thenb I know who I would want...........

[Darat]

You mean you'd rather have a German king than a Scottish king? :D

[jimbob]

Are there any treaties that are with "the crown" as opposed to "Britain"?

I have a vague recollection of the treaty of Waitangi.

[jimbob]

Who was it that said:

"I would rather have someone forced to be king than someone who wants to be..............."

Despite all of Prince Charles shortcomings, if it came down to to him or King Blair thenb I know who I would want...........

I refer you to my stated reason for wanting Edward. I want a clown that everyone can see is a clown.

Unpopular Ex-PMs might be even better. I used to be apathetic about the idea of monarchy, on the grounds of utter irrelevance to my life, but then I realised that many people do think of their "betters", and that sticks in my throat.

It sticks even more when some pointless aristo with slightly too few great grandparents lets slip their assumpion of superiority. (Often in a paternalistic/patrician manner, in High Tory politicians).

It would take a very flexible mind to assume an inherent inferiority to Thatcher, Major, or Blair.

[christie malry]

I used to be apathetic about the idea of monarchy, on the grounds of utter irrelevance to my life, but then I realised that many people do think of their "betters", and that sticks in my throat.

That really gets to me too. I work for an organisation that's connected to one of the royals and you realise how some of the people there think of themselves because of the kind of people they have contact with. We attract a certain kind of profile because of it, and the kind of perks that get offered (tea at buck house, that sort of thing) from time to time attracts a certain kind of person.

I want to stress I'm not suggesting it attracts bad people, or even selfish people. But they do, genuinely, think that there's something special about being near someone you have to call 'sir' all the time. And they think that it's something to aspire to, a privilege, to be close to someone who is just 'superior' to them in some nonspecific way. I find it utterly mystifying.

In short, end of deference my arse.

[jimbob]

My inlaws are of the forelock-tugging persuasion. And I live in derbyshire, so I have the "pleasure" of reading the autobiography of the late duke of Devonshire.

I particularly likd the part where he expressed surprise that the Irish regarded him as English despite his family having owned lots of land in Ireland for generations... This was in the 1990's I think.

I think that won my prize for historical sensitivity.

[soylent]

I think the difference is just that the Europeans are much more laid back when it comes to sex than Americans are. If Gordon Brown were to get into a sex scandal ala Eliot Spitzer, I'm sure the British papers would be all over it, same as in the US.

Sure, we have sex scandals too. For reference see Max mosley, accused by the tabloids of having a nazi-themed sadomasocistic sex orgy with five hookers in a "dungeon".

[Arkayik]

I believe that something in the monarchy appeals to our primate-ness and need for hierarchy. I am not convinced or I have not seen an effective representation of a non-hierarchical human society.

If you have empirical evidence of one extant democracy in which the voters exhibit anything approaching logic, show me, or else sod-off with the "we don't need archaic forms of govt", as we quite obviously do...

As such, the figure-head monarch allows us to get on with the business of quasi-democracy, whilst keeping our delusions in check...

cheers,

Ark-canuk-ayik

[christie malry]

I am not convinced or I have not seen an effective representation of a non-hierarchical human society.

Well that's a rather different argument from whether you need a monarchy or not. After all, a hierarchy means an organised power structure - the people involved in that hiearchy can be chosen to fill their posts by various means. For example, after the Russian revolution there were still officers in the soldiers' soviets, but they were elected by the men, not imposed from above. And the Red Army managed to fight off 12 invading forces, so they were obviously an effective fighting force.

If you have empirical evidence of one extant democracy in which the voters exhibit anything approaching logic, show me, or else sod-off with the "we don't need archaic forms of govt"

I'd like to draw a distinction between logical behaviour and rational behaviour. I don't really know what logic means in the context of political choices, since there is rarely an a priori starting point on which all can agree. But I would say that most voters make choices that they believe best reflect their interest, based on their understanding of what those interests are and their perceptions of what the candidates offer. For example, the working class generally vote for Labour. That is a rational choice. I don't know what a logical choice would be - perhaps you could tell me what you mean by it?

I'm not saying of course that people's general understandings of the world are rational or that their perceptions are always accurate. See the thread on the BNP for example. But within the context of democratic choice, most people behave in a rational way.

As such, the figure-head monarch allows us to get on with the business of quasi-democracy, whilst keeping our delusions in check...

I suppose it depends on whether or not you view 'quasi-democracy' as good enough. History is full of examples of peoples who have decided that it wasn't - from Rome to France to Nepal, for example. To repeat - I'm not saying that everyone in these cases was a completely rational being, but that changing that particular form of society was a conscious decision based on their understandings of the world and their perceptions of their needs.

[Soapy Sam]

I think we need more monarchy and fewer politicians.

I think that Fergie is amazingl, what with writing the inspirational books about helicopters and managing Manchester United. An inspiration to us all, I say

[jimbob]

nominated...