Is The Monarchy Worth Keeping?


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I personally would like to see a more substantial relevance to monarchy in the future. I think the people would have more understanding for the monarchy today if they had more power. It is only historic events which have limited the monarchy to what it has become today which is why I think that the majority feel that the Queen does nothing relevant. So perhaps giving the monarch more power over the country and the mechanics of government would give them more of a prominent role in every day life rather than the annual Christmas message and uplifting appearance. I can understand why many establishments are sworn to the crown such as the army, air force, police etc, but with that being said, if the Queen or King, had more political power the crown connection might be stronger and therefore create a stronger bond with the monarchy on a whole.
I know parliament would never allow extra powers for the monarchy however, I feel it would make the establishment more viable and prove them to have longevity for the future as I can, unfortunately, see the abolition on monarchy in the UK with all this talk on an EU Constitution.
Maybe thats another topic however.
 
Well, dear Beatrix Fan, may I suggest there is something strange here. You suggest that the British people are subservient? to the Royal Family,??? ie the Queen, etc and at the same time the Queen is nothing but a useless figurehead. You cannot have your cake as it were and eat it too. It is really a question of values or taste. Being in a totally corrupt and incompetent republic run by idiots elected by idiots I admire the Queen and monarchy if for no other reason than she detracts attention from the politicans. Any institution that by its very existence can even in some small measure, and I suspect the Queen does this in more than small measure, deflate the politicans egos or remind them and everybody of something other than their smelly selves cannot be a bad thing. I have live through 47 years of smelly politicans being elected Head of State. One does get weary of it.

So I suggest that you move to the good old US of A-South Carolina would be perfect, you will just love the month of August here and the local politicians will just transport you to places I cannot mention on the Royal Forums and the stupidity of the citizenry will make you understand why you are there-and I will move to Great Britain and we can both be totally disillusioned. AGAIN. But I will still have pomp, circumstance, tiaras,-just love those tiaras, you know- and some shred of colour and dignity.

And yes, it may all be illusion, but can we not still have a few comforting albeit harmless illusions. God knows that is not much else these days. Cheers. Your friend Thomas.
 
Thomas, as a resident of the Great State of Virginia, I applaud and agree with your post. We do indeed have an incompetent republic run by idiots elected by idiots, as you so eloquently pointed out. I say God Save the Queen and I wish to Heaven that we had her over here; when she came to the Commonwealth (that's Virginia) we all went crazy because she was here---it was an exciting time for all of us and we enjoyed her presence greatly. I cannot imagine wanting to do away with such a marvelous institution; its not like the Royal Family doesn't do anything--they are very involved and believe strongly in service to the country--unlike this country where politicians just spend, spend, spend and then raise our taxes so they can spend some more. I think the Monarchy is a splendid thing, and they do earn their keep, so to speak. God Save the Queen!
 
Well, dear Beatrix Fan, may I suggest there is something strange here. You suggest that the British people are subservient? to the Royal Family,??? ie the Queen, etc and at the same time the Queen is nothing but a useless figurehead. You cannot have your cake as it were and eat it too.

I don't want the cake - that's what I've been saying.


It is really a question of values or taste.

It's a question of freedom and rights actually. This isn't a guest list for a tea party, it's the way we are governed which is a bit more important. I think you'll find that politicians run the UK, the Queen is there as a bit of glitter. Take the glitter away and you've got a republic.

So I suggest that you move to the good old US of A-South Carolina would be perfect, you will just love the month of August here and the local politicians will just transport you to places I cannot mention on the Royal Forums and the stupidity of the citizenry will make you understand why you are there-and I will move to Great Britain and we can both be totally disillusioned. AGAIN. But I will still have pomp, circumstance, tiaras,-just love those tiaras, you know- and some shred of colour and dignity.

And why should I leave my country because I won't grovel to the Windsor crew? Am I any less British because I believe in giving the British people the right to decide?
 
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
Am I any less British because I believe in giving the British people the right to decide?

I'm quite confused....you say that the Queen has no power, and that parliament and the PM etc. have the power, and you VOTE for which PM you get......right? so what aren't you deciding in terms of who runs the country?

Have you paid attention to what you will actually GET when you switch to a republic? (Other than voting rights that you....already.....have.....?)

Do you want another U.S?

I don't....and I live here......
 
I get to decide my Prime Minister but I don't get to decide my Head of State. I have indeed paid attention to what a republic will bring, I've researched it throughly actually and that's why I can say with all due respect that it's rather narrow minded to assume a republic automatically equals the American way of governance. Republics are as varied as monarchies, each system with it's benefits and disadvantages.
 
Let me see if I understand you. You want to be able to elect the person that represents your country?
Do you want this person to be involved in politics or not?
 
Ok. Here's my ideal;

*A unicameral parliament, thus ridding us of the House of Lords.
*A Prime Minister who heads that unicameral parliament in the same way Gordon Brown currently heads the House of Commons
*Instead of a monarch, an elected President who fufills all the duties of a Head of State but in 4 year terms with a maximum of 2 terms.
*The President would not be a politician
*The President would either be elected by the unicameral parliament or directly by the people. Now this depends on whether we adopt proportional representation or not. If we do, it makes sense for the unicameral parliament to nominate and elect a President because they'd be representing us in doing so. If we stick with the old system of FPTP, then the public would directly elect their President.
*The President would;

-promulgate laws passed by parliament, no longer called the House of Commons but instead called the House of Representatives.
-would be Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces
-would hand out honours and awards on the recommendation of an independant committee
-would host state events and represent Britain abroad
-could dissolve parliament resulting in an immediate referendum or election when asked to dissolve by the Prime Minister or by two thirds of the unicameral chamber
-to advise the Cabinet and the Prime Minister
-to sign international treaties and documents on behalf of the British people

etc etc.

To me, that works. It's achievable, it's sensible, it's modern and it works in other countries. It can work in Britain too.
 
-would be Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces
-would hand out honours and awards on the recommendation of an independant committee
No, No, Noooooo. These two sections (above) puzzle me. :flowers:

Would you seriously put another non military man/woman in charge of our armed forces? The one we have is bad enough although he does appear to be an accomplished liar, IMO. Apart from anything else being only an elected non political official, he/she is open to corruption. At least the US is able to remove their president, how would we?

If you are doing away with the monarchy, why bother with honours and awards?
 
How would you go about electing someone that is not involved in politics?
 
How would you go about electing someone that is not involved in politics?

Very very easily. There's those who have specialised in British cultural studies, those who have been in the military or in diplomacy.
 
No, No, Noooooo. These two sections (above) puzzle me. :flowers:

Would you seriously put another non military man/woman in charge of our armed forces? The one we have is bad enough although he does appear to be an accomplished liar, IMO. Apart from anything else being only an elected non political official, he/she is open to corruption. At least the US is able to remove their president, how would we?

The Queen isn't a military woman. She changed a few car engines in the ATS, that doesn't make her Nelson. As to corruption, there's corruption in any state and I think it's a little naive to suggest monarchs haven't taken back handers or approved the giving of back handers to get the British end up.

If you are doing away with the monarchy, why bother with honours and awards?

Even republics have state awards. It's vital to keep up the morale of the people, reward those who have done a great service to the country and encourage others to do likewise. Get rid of the price tags and that ridiculous Empire Order and we're almost there on that front.
 
BeatrixFan, I applaud the way you have thought this out and come up with a plausible plan of action, but what is your reasoning for wanting to do away with the British Monarchy, and do you think your idea of a repubic is achievable in a country where a major portion of its identity is in the Monarchy itself?
 
For all those Americans who find this country so unpalatable, why not uproot and start somewhere else. Or, perhaps, you might learn a bit about politics and get involved. Learn some history. Perhaps, vote. Work for betterment. This president is a disaster, but soon we will get another. As for the British way of life, how do you see that as better? Just the same muck in many ways, with an elderly lady who waves and cuts ribbons. Not that she isn't nice and, I believe, smart in her own way, but she can't tell anyone what she thinks. Her whole family, also trots around cutting ribbons and opening meat markets. Her replacement is an opinionated, unimpressive and like, Mr. Clinton, adulterer. Wow!!! And they hang around a lifetime. Now, as Beatrix Fan has stated, the British should be able to put together any government they want. There is plenty of graft in Britain, too, as everywhere. If you want things better. Make them better. Beatrix Fan seems to want to do just that and I admire him for that.
 
I'm not really sure that this is the proper forum for us to be throwing political opinions; but I will say that I am quite involved with not only the politics of my town, but my district, state, and country, I am well versed in history, and enjoy watching CSPAN (if that tells you how easily entertained I am!). I do want to say that it never ceases to amaze me how many people refer to President Bush as a disaster, or aim other deregatory comments at him, yet he won the last election with a fairly strong victory and has done exactly what he said he would do and was re-elected based on his agenda. This is not the place for a political discussion about American Politics; the topic is "Is the Monarchy worth keeping?" well, I don't know. I know I'd like to see it stay around because I love the history behind it, but I'm not British and my opinion really has no relevance--but I do love the Queen, even if all she is good for is to "wave and cut ribbons" (which I have to say is the understatement of the year--but funny!)
 
I think that saying Her Majesty only cuts ribbons and opens hospital wings is totally disrespectful and well un-informed.
The Queen plays such an important role in the life of the British people and of the other countries of which she is head of state.
BeatrixFan, your beloved Latvian president visited our Most Gracious Queen earlier in the year and admitted in an interview that if the Queen had not been born a monarch, she would have made a brilliant politician and won a lot of elections. Latvia's president also stated that The Queen plays an important role and realises the advantages of having a monarchy and why other countries such as Canada and Australia, even though she is not native, are lucky to have her as there sovereign.
The Queen does wonders for the foreign negotiations of our British government, which is why I think she is an integral part of British and international diplomacy. There is nothing more rewarding than having a monarchy which has a unifying role in the country which is dignified and substantial to the United Kingdom as a whole.
Even when The Queen does the State Opening of Parliament, everybody knows there place and that is of constitutional importance. Even the House of Commons who symbolically shun The Queen's messengers, know that this woman is of great importance and have the utmost respect.
Prime Minister's need the Queen and so does the UK.

The abolition of monarchy in Great Britain, is a notion for those of the minority. It would never stand, and wouldn't even be debated.
There is a law which states that the government serve the Queen and the people, as in the term, 'Her Majesty's Government', and that talk of abolishing the monarchy or defacing the Queen on official material such as coins, notes etc is high treason. Now even though it would be barbaric to put this law into effect in this day and age, and would probably not even be enacted, the basis of the law still remains in this country and I feel that with or without that law, such talk would be rubbished with regards to a republic.
 
Very very easily. There's those who have specialised in British cultural studies, those who have been in the military or in diplomacy.

When I stated earlier in this topic that a politician of some sort would most likely be elected to uphold the role of head of state in a constitutional presidency, you said that this role could be reprised by somebody who has no political background. Yet, with this comment you are contradicting yourself by stating cultural studies as an advantage which I have no quarms with but you mention someone who has been in the military (which is always political), and diplomacy suggests at least minimal political experience.
 
For all those Americans who find this country so unpalatable, why not uproot and start somewhere else.

Not all Americans who are critical of the U.S. find living here so unpalatable and even if some do want to leave here, they can't just up and move to a new country with stricter immigration laws everywhere. People cannot shop for a new country and new citizenship like they shop for new clothes and its very well that they cannot. Your country is your identity whether you like all parts of it or not. Yes, some people can move and change citizenships but for most we make a life in the country we know best. There is no conflict in saying that the US system has its problems and is not suited for Britain and saying that the US system is still the best for the US. The U.S. can't have a hereditary monarchy; it would be even too silly to try. But Britain can and does.

Perhaps since BeatrixFan is wanting to follow the Latvian model rather than the American model, we should be comparing Britain and Latvia and not Britain and the U.S.
 
When I stated earlier in this topic that a politician of some sort would most likely be elected to uphold the role of head of state in a constitutional presidency, you said that this role could be reprised by somebody who has no political background. Yet, with this comment you are contradicting yourself by stating cultural studies as an advantage which I have no quarms with but you mention someone who has been in the military (which is always political), and diplomacy suggests at least minimal political experience.

My initial thought on reading this was that unless you're the Queen who has been trained from birth not to divulge her political views, everyone develops and shares their political views especially in a democracy.
 
I have never disagreed that the American model will not work in other places. Lord knows, that every group should endeavor to have a nation that is satisfactory for the many. Britain is a fine country. I, personally, have no objection to the monarchy, if it works for the majority. I, do, object to people, banally stating it is better, because they wear tiaras and have some glitz. How foolish. And, yes, Bush won and yet he is being recognized for what he is, at this point. Unfortunately, I believe, the pandering to fear brought about his re-election. And, I appologize for straying from the topic.
 
I think that saying Her Majesty only cuts ribbons and opens hospital wings is totally disrespectful and well un-informed.
The Queen plays such an important role in the life of the British people and of the other countries of which she is head of state..

Respect has nothing to do with common sense. If you can tell me what the Queen does that affects our every day lives, as politicians do, I shall become a monarchist once more.

BeatrixFan, your beloved Latvian president visited our Most Gracious Queen earlier in the year and admitted in an interview that if the Queen had not been born a monarch, she would have made a brilliant politician and won a lot of elections. Latvia's president also stated that The Queen plays an important role and realises the advantages of having a monarchy and why other countries such as Canada and Australia, even though she is not native, are lucky to have her as there sovereign..

Not quite. Her Excellency did indeed say that she believed the Queen could have won elections but she also stated that whilst residing in Canada during the Soviet occupation of Lativa, she felt it strange that a country should have a monarch that didn't reside in that country. Yes, she spoke of the advantages of monarchy but in other interviews, the former President has spoken of the importance of democracy and elections. Maybe if Britain had been a territory under the USSR we would have a different view of what real democracy is.

The Queen does wonders for the foreign negotiations of our British government, which is why I think she is an integral part of British and international diplomacy. There is nothing more rewarding than having a monarchy which has a unifying role in the country which is dignified and substantial to the United Kingdom as a whole.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office do wonders for foreign policy, not the Queen. She may shake hands with the guests but it's the Government who invite them and deal with the real business behind the pomp and circumstance. If you look at Iraq, the decisions were made by the Government and not the Queen. Those decisions she did have to make were made for her by politicians acting in her name - so why not cut out the middle man and let the politicians do it in their own names?

Even when The Queen does the State Opening of Parliament, everybody knows there place and that is of constitutional importance. Even the House of Commons who symbolically shun The Queen's messengers, know that this woman is of great importance and have the utmost respect.
Prime Minister's need the Queen and so does the UK.

I suggest you have a chat with the Beast of Bolsover sometime. Or for that matter, the nearly 30 MPs who annnually refuse to attend the Sovereign's address in the House of Lords. Whilst you're at it, you may want to go through the many soundbites accredited to various key figures who have all said they are republicans. Look at John Prescott - a raging republican who didn't symbolically shun Black Rod; he meant it! Prime Ministers do not need the Queen. Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Italy and so many others have a Prime Ministers who are second to a President - Prime Ministers don't need a crowned head to tell them what to do, that's the public's job.

The abolition of monarchy in Great Britain, is a notion for those of the minority. It would never stand, and wouldn't even be debated.
There is a law which states that the government serve the Queen and the people, as in the term, 'Her Majesty's Government', and that talk of abolishing the monarchy or defacing the Queen on official material such as coins, notes etc is high treason. Now even though it would be barbaric to put this law into effect in this day and age, and would probably not even be enacted, the basis of the law still remains in this country and I feel that with or without that law, such talk would be rubbished with regards to a republic.

I disagree. As the House of Windsor falls apart at the seams, it's becoming more and more usual to hear people openly questioning the role of the Royal Family. Even if they don't call for a republic, the automatic idea that there's no other option is gone now. People know there's a choice and it's a choice we'll make in the future. To rubbish the very idea of those choices is actually at odds with the so-called constitutional monarchy you seem to be so proud of because if we can't even discuss the possibility of a republic, surely we're living under a kind of absolutism?

I don't think anyone is naive enough to believe in the concept of "Her Majesty's Government" - it's our government. We elect it, it's answerable to us and so it should be. The Queen doesn't vote, therefore it's nothing to do with her. She's just a rubber stamp in a house dress. The issue of monarchy and republic is debated in Britain regularly - we're debating now. It's an issue of our time and soon enough, the debate will lead to a choice.
 
Ah, Beatrix Fan, you are perfect. Your logic and facts hit the nail on the head. Thank you for your assessment.
 
You are quite right. WE are debating this issue but we are not elected officials who have a real say in the matter. The only time a republican stand will take place will be in the House of Commons and will in turn be denied by the House of Lords before it even reaches constitutional change.
I think that the fact you are so determined to end an institution in an effort to start another with exactly the same values. A president = figurehead. A monarch = figurehead.
 
Unfortunately, I disagree w King Charles in saying the cry for the end to the monarchy is in the minority. I think as people brought up never to question the monarchy age and die off, the younger generations replacing them are less tolerable or mystified of their monarchy than their parents and grandparents had been before them. Attitudes towards the monarchy are def. changing. I don't think it will be entirely ousted in the next few years, but who's to say where it'll be in 50 or 100 years?
 
You are quite right. WE are debating this issue but we are not elected officials who have a real say in the matter. The only time a republican stand will take place will be in the House of Commons and will in turn be denied by the House of Lords before it even reaches constitutional change.
I think that the fact you are so determined to end an institution in an effort to start another with exactly the same values. A president = figurehead. A monarch = figurehead.

Firstly, you've answered your own question. As you say, the House of Lords can deny leglisation - well, as the Queen's Lords Temporal, Spiritual and leeching, what gives them that right? We haven't elected them so why can they overturn decisions made by our elected representatives? This is sure to end in the next decade so the next logical step is to get rid of all hereditary un-elected bodies and I think you've missed my point entirely when you say that swapping monarchy for a president is pointless because they have the same values. They don't - a president = an elected figurehead, a monarch = a hereditary figurehead. In the 21st century where people want their voice to be heard, how can the latter be justified?
 
You can't and you are alway right, Beatrix Fan.
 
They don't - a president = an elected figurehead, a monarch = a hereditary figurehead. In the 21st century where people want their voice to be heard, how can the latter be justified?

How would an admittedly powerless figurehead help the people to have their voice heard? The voice of the people is pointless where it can do nothing to help them.

If you want a "democratic" president, at least give them power to execute the peoples' will. If they can't do that, why does it matter how they get the job?

The latter is justified because the monarch is a figurehead. An elected figurehead, to me, is more of an injustice to the people. They give the illusion of assisting and aiding the peoples' will when in reality they cannot do anything.

I would never accept a completely powerless democratically-elected person being on the state payroll. If someone is going to be full enough of themselves to think that they deserve my vote, they'd better have a pretty good amount of power to make my day better. Unfortunately, they'd never use it for that, but the potential had better be there.

I want elections to have real meaning, not just be stupid shows of pretend power. That's what an elected figurehead provides, an expensive lie for the people. The Queen may be expensive (I wouldn't really say so, though), but she is not a lie.

The only good thing to come out of a UK republic would be that the Queen and her family could move into Rideau Hall and become a resident Canadian monarchy.
 
Last edited:
There's much more to it than being politically correct. Electing your representatives isn't political correctness, it's a right borne of a desire for democracy rather than being someone's subject.

Robert Mugabe is an elected president. I don't think Zimbabwe is exactly a beacon of freedom, democracy, and meritocracy. In Britian, representatives are elected, and there are a large number of MPs compared with congressmen and senators in the USA.

The Queen hasn't done anything, she won't do anything and neither will Charles. They know that the moment they do, they've over stepped the mark and they're out. A ceremonial President such as the Latvian model could be just the replacement we need, enabling an elected Head of State and a figurehead to represent us as well as keeping governments in check.

That's a contradiction in terms. Either a head of state is a figurehead or s/he can have genuine influence over the government, but you can't have it both ways. A figurehead doesn't have executive powers. Once you put a politician in the position of Head of State, you don't have someone who represents the entire country. Britain isn't Latvia; we aren't going to elect philosophers and surgeons to the position of Head of State because academics aren't important in Britain. You'd have Richard Branson running against Ken Livingstone, and it would just be another case of someone who's bought and paid for by special interests.
 
Royal Treasure in the Tower of London

The Royal Treasure in the Tower of London is worth in excess of £50 billion so I think the Royal family of Great Britain could be considered to be very rich indeed. I should think the interest on that sum which is probably controlled by the Bank of England (controlled by the British Government since 1949), is a princely sum.

:bang:
 
Last edited:
Robert Mugabe is an elected president. I don't think Zimbabwe is exactly a beacon of freedom, democracy, and meritocracy. In Britian, representatives are elected, and there are a large number of MPs compared with congressmen and senators in the USA.



That's a contradiction in terms. Either a head of state is a figurehead or s/he can have genuine influence over the government, but you can't have it both ways. A figurehead doesn't have executive powers. Once you put a politician in the position of Head of State, you don't have someone who represents the entire country. Britain isn't Latvia; we aren't going to elect philosophers and surgeons to the position of Head of State because academics aren't important in Britain. You'd have Richard Branson running against Ken Livingstone, and it would just be another case of someone who's bought and paid for by special interests.

Then just have a Prime Minister but I think it's practical to have a President and a Prime Minister. As I stated before, my ideal role for a President would give them considerable influence and a real presence in our country. I think if we followed the Latvian model where the House of Representatives (the replacement for the Commons) nominated candidates, then we would avoid the likes of Amy Winehouse taking the top job. I agree with you on the Mugabe front but let's not forget that his elections have hardly been free and democratic, therefore one cannot expect a free and democratic Presidency.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom