The Mechanics of Abdication and of Succession to the Throne

[Ellie2]

I've been a member of this forum for a long time and I know for the obvious reason members of this site are naturally monarchists. Yet have we had a serious debate about the position or concept of a monarchy in the 21st century? The whole Camilla/Charles news has revived allot of question directed at monarchists that have been left unanswered.



For example, in Britain we live in a society where our government feel it is their moral duty to export democracy and liberty. Tony Blair said it is important that the people of Iraq have a direct choice over who governs them, but he failed to state that in Britain we do not have a constitution, which protects our liberty, and we failed to practise democracy in the selection of our head of state (the queen).



We have a system whereby we have a monarch that has little power to govern them or us for that matter. Let me clarify prince William cannot marry a catholic girl because of an outdated law which breaches the Geneva Convention on Human Rights. Prince Charles and any other heir to the throne cannot marry without the consent of the reigning monarch; this too is in violation of the Geneva Convention. Some of you might argue that the queen had given her consent therefore the argument is void, but the fact that the law remains active is pathetic, we have a situation whereby to adults (50 something’s) need the permission to wed, this is unrealistic.



The Charles/Camilla scenario has uncovered our lack of power, are we British Citizens or are we subjects? We are supposedly citizens (Primarily because they are a reigning monarchy as apposed to a ruling monarchy ala Jordan or Saudi Arabia) yet our only freedom of expression in our potential queen/consulate is via television and newspaper opinion polls and not a referendum. Some of you prince William fans might remember a funny E4 show called A Wife for William; the presenter of the show began each episode with the same line “you pay for her so you choose her”, now some might think that was a silly thing to say after all its his private life, we say it is his private life but it is exactly that life that we are financing, and not just financing for a duration of a 4/5-year term like a presidents, but for his entire life, whereas the justice in that? Some of you might also argue that a monarchy costs less than maintain a president, but at least a president is ultimately ruled by the will of the people.



There are so many contradiction in the concept of liberty and monarchy, we have over the years attempted to ratify the situation by extracting the monarchy of their power of rule, yet what we are left with is an empty symbolic and nostalgic concept void of logic and full of paradoxes.



What do you think?