Vote them out of existance.

[Alba]

It occurs to me that we could simply decide to vote for a republic and consign the royals to the history books.

Am I right about this and if I'm right, why haven't we done it?

[Barry]

It occurs to me that we could simply decide to vote for a republic and consign the royals to the history books.

Am I right about this and if I'm right, why haven't we done it?

Constitution needs changing?

[DC]

Can I ask why exactly you want a republic? Look at the American system, it isn't democratic but it's still a republic.

[Streetwalker]

It occurs to me that we could simply decide to vote for a republic and consign the royals to the history books.

Am I right about this and if I'm right, why haven't we done it?

It wont happen.The Royal Family are loved by the people of England ,Great Britian and the Commonwealth.What benefit do you think you would achieve by becoming a republic anyway?

[Marxist Nutter]

It occurs to me that we could simply decide to vote for a republic and consign the royals to the history books.

Am I right about this and if I'm right, why haven't we done it?

No

Any democracy in this country only exists at the Queen sufferance. She does not have to accept the will of the people after all we are just her lowly subjects and not citizens with rights!

[Kiwi 1691]

I rather dislike the amount of power the Queen of England has over my country.

She has no right to have any authority over another sovereign nation. So I say get rid of the Monarchy. I want my country to be free.

[Marxist Nutter]

I rather dislike the amount of power the Queen of England has over my country.

She has no right to have any authority over another sovereign nation. So I say get rid of the Monarchy. I want my country to be free.

That's really cool to hear. You know, this confuses the hell out of me, maybe you can explain it?. Most Kiwis I've met seem to like the Monarchy.It just makes makes no sense. I am English and I hate the monarchy (in a bit of a minority here I know) but at least I get why English people are pro Monarchy (I just don't agree with it.) As for Ozzies and Kiwis being in favour of the monarchy - It just baffles me in the extreme!

[Kiwi 1691]

That's really cool to hear. You know, this confuses the hell out of me, maybe you can explain it?. Most Kiwis I've met seem to like the Monarchy.It just makes makes no sense. I am English and I hate the monarchy (in a bit of a minority here I know) but at least I get why English people are pro Monarchy (I just don't agree with it.) As for Ozzies and Kiwis being in favour of the monarchy - It just baffles me in the extreme!

Yes, there is still alot of support for the monarchy in NZ.

But the republican movement is growing. For example there is a bill that has been submitted by the New Zealand Green party that they are trying to get through parliament, that would require the government to hold a binding referendum on this issue.

The Bill provides for a two stage referendum on whether we should retain a monarch as our head of state, or move to one of two options: a directly elected New Zealand head of state, or one selected by 75% of Parliament.
The Bill contains special provision for the Treaty of Waitangi. The Bill states that the Treaty in its application will continue as it did prior to any change in the nature of our head of state.
"There is a growing mood that a local and democratically selected head of state is more appropriate for New Zealand in the 21st century," said Mr Locke.
"I will be working with MPs from all parties to seek a majority in the House to send the Bill to Select Committee."

Bill gives us a chance to talk about our future | Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand

One of the many reasons I support the greens.

[Streetwalker]

As for Ozzies and Kiwis being in favour of the monarchy - It just baffles me in the extreme!

The Monachy has no power over these countries but gives them an umbilical cord to thier past,and the protection of the Crown.It will be sad day when our friends (with whom we have much more in common than the surrender monkeys across the channel) leave the Commonwealth

[Marxist Nutter]

The Monachy has no power over these countries but gives them an umbilical cord to thier past,and the protection of the Crown.It will be sad day when our friends (with whom we have much more in common than the surrender monkeys across the channel) leave the Commonwealth

Hold on! I have very good friends from New Zealand and really don't see how that would change if they left the commonwealth!

Seriously tho, as you say there are very strong cultural ties between our nations so I hardly think deposing a foreign figure head that clutters up their (not to mention OUR) constitution would damage ties between us

[James]

It's not as if the Queen has any power at all so there's no need to start worrying that we are going to go back to the fuedal age! No monarch since Queen Anne has refused to pass a bill that Parliament has voted on and it's not likely to change now.

The monarch is more of a figurehead that links us back to the past.

And the monarchy is pretty good for the economy too, considering the tourism we get for it.

[JacquesMagique]

The monarch is more of a figurehead that links us back to the past.

A past of nepotism, colonalism and elitism you mean?

And the monarchy is pretty good for the economy too, considering the tourism we get for it.

"Of the top 20 tourist attractions in the UK only one royal residence makes it: Windsor Castle at number 17 (beaten comfortably by Windsor Legoland, in at number 7). "
Republic | Republic Replies

[James]

A past of nepotism, colonalism and elitism you mean?


"Of the top 20 tourist attractions in the UK only one royal residence makes it: Windsor Castle at number 17 (beaten comfortably by Windsor Legoland, in at number 7). "
Republic | Republic Replies

The past makes us what we are today so there's no point in denying it. And it cant be said that colonialism was entirely negative, sure we exploited but we also introduced sanitation and stability to regions that hadn't known it.

[Streetwalker]

A past of nepotism, colonalism and elitism you mean?


"Of the top 20 tourist attractions in the UK only one royal residence makes it: Windsor Castle at number 17 (beaten comfortably by Windsor Legoland, in at number 7). "
Republic | Republic Replies

Dont be daft, Tourists visit Windsor Castle.The Tower.Buck house ect,Legoland is visited by socialist councilors on beanos

[JacquesMagique]

The past makes us what we are today so there's no point in denying it. And it cant be said that colonialism was entirely negative, sure we exploited but we also introduced sanitation and stability to regions that hadn't known it.

Yes there's no point in denying it, but there's no need to glorify it. The Germans don't continue to call their head of state fuhrer.
But you can't pretend that colonialism was for anything but materially selfish reasons though.

[Kiwi 1691]

The Monachy has no power over these countries but gives them an umbilical cord to thier past,and the protection of the Crown.It will be sad day when our friends (with whom we have much more in common than the surrender monkeys across the channel) leave the Commonwealth

Actually the queen does have power over NZ.

But as she can't fly here every week we have a Governor General to carry out her duties here.

The queens powers include dissolution of the democratically elected parliament, she can stop laws from being passed, can circumvent the judicial system by pardoning anyone she wishes.

But hey, who wants to be able to choose their own head of state?

[Streetwalker]

Actually the queen does have power over NZ.

But as she can't fly here every week we have a Governor General to carry out her duties here.

The queens powers include dissolution of the democratically elected parliament, she can stop laws from being passed, can circumvent the judicial system by pardoning anyone she wishes.

But hey, who wants to be able to choose their own head of state?

Yes about the same power as she has in the UK........= None

[red star]

I think people who support the continuence of the monarchy should be the ones who support it financially.

I like dogs so I sponsor the dogs trust

If you like the royals and think they need financial support.........do the same...sponsor them.

Those who don't like them shouldn't be forced to finance/support them through taxation etc

[Midas]

Those who don't like them shouldn't be forced to finance/support them through taxation etc

So you support the idea that if people don't approve of something and don't want to have anything to do with it, they shouldn't be forced to pay for it? Excellent, like the NHS or state education or for any other form of wasteful government expenditure where there's a better and more efficient private alternative available.

[angelcountry]

So you support the idea that if people don't approve of something and don't want to have anything to do with it, they shouldn't be forced to pay for it? Excellent, like the NHS or state education or for any other form of wasteful government expenditure where there's a better and more efficient private alternative available.

Midas i hope those racist government should procure by the law not by the sword otherwise, there will be chaos in the old and the old old old town.

[octopus]

I think people who support the continuence of the monarchy should be the ones who support it financially.

I like dogs so I sponsor the dogs trust

If you like the royals and think they need financial support.........do the same...sponsor them.

Those who don't like them shouldn't be forced to finance/support them through taxation etc

Why shouldn"t they be forced to support the Monarchy, we are forced to support New Labour"s expensive causes, whilst our own doctors have to choose who lives and dies in our hospitals; as they say there is not enough money available to treat everyone. True, the Royal family are not always perfect, but the alternative of Gordon Brown as head of state, NO THANK YOU!

[JacquesMagique]

Why don't we privatise the royal family then?? O:

[Barry]

red star perhaps does not appreciate that the monarchy is a net contributor to the UK economy, so they don't actually cost us a penny.

[JacquesMagique]

red star perhaps does not appreciate that the monarchy is a net contributor to the UK economy, so they don't actually cost us a penny.

source?

[red star]

So you support the idea that if people don't approve of something and don't want to have anything to do with it, they shouldn't be forced to pay for it?

On a case by case basis why not ?

I see the Royals as a luxury item...........a luxury we can't afford to pay for anymore.

Do you think they desperately need the money or is it fair to say that they have enough already to live out their lives in extreme comfort ?

Excellent, like the NHS or state education or for any other form of wasteful government expenditure where there's a better and more efficient private alternative available.

So you see the NHS and state education as " wastefull government expenditure" ?...............no wonder you are so averse to socialist principles.
We have had privatized healthcare before............ most of the people couldn't afford any treatment. The same is happening all over the former eastern bloc countries and is a complete disaster.

I find your attitude to those less well off than yourself to be rather creepy to be honest Midas.

[red star]

Why shouldn"t they be forced to support the Monarchy, we are forced to support New Labour"s expensive causes, whilst our own doctors have to choose who lives and dies in our hospitals; as they say there is not enough money available to treat everyone. True, the Royal family are not always perfect, but the alternative of Gordon Brown as head of state, NO THANK YOU!

There is plenty of money to treat everyone , the problem is it is swallowed up/given to the few .........the same people who would also like to see a return to private sector profiteering out of peoples health.

Why be forced to fund both when one basically serves no purpose other than as an expensive luxury.

[red star]

red star perhaps does not appreciate that the monarchy is a net contributor to the UK economy, so they don't actually cost us a penny.

As Jacques said................do a little research and you will find the costs outweigh the income....................... I think for a modern state to even have a monarchy is backward to be honest.

[ERNESTO]

Anyone who wants to vote the monarchy out of existence should go to Republic | A democratic alternative to the monarchy and join the campaign, because unless it has escaped your attention the royals are unelected so we can't vote them out. If you are interested in republicanism go to republicanparty.co.uk and read about republicanism. In the mean time, ignore all the myths that are put forward in support of monarchy, eg It's good for tourism, (wrong), they work hard (wrong), they are good ambassadors (wrong), they raise countless millions for charity (wrong). If we end up with a hung parliament in the forthcoming election it will become evident that our shambolic unwritten constitution is not fit for purpose.

[DaveUK]

I have to say that I find this thread and the comments in it a little bizzare to say the least.
As a British socialist it is I think I'm right in saying unusual for me to be a supporter of the monarchy.
I personally think that by and large our monarchy has served our country very well, at considerable value to the tax payer when compaired to the scandalous rabble that masquerade as serious politicians in this country.
They proudly and bravely serve in our armed forces, much more than can be said for the over paid toffs that sent our armed forces into harms way.
They continue to be ambassadors for our country, and serve us far better than the servile politicians and diplomats that are to be found fawning and slobbering over African dictators, neo conservative imperialists, and other such despots at UN and EU meetings.
This years civil list will cost the tax payer a paultry 7.5 million £, probably not enough to cover the taxi and tube bill for last years parliament.
They have no constitutional powers at all, they do the UK a great service, I say long live the monarchy in this country.............and for gods sake may we never ever become a republic.

[ERNESTO]

I have to say that I find this thread and the comments in it a little bizzare to say the least.
As a British socialist it is I think I'm right in saying unusual for me to be a supporter of the monarchy.
I personally think that by and large our monarchy has served our country very well, at considerable value to the tax payer when compaired to the scandalous rabble that masquerade as serious politicians in this country.
They proudly and bravely serve in our armed forces, much more than can be said for the over paid toffs that sent our armed forces into harms way.
They continue to be ambassadors for our country, and serve us far better than the servile politicians and diplomats that are to be found fawning and slobbering over African dictators, neo conservative imperialists, and other such despots at UN and EU meetings.
This years civil list will cost the tax payer a paultry 7.5 million £, probably not enough to cover the taxi and tube bill for last years parliament.
They have no constitutional powers at all, they do the UK a great service, I say long live the monarchy in this country.............and for gods sake may we never ever become a republic.

You are not unusual in being a socialist supporter of the monarchy. The last Labour government just gave the royal household blanket exemption from FOI so as ''to maintain the impression of impartiality''. this was probably to prevent Charles' meddling becoming public knowledge. Sir Michael Peat has recently revealed that Charles personally writes 5 letters per day, many of which are probably to government ministers trying to influence public policy decisions. We will never know now. 'An unwelcome intervention': What judge said about Charles - Home News, UK - The Independent
You hold our politicians in contempt and yet support the system of government that has spawned them. What is it about politicians you dislike? Is it that they lie? Is it that they spin? Do you think they are corrupt? Do you think they're on the gravy train? Are they mostly moralising hypocrites? Well, the royal family are much the same, but the difference is we can throw our politicians out at elections but the royals are are not accountable.
The Royals act as ambassadors? Senior members of the royal family, including Charles and Philip, have routinely made diplomatic gaffes when representing us overseas. Thankfully, we have a diplomatic corps to represent us and do the serious diplomatic work, and they do not need the help of the royal family.
The cost of the monarchy, released by the palace today as 62p per capita, is disingenuous spin. Last years MPs expenses scandal cost us approximately 20p per capita. A bargain, why did we bother complaining? The figures released by the palace do not include the cost of security, estimated to be around £180million, we will never know and have to estimate the figure because the truth is hidden from us.
What they do in the armed forces is neither here nor there. Many many people serve us bravely in the armed forces and I salute anyone that does so. However, I have a principled objection to monarchy and its pernicious effect on our society. It seems the establishment's spin has you convinced but that's not surprising since we are all subjected to the same propaganda from cradle to grave.
I only challenge the cost of monarchy because they (the palace) claim its cheap, I, and others, think otherwise. My main objection is that monarchy is secretive, unaccountable and the antithesis of democracy.

[blues_man]

There are many confusions between the myth and the reality. As regards the royal family, which is which? And, how to access ithe truth?

There was a period during which I immersed myself in research, predominately of old documents. I was forced to conclude that history as taught is dramatically different to that which is real. A point is soon reached where one needs to be a personage entitled to read these old and treasured documents, which is to say, an accredited Professor of an institution like Oxford or Cambridge (more Oxford in fact). Despite being stymied, by studying essays and speeches of the luminaries it is possible to go far enough, without the secret historical records, to form some astounding opinions. I suppose my view is that history as we know it is largely a fiction, before say 1000 AD.

Back to the British Monarchy. Which though German from the Sachs, coburg, Gotha, line is, too, Stuart from the Princess Sophie. A long story (look it up). Well, to look at Great Britain today as it has become today, a multiculturist Cesspit, government by School of Frankfurt marxist dogmas one has to wonder where this all began. The short answer is 1066. The long answer , being really long is the burden the reader must undertake to understand the consequences of 1066.


I will post one document that demonstrates just how powerful a lady is our queen Elizabeth 2nd.

Hail Caesar!*Queen Gives*Marching Orders To The UN

How did the queen become so powerful? that is a very fair question. There are many answers. I work with a group that has brushed close to what might be some answers of what mechanisms and structures have allowed such untramelled powers.

Cecil Rhodes certainly bears some responsibility for his insane and arrogant dream of anglicising the entire world. The Wills he left, with instructions that the monies be used to fulfill his dream. Significantly the last trustee standing was Lord Rothschild. To me this is indicative of many things, best not stated on open forum. However through Rhodes "Roundtable" and the influence of the Rhodes "foundations" many similar structures were erected to facilitate these mad dreams that have so imprilled our world.

We now sit upon the horns of a dilemma.

On the one hand we absolutely need our Monarchic edifice: Our constitutional freedoms are embedded within the monarchy. We all can see the Totalitarian edifice growing like a cancer across the channel. A cancer that is controlling our politicians to act only in the interest of the EU Collective Soviet. Which is a construct of the British Monarchy as the means to implement Rhodes dream. A dream that has been taken and subverted into the darkest evil ever faced by mankind.

I believe we now have NO representative Government. Lip service is paid while the globalist structures for control are erected, then it will be game over.

If we wish for our children and our childrens children to enjoy even a modicum of the heritage that ought to be theirs. Then we will not get that from Cleggeron Camerclegg or the bloody coalition, who are busy erecting the superstate as we watch with our mouths open and our brains switched off.

on the second hand we need the monarchy for our constitutional protection. David Willetts MP has stated in writing that common law is stronger than EU law. He thinks the EU Collective Soviet cares about law. How naive, how gullible.

Britain needs a revolution to clean the sewers. To regain representative government. Nothing less will do.

[octopus]

There is plenty of money to treat everyone , the problem is it is swallowed up/given to the few .........the same people who would also like to see a return to private sector profiteering out of peoples health.

Why be forced to fund both when one basically serves no purpose other than as an expensive luxury.

"Plenty of money to treat everybody"- not what I"ve heard! Or exprienced. Plus, in the private sector, the extra luxury is paid for mainly by their patients; many Labour party "big wigs", seem to find the private sector agreeable, I can"t think why? Could be you are treated in a clean hospital, a proper doctor, proper staff, as opposed to third world witch doctors and you have got a resonable chance of getting out alive.

[keith53]

It wont happen.The Royal Family are loved by the people of England ,Great Britian and the Commonwealth.What benefit do you think you would achieve by becoming a republic anyway?

The same as France has.They got shot of their Royal Parasites and it hasn't done them much harm,has it!How can such a system be the norm when the majority are totally opposed to this nonsense from the dark ages.Sorry,but eating boiled eggs from solid gold egg cups and drinking tea from silver tea pots is not really acceptable in the 21st century,is it,especially when most of her "subjects"live like peasants from the 12th century.

[keith53]

"Plenty of money to treat everybody"- not what I"ve heard! Or exprienced. Plus, in the private sector, the extra luxury is paid for mainly by their patients; many Labour party "big wigs", seem to find the private sector agreeable, I can"t think why? Could be you are treated in a clean hospital, a proper doctor, proper staff, as opposed to third world witch doctors and you have got a resonable chance of getting out alive.

Yes,if you happen to be a rich,skanking Banker or Tory party member.There will always be a massive gulf between the working class and the rich parasites.

[Streetwalker]

The same as France has.They got shot of their Royal Parasites and it hasn't done them much harm,has it!How can such a system be the norm when the majority are totally opposed to this nonsense from the dark ages.Sorry,but eating boiled eggs from solid gold egg cups and drinking tea from silver tea pots is not really acceptable in the 21st century,is it,especially when most of her "subjects"live like peasants from the 12th century.

Go live in France with the rest of the surrender monkeys if you like the place so much. Where do you get your "the majority are totally opposed" from. Thats news to me. The Royal Familly is part of what makes us British and by the way are not parasites but contribute much to the economy.

As for the drinking of tea .One would never drink from the tea pot you heathen ,silver or otherwise.

[marc5]

The same as France has.They got shot of their Royal Parasites and it hasn't done them much harm,has it!How can such a system be the norm when the majority are totally opposed to this nonsense from the dark ages.Sorry,but eating boiled eggs from solid gold egg cups and drinking tea from silver tea pots is not really acceptable in the 21st century,is it,especially when most of her "subjects"live like peasants from the 12th century.

Some guy called Cromwell did this a few years ago....look what happened to him

[srb7677]

Personally, I think that the monarchy should be abolished and we should have an elected head of state. I know that this is not yet a majority view in Britain but it is mine.

It is ridiculous that in a 21st century democracy we should have an hereditary head of state, who has seemingly been there since time immemorial, whom no one voted into office and whom no one can vote out. And we are not even allowed to know what the monarch`s opinions are on anything: in other words we are barred from knowing what our own head of state thinks about the big issues of the day. Yet our democratically appointed politicians must report to and swear allegience to this unelected figurehead. And whatever the monarch says in discussions with the Prime Minister who must regularly report to her, we are not allowed to know. Really, when you cut out the sycophancy and actually think about it, is this any way to run a 21st century democracy?

The Royal Family is maintained in fabulous luxury, undreamed of by most of the taxpayers paying for it, some of whom are seriously struggling financially. Maintaining a head of state in some degree of splendour may be reasonable, but all her relatives too? If they want such luxury, let them damn well go out and earn the money to pay for it, and not expect the hard pressed taxpayer to do so.

Another problem with the concept of monarchy is that it sits atop an utterly outdated class system, which by it`s presence it reinforces. It is no surprise that the staunchest adherents of monarchy are the titled aristocracy, who are in the upper echelons of that outdated class system themselves. By fervently believing in a set up that involves them looking up to the monarchy, they are also believing in their own utter superiority over the rest of us. The titled aristocracy`s fervent support for the monarchy goes hand in hand with it`s snobbery and air of superiority towards the rest of us.

Finally, in 21st century Britain we should all be citizens, not subjects. I personally refuse to regard myself as anyone`s subject. It`s 2011 for crying out loud, not 1511! And though I would happily swear allegience to my country, I would never swear it to an unelected figurehead whose views are kept secret from me. My allegience is to the nation and it`s people, not some exalted individual who was never voted for.

[Jim Franklin]

Personally, I think that the monarchy should be abolished and we should have an elected head of state. I know that this is not yet a majority view in Britain but it is mine.

And of course this democracy, such that it is, allows you to rightly hold that view.

It is ridiculous that in a 21st century democracy we should have an hereditary head of state, who has seemingly been there since time immemorial, whom no one voted into office and whom no one can vote out. And we are not even allowed to know what the monarch`s opinions are on anything: in other words we are barred from knowing what our own head of state thinks about the big issues of the day. Yet our democratically appointed politicians must report to and swear allegience to this unelected figurehead. And whatever the monarch says in discussions with the Prime Minister who must regularly report to her, we are not allowed to know. Really, when you cut out the sycophancy and actually think about it, is this any way to run a 21st century democracy?

That is wholly incorrect. Whilst it is true that the incumbent Prime Minister gives briefings to the Monarch, and they attend BP to "dissolve" Parliament for an election to occur, these are not actually mandated by law, they are mandated out of tradition. There is no part of the various Acts of Parliament which put the Monarchy back into "Power" with Charles II or the subsequent creation of the United Kingdom a short time later which gives the Monarch anything more than "traditional" powers, there are no Statute Powers.

The Royal Family is maintained in fabulous luxury, undreamed of by most of the taxpayers paying for it, some of whom are seriously struggling financially. Maintaining a head of state in some degree of splendour may be reasonable, but all her relatives too? If they want such luxury, let them damn well go out and earn the money to pay for it, and not expect the hard pressed taxpayer to do so.

I think you should check the "civil list" This only maintains the immediate Royals, the Queen, Philip, Charles, Anne, Andrew and Edward at public expense. All the rest were removed from the list over a period of many years and they are either supported by the Queen, paid employment or inheritances. Long gone are the days of the multitude of hangers on.

Another problem with the concept of monarchy is that it sits atop an utterly outdated class system, which by it`s presence it reinforces. It is no surprise that the staunchest adherents of monarchy are the titled aristocracy, who are in the upper echelons of that outdated class system themselves. By fervently believing in a set up that involves them looking up to the monarchy, they are also believing in their own utter superiority over the rest of us. The titled aristocracy`s fervent support for the monarchy goes hand in hand with it`s snobbery and air of superiority towards the rest of us.

Whilst I would certainly accept that the idea of Monarchy does indeed sit at the pinnacle of a highly privileged authoritarian system that has no place in the modern world, I would refer you back to my first answer which states that the Monarchy have no real powers anymore. The Class system is something that permeates all societies. Please don't be fooled into thinking it does not exist in Republics, simply look at the French or the US models..Privilege certainly plays a large role in their societies and class is ever present.

Finally, in 21st century Britain we should all be citizens, not subjects. I personally refuse to regard myself as anyone`s subject. It`s 2011 for crying out loud, not 1511! And though I would happily swear allegience to my country, I would never swear it to an unelected figurehead whose views are kept secret from me. My allegience is to the nation and it`s people, not some exalted individual who was never voted for.

We are Citizens and not subjects. Although it is often mentioned in traditional ceremonies that speak of the Queen's subjects, this is an archaic term that has no real bearing on our status in Modern Britain. There are distinct advantages to having a representative of the nation that has no Political Allegiance. The Queen is respected throughout the world, not because she is The Queen, but because of the manner she conducts herself, devoid of political interference and independent of the State, she is able to open doors and break down barriers that no politician ever could.

The fact is we do not actually vote for who runs the bloody country anyway, the corrupted and twisted system of voting we have does not mean the best person gets the Job, it does not mean we get democracy and it does not mean we, as the people who actually own this country, get a say in how it is run. People keep mentioning "The Constitution", but the fact is we do not have one. We have a Constitutional Monarchy, but the Public have no written Constitution, and thus we technically only have the rights the incumbent Government and the sitting Judiciary allow us to have.

Until we resolve the issues I have just highlighted we will never have a mature and democratic society,and the issue of the Monarch is a side issue of no real importance. It is a distraction to avert our attention from what really is important.

[srb7677]

The fact is we do not actually vote for who runs the bloody country anyway, the corrupted and twisted system of voting we have does not mean the best person gets the Job, it does not mean we get democracy and it does not mean we, as the people who actually own this country, get a say in how it is run. People keep mentioning "The Constitution", but the fact is we do not have one. We have a Constitutional Monarchy, but the Public have no written Constitution, and thus we technically only have the rights the incumbent Government and the sitting Judiciary allow us to have.

Until we resolve the issues I have just highlighted we will never have a mature and democratic society,and the issue of the Monarch is a side issue of no real importance. It is a distraction to avert our attention from what really is important.

I agree with you that the issues you have highlighted matter, some of them perhaps even more so than the abolition or retention of the monarchy. But the issues of who is our head of state and how they come to be so,of what mandate they have, etc, do matter too in my view.

As to your other points, you argue your case well, but I believe the Queen`s position to be upheld by law, not merely tradition. And legally the Queen has real potential power, to dismiss a government at her whim and call new elections at any time. Just because these powers have never been used, unless requested by a Prime Minister, within living memory, does not mean that they do not exist.

And because the armed forces swear allegiance to the monarch personally, rather than to the government or people, any monarch could if he/she so chose, lead a military coup against a democratically elected government. The only thing stopping this is the disinclination of the monarch himself/herself from doing so. There is no constitutional safeguard against this.

Indeed, in the mid 1970s some right wing schemers in the fields of the media, business, and the House of Lords were plotting exactly this (according to a documentary I watched some time ago on the BBC), though admittedly the plans came to nought in the end. But we are less safe aganst such potential dangers than many realise.

[Lone Ranger]

The monarchy exert enormous political power. It is just that we mere voters are not privy to the way that this is done.
And it is ridiculous. We should keep them, in a less expensive form, as a tourist attraction.
But political power should reside with a democratically elected president who would be our head of state.

Someone like Chris Patton would be ideal.

[Lois Lane]

The monarchy exert enormous political power. It is just that we mere voters are not privy to the way that this is done.
And it is ridiculous. We should keep them, in a less expensive form, as a tourist attraction.
But political power should reside with a democratically elected president who would be our head of state.

Someone like Chris Patton would be ideal.

I doubt if royalty have much political power unless it lobbies MP's constantly.

Royalty represents EVERYONE in GB, regardless of political persuasion, rank, race or creed. When they go abroad they carry no baggage (yes I know their valets do) and cannot be accused of any bias. They have to remain absolutely neutral except for batting for GB and have to be fully aware of the relationship between all nations so they don't upset anyone. They cannot be ill, sad, must behave as everyone expects them to do and smile when they are very very bored. They cannot defend themslves in public, change jobs, swear, speak their minds or have an opinion, be gracious when they have a headache and receive all the brickbats they get from the whole of the media.Their lives are not ever their own.
They have modernised amazingly in the last 50 years, cost us very little (just over a pound a year each I believe). They have done their public duty in a far broader range of activities than eer before ie Anne competing in equestrian events and winning fair and square while doing more public visits than any other member of the family).

But most of all they are what the world understands as British regardless of political connections. They represent the public face of GB and are respected all over the world by anyone with a TV set.

I think we have a unique gift in GB and should cherish it.

[srb7677]

But most of all they are what the world understands as British regardless of political connections. They represent the public face of GB and are respected all over the world by anyone with a TV set.

If Prince Andrew is "what the world understands as British", then God help us!!! I very much doubt whether he or his ex-wife are "respected all over the world by anyone with a TV set". In fact, in view of their money-grabbing and at times morally questionable behaviour and attitudes, I seriously doubt whether this pair are respected by many people at all.

The heir to the throne, Prince Charles, is not a figure who commands universal respect even in his own country, let alone elsewhere, and Prince Philip`s contribution to our international standing seems to be to do whatever he can to undermine it by insulting people and causing offense left, right and centre.

And I take issue with the idea that monarchy represents everyone in Britain, "regardless of political persuasion, rank, race or creed". Royalists always seem to spout this line, speaking for the entire people in defiance of the fact that millions of us are republicans! As a staunch republican myself, let me tell you that they certainly don`t represent me!!

[JacquesMagique]

They have done their public duty in a far broader range of activities than eer before ie Anne competing in equestrian events and winning fair and square while doing more public visits than any other member of the family).

Oh riding a horse and a few hospital visits, what a trooper.
I guess a cleaner on minimum wage should respect all that hard work.

[Lois Lane]

Oh riding a horse and a few hospital visits, what a trooper.
I guess a cleaner on minimum wage should respect all that hard work.

Clearly you are ignorant of the time and effort that goes into doing either of these things well and well enough to win.

It is easy to sit and poke fun. Have you ever done anything well enough to win a large national event while going all over the country attending events hundreds of times a year?

[Lois Lane]

If Prince Andrew is "what the world understands as British", then God help us!!! I very much doubt whether he or his ex-wife are "respected all over the world by anyone with a TV set". In fact, in view of their money-grabbing and at times morally questionable behaviour and attitudes, I seriously doubt whether this pair are respected by many people at all.

The heir to the throne, Prince Charles, is not a figure who commands universal respect even in his own country, let alone elsewhere, and Prince Philip`s contribution to our international standing seems to be to do whatever he can to undermine it by insulting people and causing offense left, right and centre.

And I take issue with the idea that monarchy represents everyone in Britain, "regardless of political persuasion, rank, race or creed". Royalists always seem to spout this line, speaking for the entire people in defiance of the fact that millions of us are republicans! As a staunch republican myself, let me tell you that they certainly don`t represent me!!

And in return I could quote the Queen, Anne, Harry and William as good ambassadors for GB.

You may not be individually represented but to other people in other places, you are part of GB. Royalty doesn't represent each person, it represents ALL the people as a nation. That makes a huge difference.

[anglo saxon]

To start with, the Queen is not the Queen of england. She is the Queen of the United Kingdom. She has been a hard working woman all her life,and when she dies, the alternative is not a happy one. King Charles and Queen Camilla. No way. That will be the time to start thinking about a republic. I know what really upsets people about the monarchy is that, they have never had to worry about money. But living in a gold fish bowl, is not worth all the money in the world. And then, just suppose we became a republic. Instead of a monarch we would have a president. He would have to be elected, not appointed by the old boys club, like our useless judiciary. And he would probably come from one of our two main parties.

[srb7677]

And in return I could quote the Queen, Anne, Harry and William as good ambassadors for GB.

Yes of course, as individuals some members of the royal family are much more worthy of respect than others, that is true. SOME of them are fine examples of what Britain has to offer.

But the very problem with a set up predicated upon inherited positions and influence is that what we get is largely pot luck. We have no power to choose who these "representatives" of Britain will be, nor to remove from their inherited positions those who are unworthy of them. And that is in my view an affront to a 21st century democracy. Hereditary right belongs in the feudal age, not the modern one.

[srb7677]

And then, just suppose we became a republic. Instead of a monarch we would have a president. He would have to be elected, not appointed by the old boys club, like our useless judiciary. And he would probably come from one of our two main parties.

That is not necessarily so. An elected President would be mostly ceremonial, as in Ireland, where generally only those commanding widespread respect from across the political spectrum become President. You could also ban all sitting and previous MPs and members of the House of Lords from running, as well as excluding anyone who has ever been a mayor or media boss, or who has been a member of a political party for the last 10 years. In other words, there are ways of excluding career politicians from the position, leaving the field open to non-political figures who can command widespread respect for what would mostly be a ceremonial position. Joanna Lumley for President, anyone?

[JacquesMagique]

Clearly you are ignorant of the time and effort that goes into doing either of these things well and well enough to win.

It is easy to sit and poke fun. Have you ever done anything well enough to win a large national event while going all over the country attending events hundreds of times a year?

It's a lot easier to focus on that when you don't have to worry about paying the bills. The idea of even owning and keeping a horse is beyond most people's reach.

[thomas]

Yes of course, as individuals some members of the royal family are much more worthy of respect than others, that is true. SOME of them are fine examples of what Britain has to offer.

But the very problem with a set up predicated upon inherited positions and influence is that what we get is largely pot luck. We have no power to choose who these "representatives" of Britain will be, nor to remove from their inherited positions those who are unworthy of them. And that is in my view an affront to a 21st century democracy. Hereditary right belongs in the feudal age, not the modern one.

well said sir!