Retaining the Monarchy

That was a reply to Doodledog*, who was asking why we need both a PM and a president/monarch.

We did the royal thing last Christmas as an Aussie niece was visiting. Went to Sandringham on Christmas morning, first time for myDD and me as well as her niece. Well we’ve only lived down the road for nearly 35 years.
Harry talked to her, she loved it! The crowd were lovely, great atmosphere.
Then when in London we went to the changing of the guard.
I couldn’t believe the crowd. The royals were still in Norfolk.
While the Royals are so popular with so many people from so many countries around the world I can’t see the point in getting rid of an institution that seems IMO to work.
Of course it’s not perfect but be careful what you wish for.

I think I need to book an eye test. I read the title of this discussion as "Retraining the Monarchy". Which would be a whole other thread!

Nice pics of Prince William accompanying the Queen to church at Balmoral this morning. He's obviously there on his own as George and Charlotte are back at school but how good for her to have the support of her grandson while everything else around her seems to be fraught with worry.

yes god love her she doesn't know where her next meal will come from or if she can eat AND heat this week...oh and her son might well end up in jail .
Most elderly people I know would swap with Lizzie in a heartbeat ..she's certainly not had a hard life !1

A PM isn’t a Prime Minister ?

In the context of this thread, what else could it be? Post Mortem? Post Meridian? Private Message?

Thanks, Elegran. That makes sense; but we don't need one, surely? I know the US isn't the best place to use for comparison these days (specially if there are going to be ad hominem comments); but it usually works for them to have one person in that role.

I think the fact that the last week or two have shown that the Queen has such a limited role is possibly a reason for reducing the wealth that goes with the role (and the power attached to that wealth would then diminish, too).

I don't know, though. I've nothing against the Queen, and it would be unfair to penalise anyone just because of their birth; but I object to the power that people like Prince Andrew have, and haven't patience with a lot of the hangers on.

Andrew has no power, he has wealth but no power

If the sex abuse case ever comes to court, I will believe that .

You believe he has power over the American Justice System ?

I think one argument for having a nominal head of state and a practical one (one for weekdays, one for Sundays and festivals? ) is that they would keep an eye on each other. Checks and balances are built into most constitutions, so that too much power doesn't end up concentrated in one place.

You believe he has power over the American Justice System ?
Not directly; but I have no doubt at all that strings can be pulled.

If the RF are not powerful/influential, what is the point of them?

I agree with you again, Elegran; but as we have seen recently, the checks and balances are too weak to be of use. The Queen has to agree with her parliament (publicly at least), so has little or no influence over it. Maybe a written constitution is the way forward; but I worry that the country is too divided to each consensus over what it should comprise.

Every time this issue is raised on Gransnet it seems that people can only visualise the American model. In fact, that is more an exception than the rule across the world.

Granny Gravy I think it's not uncommon for people to buy stuff to take in the aeroplane home to Africa . A friend of mine bought a spare part for her Fiat and took it on the plane home to Sierra Leone. I think you do very well to be of practical use to the school.

I take it you are not nearly as rich as some minor royals who really should not try to build their images upon giving such small gifts as are more appropriate for poorer people.

If we became a Republic we wouldn't HAVE to replace the Monarchy with anything.

A slimmed down monarchy please.

Who should be pensioned off ?

The state does not support all the royal family - the ones who receive any money are far fewer than is usually supposed.

Or is it being recommened that they are culled like surplus deer or seals, and shot or clubbed so that no longer exist?

Somebody said Andrew has no power. This is true but what they all have is a lot of influence which in itself is power.

Who or what does Andrew have influence over ?