The Monarchy, is there another way?

Some may be interested in this.

Finally! I've just launched Republic's new YouTube series Graham @ Republic.

The first episode is a two minute preview of what's coming up, and I tell you how you can get involved.

Ask questions, make suggestions

A new episode will be out each Thursday, in which I'll be taking a more detailed look at the various issues and questions that come up during the campaign.

Watch the first episode to find out how you can get involved by asking questions, making comments or sending me your suggestions for future episodes.

And don't forget to subscribe to our YouTube channel so you don't miss an episode.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=0u6Wo1DSbfo&list=PLcJDKxGpI_iAJSYHWOacYupSmLYnollGO&index=2&t=0s

grany you say ‘what the people from the Duchy think’

4 people , not the people

The link from a republic campaign !

Should ministers disclose letters ?

How do you know what Charles gives or doesn’t give ? You
don’t

This short film covers what people from Duchy land think of Charles

m.youtube.com/watch?v=TGamLrHlikc&t=1522s

No Charles doesn't bung money he keeps it all to himself including the millions from the Duchy which isn't private it belongs to the state.

A paper took 10 years and won case to get to see his letters to ministers only a fraction allowed of them to be seen

Thanks for the link, Grany.

I suspect that Charles has the same right as any citizen to lobby government ministers. That he does it has been known for decades. I thought that he was largely ignored...

At least he doesn't bung very large amounts of money at the tory party in order to get the ear of ministers so as to influence them.

MazieD I got information from www.republic.org.

And it is well know that Charles lobbies the government frequently writing letters, to influence legislation

He said in an interview with Dimbleby that he would be a political king.

Even writing the word king seems out of date from a distant age way back

MaizieD (post 11:12) query in the last paragraph should worry anyone who’s bought property rather than rented! I too wonder where would the line be drawn? One property only? One bedroom per person? We’ll soon be back to the bedroom tax bigstyle!

So do you want to radically change the constitution as well as abolish the monarchy?

While you detail the monarch's theoretical powers do you have evidence that the royal veto is used to influence 'the shape and content' of bills 'before they reach Parliament? That one surprises me a great deal because I wasn't aware that the monarch had a sight of draft bills before they are laid before parliament.

Do you have a link to your information source?

If parliament doesn’t make or scrap laws who will grany, put everything to a public vote ?

It has no power – it's just for decoration
The Queen certainly does have power, including the power to sign international treaties and deploy British troops abroad. It's true that most of these "royal prerogative powers" are today exercised by government, but that in itself is a serious problem. These powers have been transferred directly from the monarch to the prime minister and don't need the approval of parliament, effectively shutting out the British people from important decisions. That is fundamentally anti-democratic – and it can only happen because we have a monarchy.

The Queen and Prince Charles also have the power to veto bills that affect their private interests. Official legal advice makes clear that Queen's and Prince's Consent (as the "royal veto" is officially known) is not a mere formality. The process by which consent is obtained provides a clear opportunity for the Queen and the Prince of Wales to influence the shape and content of a bill before it reaches Parliament.

Then there's the problem of parliamentary sovereignty. At one point all the power in the land was held by the king or queen. Over time that power moved to parliament and is now held collectively by 650 MPs. However, the fundamental nature of that power hasn't changed – parliament can make or scrap any law it likes, just as the monarch could in the past. This means our freedoms are never really guaranteed because parliament can always decide to remove them. Again, this a direct result of having a monarchy.

The monarchy really doesn't bother me in the slightest. £345million a year isn't particularly expensive when you look at in relation to the many £billions in the national budget every year. Even the infamous £350 million a week boiled down to less than 2% of the national budget. Perhaps someone could enlighten us as to how much a President would cost us each year? I just cannot get wound up about the money that the nation's figurehead gets, particularly as the monarch has little or no influence on the government of the country.

What bothers me far, far more is the corruption in party politics and government which arises from very wealthy people buying access to ministers and funding lobbying campaigns at rates far beyond what the 'man in the street' could possible afford. Theoretically they have equal access to our legislatures, but in practice the money talks every time.

And if we're going to be bothered about the monarch and the heir taking income from what are, in theory, their private landholdings, the two Duchies, are we also concerned about the 'ownership' of vast tracts of 'our' land by other individuals and the income they get from that?

ExD is spot on.

Well Said Greeneyedgirl

I am a republican, and don't believe we can't be a true democracy with an unelected head of state.
I think the institution of the Monarchy, and its expensive trappings, is archaic and helps to maintain our class ridden society.
I would exchange the small benefits that the monarchy brings for a system in keeping with values of the 21st century.
If there was a vote tomorrow, the monarchists would undoubtedly win because the Queen enjoys a great deal of respect and popularity, and and imbues a feeling of security and continuity in the country, especially during difficult times.
I don't think this will be the case after the queen goes.
The tabloids would probably disappear too, they'd have nothing to write about

Jabberwok George Osbourne brought in the Sovereign Grant in 2013 An extremely generous amount, their money given goes up never down.

There are some dyed in the wool Nationalists on here, that's for sure and also monarchists who will have nothing said against our Royals.
I was surprised when NZ voted to keep their constitutional monarchy and the union jack! There are more true monarchists in the former colonies than there are here.

I am intrigued by the way Continental Europeans who have been republics for years are fascinated by our Royals or any Royals.

I was in Denmark at the time of their Royal Wedding and believe me, everyone stopped to watch. She is Australian of Scottish descent.

www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/gallery/2018051469127/relive-prince-frederik-and-mary-royal-wedding/1/

So. like it or not, P Beatrice has a point

Who is the resident socialist paddyanne ?

Are you still receiving bookings to photograph the royal family ?

When I had republican feelings in the past, I only had to think of Tony Blair as President, with Cherie as First Lady, for a speedy cure.
Plenty of similar cures come to mind now, whenever needed.

I can understand Australia not wanting to be part of the Monarchy----it's so bloomin' far away for a start and they've got their own rules and regulations, besides that it's a comparatively " young " country/continent where most inhabitants now aren't interested in pomp and ceremony as their grandparents once were.

I don't believe that Eugenie and Beatrice receive a royal allowance. Difficult to ascertain accurately, as every piece of information on websites now appears to come in the form of newspaper articles.

They are not funded by the sovereigns grant. Prince Charles ended this some years ago, much to the fury of Prince Andrew! Of course the RF needs to be modernised which William and Katherine are successfully doing. Just a pity Harry and Meghan aren't around to help.

Paddyanne, a socialist extracts inherited wealth from landed aristoctracy by inheritance tax, I think.

More importantly a socialist closes all the ' public' schools and provides for free tertiary education for all. In this way the aristocrats don't go a la lanterne but are gently sidelined as they individually might merit.

Meghan's way might have worked quite well. I love Queen Elizabeth and even she who has worked faithfully all her life will see the monarchy need to be modernised by cutting out all the hangers-on. Obviously Kate and Princess Anne are good workers too, but on the other hand Prince Andrew's daughters and former wife not so.