Royalist is our post-Brexit religion

There seems to be a distinct lack of crowds for the feudal tour of Scotland. Anyone got photos of the disinterest ?

@UnRoyalReporter

@KensingtonRoyal
twosome are always “learning about” & “hearing” on their sanitised visits to various projects.

William puts on his concerned face.

They grasp nothing.

They embody the establishment

They pose for photos then fuck off 20 mins later.
#RoyalVisitScotland

Callistemon

GrannyRose15

Constitutional Monarchy will be the system in any future independent Scotland.

How do you know this for sure?

She/he might not want to.
Don't take her (or him) to for granted,

S/he might not want to do lots of things, such is the nature of hereditary monarchy, but as the monarch of all countries in the UK s/he would be the monarch of an independent Scotland.

I think any suggestion that s/he might abandon a country which they have historically been monarch of, simply because they have decided to have their own Parliament, is a bit far fetched.

Any precedents?

Callistemon

I too think there may be some things that turn out to be not as clear as they first appear.

GrannyRose15

^Constitutional Monarchy will be the system in any future independent Scotland.^

How do you know this for sure?

She/he might not want to.
Don't take her (or him) to for granted,

The current family look anything but happy to me. It looks like a never ending car crash.

Various members of the RF have stepped out of the line of succession because they either changed their religion or married Roman Catholics.

There is nothing to stop them doing it. If a monarch or heir/ess did they would probably do the same and just be replaced by the next in line who was happy with being Cof E.

I am indiferent on this subject but have always felt that if something works, do not try and fix it, what usually happens is that thewhole system is thrown in turmoil and you end up with something far worse than you already had.

If the current family are happy to accept all the restrictions and continue in the job. let them stay. They have shown themselves to be as human as the rest of us and suffer all the problems that other families have. Being royal has not protected them from divorce and messy acrimonious family breakdowns, estrangements, and many other problems that humankind suffers.

I must admit I've no time for the RF, never liked them even as a kid and I'm really uncomfortable with the fact that they don't even have the freedom to choose their own religion, its Church of England, full stop.

In the 21st century should this really be tollerated? Surely religious freedom is a right.

GrannyRose15

^Constitutional Monarchy will be the system in any future independent Scotland.^

How do you know this for sure?

Becuase a change in the system of government was not on the ballot in 2014. There is no suggestion that it would be in any future referendum on independence.

There is probably as much support for a republic in Scotland as there is in any other part of the UK. It would be absolutely counter-productive to try to tie independence to becoming a republic, it's too big a step.

However I did say "For a while at least".

Peasblossom

Do you think it’s possible to get a non-partisan Head of State? I mean everyone has a viewpoint. I can’t actually think of anyone in the public arena that I’d want at present.

How about countries like the USA where the Head of State and President are one? Does that work do you think. I admit I get confused between the President and the Prime Minister in countries like France. It would save even more money than two Offices.

I’m also greatly put off by obscene amounts of money being spent on Presidential elections and all the razzmatazz that turns it into a show biz event or the ‘influencing’ that goes on in some elections - monetary and violence.

Where does it work well, do you think?

Im ambivalent about the current role of the Monarchy and certainly about the “Family” aspect of it and the way it’s become a media /celebrity thing.

On the other hand, if it was mostly a ceremonial role, the Palace is very good at that. I wouldn’t like someone as rude and dismissive as Trump to represent me.

Do you think it’s possible to get a non-partisan Head of State? I mean everyone has a viewpoint. I can’t actually think of anyone in the public arena that I’d want at present. Yes it has to be, written in law.

How about countries like the USA where the Head of State and President are one? Does that work do you think. I admit I get confused between the President and the Prime Minister in countries like France. It would save even more money than two Offices.
USA has a written constitution and it works well. We have a Head of State the monarchy So will have a president who will have limited role and have checks and balances on government A president would just need an office and official residence. Not like the 19 homes of RF we have to pay for with around the clock security.

I’m also greatly put off by obscene amounts of money being spent on Presidential elections and all the razzmatazz that turns it into a show biz event or the ‘influencing’ that goes on in some elections - monetary and violence. It would be a straight forward election that people could vote in. Would not cost a lot and no razzmatazz

Where does it work well, do you think? Ireland.

Im ambivalent about the current role of the Monarchy and certainly about the “Family” aspect of it and the way it’s become a media /celebrity thing. Agree.

On the other hand, if it was mostly a ceremonial role, the Palace is very good at that. I wouldn’t like someone as rude and dismissive as Trump to represent me. There would be a limited role for the U.K. President written in law and doing what the queen is unable to do.

This explains the Monarch role, an elected President would certainly be politically biased. Merkel CDU, Biden Democrat, Morrison, Liberal Party, Arden NZ Labour Party,

Morrison is the Prime Minister of Australia. Head of State - the Queen

Ardern is the Prime Minister of New Zealand. Head of State - the Queen

Constitutional Monarchy will be the system in any future independent Scotland.

How do you know this for sure?

We all have our own idea of what Utopia looks like. It's real life that causes more problems.

There is no suggestion that we would chose another form of government - Constitutional Monarchy will be the system in any future independent Scotland. For a while, at least.

Of course the UK as a whole can choose not to have her or any monarchy. I don't think its necessarily a perk of being in an independent Scotland, we (UK) could choose it now if we wanted.

Alegrias1

GrannyRose15

An independent Scotland would still have the Queen as head of state. She's our Queen too. You know, like Australia, Canada....

The complete lack of understanding of constitutional matters on here is quite worrying.

But surely you can choose not to have her or any monarchy. That's one of the perks of being independent isn't it?

Grany

I will say this again. A president would cost a fraction of the monarchy which stands at £345 million and rising. But it's not just the cost it's the principle.

A president would have to be political neutral unlike the monarchy who has a veto on our laws.

Something like the president in Ireland or

Or like our Bundes President here in Germany. A very well respected figure head, whose sole purpose is to welcome foreign heads of state, represent Germany abroad and sign his/her name on bills which have passed both houses. The only difference between Michael D. Higgins and our president, Frank-Walther Steinmaier, is that MDH was elected by the electorate, whereas Steinmaier was nominated by and elected by our elected representatives in the Bundestag. The roles are the same though and both do an excellent job, IMO. The fact that they have limited terms of office is a good thing too. The Monarchie in the UK is a waste of space and money and is an anachronism in the 21st century.

This explains the Monarch role, an elected President would certainly be politically biased. Merkel CDU, Biden Democrat, Morrison, Liberal Party, Arden NZ Labour Party,
royalcentral.co.uk/uk/queen/the-queens-consent-and-legislative-veto-powers-explained-155588/

My mother was a confirmed royalist (dad thought they were a waste of space) and as I love history and biography, I was never really for a republic. Until the last few years.
This family, from what I've seen, live in some bygone era, William included. Once I became a parent, I was horrified that Charles and Anne were left in UK for 6 months without parents, Charles forced to go to a school where he was bullied and humiliated. He is a strange man.
Even when they do meet ordinary people, it's a sanitised version. When the Queen came to my school, all the walls she'd see were painted especially! And specially chosen kids and lessons.
No I don't want to have these people as my future heads of state.

vegansrock

We should certainly get rid of the House of Lords that’s an anachronism all of its own.

I don't know, I've rather warmed to the House of Lords in the last few years. At least they seem to be quite sane and work in the interests of the UK.

We should certainly get rid of the House of Lords that’s an anachronism all of its own.

We should try our hardest to get a change to the voting system in the UK before we think about becoming a republic.

I was watching a rerun of Portillo on Dutch railways last night. He was talking to a parlimentarian at the Hague about their voting system. The Dutchman explained that would achieve a consensus and that there were no strong parties to force through legislation. Consensus politics seems a good idea to me. That way we wouldn't have policies such as the building of HS2 decided upon when probably half the country doesn't want it.

By the way, I do accept that Labour and the Tories have been equally as bad.

All ordinary people are considered equal, but some are more equal than others.

Elegran

Rosie The orginal object of the granting of titles like Sir or Dame was to indicate that the recipient is at the top of their game, or has some other achievement or public service. Excluding someone for having one of these honours implies that the individual is some kind of brown-noser who has concentrated their abilities on aiming. to get it. That is not logical.

That was the original object, but I'm not sure about now. I didn't say I would exclude anybody, I just don't think 99.99% of the population would even be considered, so not the egalitarian solution we're told a republic would provide.

Elegran I think you'll find in our Brave New Britain it will only be extraordinary ordinary people who will qualify to be our esteemed leader. Postmen, hairdressers, shop assistants need not apply. But it will be perfect!

Elegran

It's so simple.
In theory

Rosie The orginal object of the granting of titles like Sir or Dame was to indicate that the recipient is at the top of their game, or has some other achievement or public service. Excluding someone for having one of these honours implies that the individual is some kind of brown-noser who has concentrated their abilities on aiming. to get it. That is not logical.

In a Utopian Britain, every one of its citizens would be both eligible and suitable for being head of state, and could do the job admirably. They would all be knowledgeable about the constitution, the legal system and the laws of the country, the values and customs of each of the many faiths, and the sensibilities of everyone from the many backgrounds and cultures which make up the diverse and dynamic population. They would be confident and sensitive enough to engage with the governments of other countries without either kowtowing to bullies or resorting to browbeating, have sufficient private funds to avoid the temptation to use their position to acquire more (but not so much that they forget how little others may have) and have the moral stature to keep out of scandalous activities.

I am not sure how we will achieve this Utopia, but I have been told that it will follow our conversion into a Republic.