The public should have a debate on the monarchy Billboards

@JolyonMaugham

Unless we are all equal under the law, none of us are. This special privilege for the Queen to undermine public policy is unsustainable in a modern democracy.

Queen secretly lobbied Scottish ministers for climate law exemption
Monarch used secretive procedure to become only person in country not bound by a green energy rule.
amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/28/queen-secretly-lobbied-scottish-ministers-climate-law-exemption?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other&__twitter_impression=true

Lets put to bed the absolute hypocrisy that the royal family - mascots of the Private Jet class - give a toss about the Environment.

Landrover driving, helicopter flying, grouse moor burning hypocrites.

#TheQueensGreenPlanet my arse.

( & Attenborough, don't get played again)

Oh, I see. I thought they were your own words. They do sound familiar - I wonder?!

Calistemon

No I am not Scottish I am Cornish. I was just copying two of the comments of people on Crowdfunder who donated and gave their opinion on the monarchy I agreed with the sentiments so posted on here. Maybe should have used quotation marks.

By the way 12 billboards are going up and a video on YouTube about one in Leeds on Saturday. Then 15 more to follow in cluding Wales, and London where I am currently living.

Grany

I think the rhetoric you and your group use is enough to stifle any meaningful debate on whether or not this country should have a referendum on the future of the monarchy.

Do you think that such terms as parasites, cap doffing, subservience are at all relevant?
You elevate yourself to the status of decent - we don't know that you are.

Subject - I am not a subject, it tells me on my passport that I am a citizen. I'm sorry if you feel as if you are a subservient subject but I certainly don't.

So you are Scottish! We used to have another Scottish poster on GN who used such terms but she left.

Democracy, secular republic, egalitarian values as promised in the W Wars; follow other countries where the monarchies do not interferere with politics, army and religion - in UK MOnarxh is head of Church, Army & Parliament.

Outmoded and irrational in terms of the modern world and challenges we currently face. It’s elitist and perpetuates the cap doffing subservience of people to such as Andrew who isn’t fit to lick the toes of decent, hard working people. I see them as true ‘benefit’ scrounges who contribute nothing of value to the people of this country. I am not a subject. I am a citizen and a patriot of my country Scotland. We see no place for these entitled parasites. End the monarchy now.

Billboards are up now!

A debate about monarchy on zoom

Do Gransneters agree or not with any of these points raised in this discussions?

m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab7nZv6q7bo&feature=youtu.be

Newquay

Mm they don’t mention keeping their family business going? Of course, if it were my family I, too, would want to keep that lifestyle going for my descendants but it’s just not on these days surely? Like this Cornwall nonsense. . .it must drive the Cornish folk mad I should think!

Yes agree Charles not allowing tennents to buy land.

The Duchy of Cornwall is secretive, aloof and somewhat sinister according to this book, the definitive authority on the subject from John Kirkhope.

from Republic's shop

twitter.com/RepublicStaff/status/1415569586578206721?s=20

Mm they don’t mention keeping their family business going? Of course, if it were my family I, too, would want to keep that lifestyle going for my descendants but it’s just not on these days surely? Like this Cornwall nonsense. . .it must drive the Cornish folk mad I should think!

Very interesting Alegrias. Now we know ?

It had gone all quiet Newquay so I googled it. Here's what the royal family website theRF is to support and represent the monarch.

Although The Sovereign no longer has a political or executive role, he or she continues to play an important part in the life of the nation.

As Head of State, The Monarch undertakes constitutional and representational duties which have developed over one thousand years of history. In addition to these State duties, The Monarch has a less formal role as 'Head of Nation'. The Sovereign acts as a focus for national identity, unity and pride; gives a sense of stability and continuity; officially recognises success and excellence; and supports the ideal of voluntary service.

That's clear then.

Newquay

What exactly are the RF for?

Good question
They are for show.

25Avalon

What I wondered Alegrias is why we need a head of state at all if the current one, the Queen, has no power? What powers would the head of state be given?

It is a serious job of representing the nation, acting as referee in the political process, championing the interests of the people and defending our democratic traditions.

Aside from these formal functions, a president represents their country on the world stage and takes a leading role at times of national celebration, uncertainty or tragedy.

Republic supports a non-partisan head of state who is not involved in making political decisions or running the government. So we don't support a system like they have in France or the United States.

We believe the best alternative to the monarchy is a head of state who is able to do the job that the Queen cannot do.

www.republic.org.uk/what_we_want

Our elected head of state would be free to speak out on important issues of the day, but would not be allowed to speak on party political matters or get involved in party politics.

The head of state could give a voice to the people's concerns or hopes, put new issues onto the public agenda or support community groups and charities in promoting non-partisan causes.

What exactly are the RF for?

I think that's the discussion we need to have 25Avalon. How do we actually want our country to be run? Is it right to have an unaccountable person at the top of government based only on an accident of birth?

Some people will think it is, but when people (I don't mean you) just dismiss the whole thing because "that's how its always been" or "she works so hard" then it isn't a real debate.

What I wondered Alegrias is why we need a head of state at all if the current one, the Queen, has no power? What powers would the head of state be given?

Is being good at sitting in a carriage and waving at onlookers a necessary qualification for HoS? Lots of people turn out for Australia Day, and I expect there will be parades in France today. (14th July)

If people realise that the only reason they like the RF is that they put on a good show, then we are on the road to a republic, you're right.

The Queen is already our Head of State. The reason we need an elected one is that the Queen is relatively powerless....at least officially.

There’s an awful lot of people who turn out to see the Queen who probably wouldn’t turn out in the same way for a head of state. There is tradition and pageantry which are popular with overseas visitors as well. However, the mystique of the royal family is on the wan as they appear like ordinary people the same as the rest of us. When people realise this and stop flocking to see them then I think they will slowly disappear.

Btw why do we need a head of state if the monarchy is relatively powerless?

Yes Grany, it’s your view and you are entitled to post it, repost it ad infinitum. So can we all. It’s what GN threads are there for.
If someone disagrees with you and finds your posts tedious, they should scroll on.

I merely asked the questions which I think are pertinent.

There is no need to present a deep analysis of why we should favour the monarchy

They used to say similar things about women's suffrage. Thank goodness somebody didn't agree.

Chestnut

There is no need to present a deep analysis of why we should favour the monarchy because they has been around for a very long time and there is stacks of information on them. Anyone who wants to find out can access hundreds of books and TV programmes. It is up to the republicans to prove they can offer a better solution.

Chestnut, do believe all information re the royals is freely available ?
You are naive .
Try to open your mind to some truths that you may not be aware of .
I’ve already posted a link to proof that queen secretly lobbied to keep her finances / tax secret . It is estimated that over 1000 laws have been vetted by the queen. So much for merely being a figurehead.
I doubt you’ll read this link but here is another in case anyone else is interested

www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/08/monday-briefing-how-the-queen-lobbied-to-keep-wealth-secret

has been around for a very long time and there is stacks of information on them.

That's hardly a cogent argument for a constitution.

nadeturbe I stand by what I said, it’s Grany’s interpretation of the facts, spun from a republican perspective. If a royalist took the same issues point by point, their interpretation of the same issues would be entirely different.
I don’t dispute at all that Grany or anybody else has a right to say what they think, but what she posted was definitely not ‘let’s sum it up’ as she put it.

Thank you nadateturbe and Nothisagain

There is no need to present a deep analysis of why we should favour the monarchy because they has been around for a very long time and there is stacks of information on them. Anyone who wants to find out can access hundreds of books and TV programmes. It is up to the republicans to prove they can offer a better solution.