Queens Speech

From a post on this thread in support of a republic -

‘We could just try to vote in a competent government who are up to the task, that would be a start.’

When did we last do this ?

Yes, to the Germany/castle thing.

But they are a modern, fully fledged democracy that doesn't allow their aristocrats to have positions of influence on the government just because of who their ancestors were.

It was not agressive Volver - at least no more than posts which say "I want a change simply because I want a change". I would say those are on the edge of frightening as it sounds as if you are prepared to inflict the changes you want on others simply because you want them. This has happened in the past, so I don't think your "Come off it" is, in any way, appropriate.

You have resorted to the usual descriptions of Royalty but have still not explained why the change would "make Britain Better" other than we would have a different person, still unable to influence our politics, working very hard (we hope) to do the job. All the Grimms Fairy Tale stuff is not a reason, it's just your prejudice - although I have no idea what you have against the Brothers Grimm.

What harm has the Queen done this country? In what way can you be sure anyone else do it less harm? Why isn't it "the way a modern country should portray itself". These are still all slogans.

Prince Charles did not tell us "there's no money for Elsie to heat her home." He sat there to show this is a legally constituted government. He told us that the legally constituted government of this country were legislating on the premise that "there's no money for Elsie to heat her home."

I imagine some of the trappings will go with Charles and even more with William. As a country, we do not rush to change such things but they do change over time. How would an "elected" HoS be different? They might want greater pomp and ceremony - who will stop them. They will be Head of State.

What we have isn't perfect but I put no trust in wishes and slogans.

Very interesting post DaisyAnne and I think you are right that the Brexit debacle has changed the face of referendums forever.

Our country is pictured as one that’s full of Princes and Princesses in castles and palaces, like some Grimm Fairy Tale.
Is that true? Germany has far more castles than anywhere, 25,000, I think. Jakob and Wilhelm Grimm were German too.
I think anyone over the age of 10 years knows the difference between fairytale royalty and the real thing.
I was at Tintagel yesterday, can anyone confirm was King Arthur real? It makes little difference.
The jewlled Crown hitching a lift in the car was silly though.

Do you mean the one based on assumptions and untruths?

Thank you DaisyAnne for a sensible post

Oh come on now DaisyAnne. Lots of assumptions there. Less said about the “cult” accusation the better, that really is unjustifiable. And if I may say so, there are always lots of assumptions about how a Republic would work. I don’t care about members of the Royal Family’s character or financial value, and you would not lay that accusation at my feet if you had read anything I have posted about either the RF or Republicanism.

Right now, we have a country where the Head of State is nothing that any of us can ever aspire to be. The person who represents the people at home and abroad, without any political slant or alliances, who is the face that everyone thinks embodies the country, is a person you and I can never be. Our country is pictured as one that’s full of Princes and Princesses in castles and palaces, like some Grimm Fairy Tale. If we’re lucky, we’ll end up with a Head of State that is at least not harmful to the country. If we’re lucky. But if they are harmful, or extravagant, or criminal, tough cheese. They are there to stay and there’s nothing we can do about it.

Personally, I feel that this is not the way a modern country should portray itself. Others disagree, and that’s OK. But we are currently in a country where a very fancy car is used to transport a sparkly hat to a large, uninhabited palace where an unelected bloke on a golden throne can tell us there’s no money for Elsie to heat her home. And people think that’s OK? I don't know whether a President would be cheaper or more expensive. But it would be a damn sight more democratic.

Oh, and I can do without the rather aggressive Spell it out Volver, as well.

DaisyAnne thank you for your reply, that makes sense regarding the difference in constitutions.

volver

I don’t think it would be easy at all DaisyAnne, that is an incorrect assumption on your part. But like you I don’t think we should avoid doing things just because they are hard, not if they are the right things to do.

I am quite aware that at the moment the majority of people do not want to replace the monarchy with a republic. But I do, and so do many others. I don’t think its going to happen next year, or maybe even in the next decade, but it certainly won’t happen if we don’t talk about it. So maybe we will need a referendum with a “supermajority”, but that’s OK, isn’t it? We can do that? As for the constitution dating back to the 9th century, it has been changed in that time, I should think; adding countries, changing the role of the monarch, redistributing power in Parliament…

Perhaps I’m just one of these people who sees an opportunity to make the country a better place as something we should pursue and a challenge rise to, rather than just keeping the status quo because change is too difficult. And I’m sorry, I don’t think that changing to a republic from a monarchy would absorb the majority of Parliament’s attention for decades to come. We could just try to vote in a competent government who are up to the task, that would be a start.

You believe it will be a better place. The leave voters 'believed' it would be better if we left the EU. That sounds to me more like founding a cult than running a country. Neither of those 'beliefs' explains how and why we would have "an opportunity to make the country a better place". After Brexit, you would have to be able to describe, in detail, what that better place is. I hope people would not expect to be fooled twice. I don't think "Make Britain Better" would hack it a second time.

What would be improved? It's nothing to do with personalities, which is where so many of these threads take us. It's nothing to do with inherited wealth. Those in the Royal Family will still have it; someone chosen by ballot may or may not. The new head of state would, I assume, have ultimate responsibility for the monies, granted by the state, to the current head of state. They would, I again assume, be responsible for running the various palaces used for state occasions as the Buck House team does at the moment. They would be responsible, with the same sort of team the Queen uses, for all visits, etc. We know a tight ship is run where the government money is concerned. This would still have to be spent and controlled.

Just how do you see this change making this country a better place? Spell it out Volver. You must know or you wouldn't be suggesting it. We have learned from Brexit that a project needs to be defined and it needs a programme. What do you suggest these are?. So far all I have heard on GN is who people "don't like" and what they see as various character or clothing faults. I'm afraid we would find that all people have those. So what, exactly would such an upheaval improve?

I just found out that the Head of State in San Marino is called the Captain General. In Samoa they are just called O le Ao o le Malo, which means "Head of State". We could use one of those instead of President, avoid confusion

An HofS would have far more powers than a monarch

That is an assumption on your part. It is not true. What is it based on? Not all Presidents have the same powers. President of Germany, anyone? Presidents of Eire?

p.s. - it might be a woman.

Bristol has an elected mayor who is the head of the council with a lot of autonomous power. First voted for in 2012. There have however been a lot of disastrous decisions and the people of Bristol have now voted in a referendum not to have a mayor, preferring a multi disciplinary council.

One man in power is not necessarily good. An HofS would have far more powers than a monarch whose power has been seriously limited and curtailed over hundreds of years. The monarch has no real power to curtail government decisions.

I don’t think it would be easy at all DaisyAnne, that is an incorrect assumption on your part. But like you I don’t think we should avoid doing things just because they are hard, not if they are the right things to do.

I am quite aware that at the moment the majority of people do not want to replace the monarchy with a republic. But I do, and so do many others. I don’t think its going to happen next year, or maybe even in the next decade, but it certainly won’t happen if we don’t talk about it. So maybe we will need a referendum with a “supermajority”, but that’s OK, isn’t it? We can do that? As for the constitution dating back to the 9th century, it has been changed in that time, I should think; adding countries, changing the role of the monarch, redistributing power in Parliament…

Perhaps I’m just one of these people who sees an opportunity to make the country a better place as something we should pursue and a challenge rise to, rather than just keeping the status quo because change is too difficult. And I’m sorry, I don’t think that changing to a republic from a monarchy would absorb the majority of Parliament’s attention for decades to come. We could just try to vote in a competent government who are up to the task, that would be a start.

volver

I'm not getting into any discussions about the existence or not of constitutions, because I don't know enough .

But if we had to change the constitution (if it exists), that's not a problem is it? It's not written in stone for perpetuity.

I also don't think that a President needs to have more say in the day-to-day running of Parliament. That's what we have the Houses of Commons and Lords for. A President in my ideal world would represent the people of the country at home and abroad, and ensure that Parliament was being run within the laws of the country. That doesn't mean being involved in day to day business, or making any political interventions.

So basically the same as the Queen (although whether she gets involved in upholding the law is up for discussion) but you don't just get the gig because your dad had it, and nobody is expected to do any curtseying

You seem to think such a constitutional change would be simple Volver. It wouldn't be.

It would require an act of parliament. This would most likely require a referendum on the subject. This is so much bigger than leaving the EU; our constitution reaches back to the 9th Century. I don't think people would be satisfied with a narrow simple majority for a so much bigger change.

I imagine people talk about a President because you could initially simply transfer the role of a King or Queen within our constitution to them (not that I would see that as safe). Once this was done you would set about adapting this role to suit what? Who decides and how do you decide exactly what "the country" wanted? We can't even agree on what "Brexit" meant.

We have seen the difficulties our law-making body (the government) has had sorting that out for a treaty we had with other countries that only ran for 47 years. The constitution is far more enmeshed in past laws and past treaties than that ever was. Large parts of the governments time would be taken up with this, possibly for decade after decade while progress would probably run idle.

I doubt those who voted for it, rather like the leave voters, would ever be forgiven for the economic and legal difficulties that it would bring with it.

Not that we shouldn't do it because it's difficult but I think you would have a hard job convincing people it was worth voting that way now they have Brexit to compare it with.

I'll try and find it for you GrannyGravy but I've had a few sleeps since then and the discussion was a bit fraught.

The point, which I believe was shown to be fact, is that we do have a written constitution but we don't have a codified one as, for instance, the USA does.

Procedurally, the ‘Speech from the throne’ allows parliament to begin a new session and start its business. It is also symbolic of the role of the Queen in the constitution. [Source: The Institute for Government]

I'm not getting into any discussions about the existence or not of constitutions, because I don't know enough .

But if we had to change the constitution (if it exists), that's not a problem is it? It's not written in stone for perpetuity.

I also don't think that a President needs to have more say in the day-to-day running of Parliament. That's what we have the Houses of Commons and Lords for. A President in my ideal world would represent the people of the country at home and abroad, and ensure that Parliament was being run within the laws of the country. That doesn't mean being involved in day to day business, or making any political interventions.

So basically the same as the Queen (although whether she gets involved in upholding the law is up for discussion) but you don't just get the gig because your dad had it, and nobody is expected to do any curtseying

(Just to add to my obvious confusion on a myriad of things this morning I have just spent 15 minutes looking for an AC’s birthday card and gift, totally forgetting that it was their birthday last month and said card and gift were delivered and gratefully received ??? I am now off to yoga to hopefully restore my equilibrium)

I have always thought what is the point of this one family being given so much power privilege what have they done to deserve it?

What power exactly?

DaisyAnne

GrannyGravy13

Grany

I have always thought what is the point of this one family being given so much power privilege what have they done to deserve it? What do they do for the country for its people when you can see they are only there for themselves for their own interests which has been proven in many ways. Our history is varied many great inventions writers ect. What has monarchy done?

A British H o S would be a parliamentary republic something like we have now but made democratic from top to bottom. A president would have a role in defending our constitution something monarchy can't do.

Wouldn’t we need to have a written constitution for that to work?

Oh please. We do have a written constitution and this was thrashed out only a few days ago.

Perhaps you would like to show proof that we don't?

Totally missed that DaisyAnne

I am aware that on the GN political threads there have been numerous calls for a written constitution I assume (which is a sin in here) that there would have to be changes to the current current constitution if there were to be a H of S as opposed to the Monarchy and that the elected H of S would have more say/input into the daily running of the Country/Parliament?

GrannyGravy13

Grany

I have always thought what is the point of this one family being given so much power privilege what have they done to deserve it? What do they do for the country for its people when you can see they are only there for themselves for their own interests which has been proven in many ways. Our history is varied many great inventions writers ect. What has monarchy done?

A British H o S would be a parliamentary republic something like we have now but made democratic from top to bottom. A president would have a role in defending our constitution something monarchy can't do.

Wouldn’t we need to have a written constitution for that to work?

Oh please. We do have a written constitution and this was thrashed out only a few days ago.

Perhaps you would like to show proof that we don't?

Grany

I have always thought what is the point of this one family being given so much power privilege what have they done to deserve it? What do they do for the country for its people when you can see they are only there for themselves for their own interests which has been proven in many ways. Our history is varied many great inventions writers ect. What has monarchy done?

A British H o S would be a parliamentary republic something like we have now but made democratic from top to bottom. A president would have a role in defending our constitution something monarchy can't do.

Wouldn’t we need to have a written constitution for that to work?

volver

All the things I mentioned have been said on this forum GG13.

Such as, "other countries' monarchs may abdicate, but ours just don't do that"

I am beginning to think that I may be verging on being far too reasonable time to go and give my head a wobble and find the rebel within ??

I have always thought what is the point of this one family being given so much power privilege what have they done to deserve it? What do they do for the country for its people when you can see they are only there for themselves for their own interests which has been proven in many ways. Our history is varied many great inventions writers ect. What has monarchy done?

A British H o S would be a parliamentary republic something like we have now but made democratic from top to bottom. A president would have a role in defending our constitution something monarchy can't do.

All the things I mentioned have been said on this forum GG13.

Such as, "other countries' monarchs may abdicate, but ours just don't do that"