DaisyAnne
The constitutional democratic monarchy that is the UK can change and adapt and it has done so. The Queen has not been a monarch in the style of Queen Victoria, for example.
We can and do democratically bring power to bear that moves us forward. Re-iteration of the same old issues is not helpful. What changes in convention (rules) would those who are shouting the odds about republicanism put forward to ensure we get the changes we need. There is no way the continuous pouring of ordure on Prince Charles will make a difference to enough people for republicans to get their way. As a fence sitter of the "show me something better and I will consider it" group, I just don't want to listen to anything you say when you do this. There is nothing positive in your outpourings.
As someone has said elsewhere, cutting the head off our constitutional, democratic monarchy has not helped in the past. Some facts about how we could move forward would. The British (all of them, not just the English) do not do constitutional distruction well at all. We have surely realised that from our recent experience. What we do have success with is gradual change. I, and I expect others, would be happy to hear what that change could be.
First a monarchy is not democratic an hereditary HoS is undemocratic.
Monarchy is a broken institution and can't be fixed.
What's broken?
This one family gets £345 million. But it's not just the money it's the principle and principles matter. The monarchy works in the interests of government and itself not the people.
How do we know? The queen does not defend our constitution if a constitutional law has been broken.
The RF do not work
Giving Evidence Royals and Charities a thorough investigation. The RF did not visit 74% of their patronage charities. Charities do not benefit from royal patronage.
Giving Evidence Caroline Finnes tried finding out how many charities RF support Research had to start by identifying which Royal is patron of which charities. This turned out to be vastly more complicated than one might imagine. Prince Charles’ website has a list of his patronages. Buckingham Palace also publishes a list of his patronages. They’re not the same list. It took us six full weeks to construct a defensible list of which Royal is patron of what.
The palace was asked for a spreadsheet of RF charities it said it didn't have one.
Our research was funded by the Belgian Red Cross, Flanders, which has a demonstrated commitment to producing high-quality evidence to inform decisions of operational entities, in the Red Cross network and beyond. Giving Evidence’s Director Caroline Fiennes is on a board of the Belgian Red Cross, Flanders.
We hope that our research enables more evidence-based decisions by patrons, donors and charities, and hence more effective help for their intended beneficiaries.
In palace financial report not everything is listed so not just £104 million true cost £345million.
Yes agree success will be a gradual change
What will change. A Republic An Elected Head of State
The move will only be made once MPs and the public agree to it, although the politicians only have to agree to a referendum, and let the voters decide the rest.
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.
The rules that would govern politicians would also apply to the head of state - these rules would stop them becoming party-political.
The kind of head of state we think is best for Britain is a 'ceremonial' or 'constitutional' position, someone chosen by the people to:
represent the nation
defend our democracy
act as referee in the political process
offer a non-political voice at times of crisis and celebration
