King Charles III

I don't think being a republic would solve the issue of foodbanks

But a number of posters have linked the two...

Since i've lived in France we have had
Mitterand - had a secret second lady and daughter
Chirac - a happy old rogue with questionable real estate
Sarkosy - end up in Court for iffy dealings with Khadafi
Holland - oh dear, dreadfully ineffective, knickname 'Flamby'
Macron - good economist but strange personal life

Its hard to find someone without baggage

And France has not been stuck with any one of them for 50 yrs have they? all of them were able to be voted out, that's the point.

I’m not a fan of the royals so I don’t really have any thoughts about Charles and his wife. They provide entertainment for those who like that sort of thing so... enjoy.

King Andrew and Fergie wouldn't be very pleasant, but they really wouldn't affect the running of the country.

Harry & Meghan wouldn't be a problem for me, at all. Not that I'd be likely to be around to see it.

DD and I were totting up this afternoon and by our reckoning I think it's highly unlikely that, even should William and little George get a crack at the throne, we'll have any monarchs in the foreseeable future getting 50 years on the throne. So that doesn't bother me, either.

Callistemon21

MaizieD

Fae1

Time for a republic! People are relying on food banks and unable to pay to heat their homes while the Duchy of Cornwall alone is worth a billion pounds!

A republic won't make a h'apporth of difference to that. And there would still be billionaires around. Just less high profile ones'

The situation we're in now is a result of political choices. Political choices made by voters. We'd be in just the same state if we had a president.

Well said.

As the Republic of Ireland is always being held up as a shining example of a country with an elected President, why do they have food banks there?

Michael Higgins is 80, btw.

Two voices of reason. Thank you Maizie and Callistemon.

volver

Pantglas2

The problem with being a republican is that no argument pro monarchy will ever be good enough will it?

And how absolutely enraging for them that even the most ambivalent about monarchies, whether they be our own long standing one or, as in Spain, a more recently reinstated one (by Franco, no less) would vote to keep them!

The problem with being a Republican? ?

I shall counter with the assertion, that the problem with being a monarchist is that they think the only alternative to a hereditary monarchy is Trump or Putin, that Republics can bang you up at a whim and that we might all have to bear arms. The problem with being a monarchist is that they are so short sighted and dazzled by the glamour of monarchy that they will not for one minute consider any alternative system that does not rely on feudal inheritance, and allowing no choice of HoS. The problem with monarchists is that they have no conception what a republic is.

Of course I don't for a minute think that all monarchists are like that. Only the majority of those posting on here.

Oh dear, volver, you are stuck in your thinking, aren't you? So much so that you blame others for not being able to give them a reason why we should change to a republic.

And then you leap to rather nasty conclusions about why people don't agree with you. It couldn't be because they think what we have works (a bit like the EU did) and anything else seems worse (rather like Brexit). Didn't you know that all you need is a three-word chant and people will follow you into anything.

But I will still be asking for a reasoned argument for the change, which, it appears, you are unable to give.

Good point Normandygirl.

I don't think being a republic would solve the issue of foodbanks.

That's like saying we shouldn't have a cap on power bills because it won't stop people falling over on the ice in the winter. (i.e., don't try to make things responsible for something they have no power over.)

For monarchists it seems that it's the perceived personalities of the players that matter, not whether the system itself is fair or relevant in the 21st century. I find it really strange that they favour a system that they have no choice about, especially when you consider that we could be stuck with a "wrong un" for half a century or more.
So, a serious question to all the monarchists out there.
If by accident of birth, the UK now had King Andrew and Queen Fergie to be followed by King Harry and Queen Megan would you still be monarchists?
Honest answers please.

A republic would make no difference to food banks. Voting these 12 years of Tory misrule lot out would. I suspect we need PR

I’ve reached a strange time in my life, I think I’ve become a pragmatic monarchist. It’s constitutional. What we need is a proper intelligent people centred government

No disrespect intended, but it worries me that Parliamentary business is suspended until after the funeral.

We are once again living in what are very worrying times for many people, and putting important issues on hold at this moment doesnt sit well with me.

Yes, it is possible that behind the scenes it is business as usual, but right now, I think that people need more obvious assurance that the problems they face are not being sidelined.

I know that this thread is about Charles, and that he personally probably holds no sway on this issue, but there is still a link, and it worries me.

halfpint1

MaizieD

To be perfectly honest, what it comes down to for me is that I don't think that an electorate that proved itself stupid enough to vote to leave the EU and, on top of that, to vote into power a party led by the most corrupt and self serving individual it has ever been our misfortune to have as PM, could be trusted to vote for a decent HoS, especially the one envisaged by Normandygirl as being the arbiter of \Parliamentary activity.

I'm all for abolishing or amending parts of our current constitution, that can lead, as we've been clearly shown, to unbridled Executive power but thinking that becoming a republic will do the job is just magical thinking.

France got rid of its monarchy, with very bloody consequences, but it's taken it over 100 years to achieve its current constitution and apparently stable state. That's just one example...

Since i've lived in France we have had
Mitterand - had a secret second lady and daughter
Chirac - a happy old rogue with questionable real estate
Sarkosy - end up in Court for iffy dealings with Khadafi
Holland - oh dear, dreadfully ineffective, knickname 'Flamby'
Macron - good economist but strange personal life

Its hard to find someone without baggage

Vive La Republique, eh?

Agree Volver

MaizieD

To be perfectly honest, what it comes down to for me is that I don't think that an electorate that proved itself stupid enough to vote to leave the EU and, on top of that, to vote into power a party led by the most corrupt and self serving individual it has ever been our misfortune to have as PM, could be trusted to vote for a decent HoS, especially the one envisaged by Normandygirl as being the arbiter of \Parliamentary activity.

I'm all for abolishing or amending parts of our current constitution, that can lead, as we've been clearly shown, to unbridled Executive power but thinking that becoming a republic will do the job is just magical thinking.

France got rid of its monarchy, with very bloody consequences, but it's taken it over 100 years to achieve its current constitution and apparently stable state. That's just one example...

Since i've lived in France we have had
Mitterand - had a secret second lady and daughter
Chirac - a happy old rogue with questionable real estate
Sarkosy - end up in Court for iffy dealings with Khadafi
Holland - oh dear, dreadfully ineffective, knickname 'Flamby'
Macron - good economist but strange personal life

Its hard to find someone without baggage

Whether you love Charles or hate him, I really dont think that his role will make even the slightest difference, either good or bad, to any of our lives. Look to the parliamentary system if you want someone to blame for that or to change it in any way!

I agree with varian

To be perfectly honest, what it comes down to for me is that I don't think that an electorate that proved itself stupid enough to vote to leave the EU and, on top of that, to vote into power a party led by the most corrupt and self serving individual it has ever been our misfortune to have as PM, could be trusted to vote for a decent HoS, especially the one envisaged by Normandygirl as being the arbiter of \Parliamentary activity.

I'm all for abolishing or amending parts of our current constitution, that can lead, as we've been clearly shown, to unbridled Executive power but thinking that becoming a republic will do the job is just magical thinking.

France got rid of its monarchy, with very bloody consequences, but it's taken it over 100 years to achieve its current constitution and apparently stable state. That's just one example...

King Charles 111 is going to be a wonderful ambassador for the UK. He is sensitive and compassionate and really does care about others. We are lucky to have him.

Can't be an admirer of Camilla. Not overly fond of Charles. But then, I don't live in the UK, so I don't need to admire or approve. I do think the family has had terribly bad family news off and on for a couple of decades, so I wish them the best. I hope everybody is settled down, and there are no more fits and starts and surprises for the monarchy. Hopefully, Andrew will accept his new role and fade into the background. Charles hasn't always made the best decisions about whom he surrounds himself with. And I do hope he isn't monotonously preachy about the environment as he is wont to be.

We do need a national debate and a thorough going constitutional reform.

I think the national mood is not at this time in favour of becoming a republic. For two reasons- our late Queen is held in high regard and generally thought to have done a very good job. Also in recent years we have had to endure the damage done by some really dreadful polticians. President Boris Johnson might well be elected by the readers of the gutter press. I would rather have King Charles 111.

Having said that, we could remain a constitutional monarchy and yet become a true democracy by changing our voting system to proportional representation.

In my opinion that should be our top priority

Normandygirl

Not so sure about that MaizieD
A republic would require a written constitution, abolishing the unelected House of Lords and a parliament that was answerable to the elected H of S. Unlike our present system of a H of S who cannot be seen to " get involved" much to the frustration of many people.

Why should Parliament (which comprises both houses, be answerable to the Head of State? It should be answerable to the citizens who elect it.

And we have a written constitution. It's just not all written down in the same place.

I feel that people think 'republic' is a magical state in which all wrong would be righted. Looking at republics around the world it seems they are as prone to misgovernment, inequality and corruption as a monarchy might be.

Pantglas2

The problem with being a republican is that no argument pro monarchy will ever be good enough will it?

And how absolutely enraging for them that even the most ambivalent about monarchies, whether they be our own long standing one or, as in Spain, a more recently reinstated one (by Franco, no less) would vote to keep them!

The problem with being a Republican? ?

I shall counter with the assertion, that the problem with being a monarchist is that they think the only alternative to a hereditary monarchy is Trump or Putin, that Republics can bang you up at a whim and that we might all have to bear arms. The problem with being a monarchist is that they are so short sighted and dazzled by the glamour of monarchy that they will not for one minute consider any alternative system that does not rely on feudal inheritance, and allowing no choice of HoS. The problem with monarchists is that they have no conception what a republic is.

Of course I don't for a minute think that all monarchists are like that. Only the majority of those posting on here.

Normandygirl

Daisyanne
If you are such a defender of democracy, why on earth would you not support an elected H of S ?

Why would I? You would have us voting for the dog catcher next. No system is perfect, but no one has yet convinced me any elected Head of State would do a better job.

It is still open for someone to do so. I always have an open mind. However, all any of those wanting something/anything different have done is convince me more that this works for us. That is what those who want the change have done, not those wanting the checks and balances of a Constitutional Monarchy.

The problem with being a republican is that no argument pro monarchy will ever be good enough will it?

And how absolutely enraging for them that even the most ambivalent about monarchies, whether they be our own long standing one or, as in Spain, a more recently reinstated one (by Franco, no less) would vote to keep them!

MaizieD

Fae1

Time for a republic! People are relying on food banks and unable to pay to heat their homes while the Duchy of Cornwall alone is worth a billion pounds!

A republic won't make a h'apporth of difference to that. And there would still be billionaires around. Just less high profile ones'

The situation we're in now is a result of political choices. Political choices made by voters. We'd be in just the same state if we had a president.

Well said.

As the Republic of Ireland is always being held up as a shining example of a country with an elected President, why do they have food banks there?

Michael Higgins is 80, btw.