The monarchy

Volver dear, you don’t paraphrase,
as you you posted in your earlier moment of self recognition,
you don’t like being wrong.
Incidentally I thought all grany’s better educated republicans would recognise the reference to the French Revolution. Evidently not.

I thought you meant the USA. How stupid of me.

I've never heard a good argument for monarchy, and I've heard plenty of debates on the subject. Unfortunately, these debates get misdirected by daft claims about tourism, "hard-working" royals or the importance of a hereditary monarch in defending our constitution. Platitude, myth, and sentimentality get in the way of a desperately needed challenge to inherited power and wealth, the significant failings of the royal household and the detrimental impact of monarchy on our nation's political life.
The royals have been embroiled in scandal after scandal for more than two years, yet politicians turn a blind eye, thereby highlighting what's wrong with an institution that rests on deference and mythology. It's been argued that we should be careful how much we challenge the royals in case we inadvertently bring the whole edifice down. But if challenging an institution causes its collapse, then it doesn't deserve to survive. We should build our democracy on stronger foundations than those that crumble under the pressure of scrutiny.

As a rule of thumb, we should treat the royals just as we treat MPs and ministers. They are public officials; they hold public titles, and we fund and subsidize them to perform a public role. As such their personal conduct, public appearances, and questions about probity, integrity and, of course, their effectiveness in the role should all be open for blunt, honest debate.

The problem is that if such a debate were to happen, the royals would be gone quicker than you can say Fortnum & Mason. Prince Andrew remains suspected and accused of serious sexual offenses, Prince Charles has been reported to the police for alleged cash-for-honors payments to his charities and has since been caught receiving more than £2 million in cash from a former Qatari politician who stands accused of links to Al Qaeda and human rights abuses. The whole royal family stand accused of routine abuse of public money, spending millions of pounds of government funding on their own lifestyles, including their multitude of palatial homes and heavily polluting flights around the country by private or RAF jet and by helicopter.

If one of these accusations had been leveled at a government minister, they would be gone, because while not proven illegal, it is still an abuse of public office for personal gain, (the definition of corruption) or, at the very least an appalling lapse in judgement. But the royals are protected by official secrecy, on the one hand, and a collective turning of the blind eye by politicians on the other.

News Week

"Countries that have kings and queens, but still have free elections are called constitutional monarchies. These are similar to republics since the constitution has been amended to remove power from the monarchy. The United Kingdom is an example of a constitutional monarchy"
Mollygo
The effect of this is that our PM is effectively our HoS and not the monarch. Charles has the title but none of the powers that should go with it. It means that there are no checks and balances on the government and that is why we have been subjected to the unholy mess of the last few years. Realistically, a republic means having a HofS that can act on behalf of the people, not just have the title in name only.
A Head of State with no power is a nonsense.

I think that you are talking about the main problem we have Normandygirl. Supporters of the status quo talk about international prestige, and how nice the parades are, but don't appreciate that this is not what a HoS can do. Having a toothless HoS means we are short-changed.

The only credible argument I've heard for an inherited monarch is that they can provide stability and continuity. I think that was true of Elizabeth during the COVID crisis for instance. But we don't have continuity with Charles. He won't be able to appear on TV and reassure us, or help new PMs with what he learnt from great PMs of the past.

But the only arguments we hear "for" involve spurious claims about tourism and what nice hair Catherine has. I would like to hear some of the real arguments "for", if anyone has got some?

Actually, I just had a thought. Let Charles and his family swan around in carriages and carry on the charity work which we hear they are so good at, but let's have a proper HoS as well, with actual powers. Both sides happy!!

I find it really strange that Johnson's finances and what he does to earn them is of no interest to some, considering how irate the some get at the idea of food banks or big TVs, and those at the bottom of the financial pile getting something for "nothing".

That made me think about something I heard on the radio this afternoon MissA.

Perhaps the idea is that Johnson works so hard, that he earns his money and anyway, it's not sourced from "our" money. But the foodbank user and owner of a flat screen TV just needs to pull their socks up, because they are getting something for nothing and we're paying for it?

I heard Justine Greening on the radio today saying she was a Conservative because they were the party who made her younger self feel that people like her could make something of themselves if they worked hard. Well I always thought that, I always thought I could make something of myself if I worked hard, but I never thought that was a Tory thing. Apologies in advance, but I thought it was a Scottish thing. Really. Maybe that's why the Tories do so badly up here!!

Ooops wrong thread...please ignore!! We have gone astray!!

And the second part of my post?
You missed that. There are several different types of Republic-or maybe only grany’s better educated republicans know that.
A head of state with Trump or Putin’s power is equally a nonsense.
So let’s look at some republics and how they have achieved Jane71’s more equal and cohesive society
The Indian Republic still allows the poverty endemic in the caste system whilst spending 1.3 trillion rupees on a space program. I’m not sure they see it as the more equal and cohesive society
Who’s checking their government?
And then there’s China.
The Constitution of the People's Republic of China (PRC) states that its form of government is "people's democratic dictatorship". The Constitution also holds that China is a one-party state that is governed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
I’m not sure those not in power there see it as a more equal and cohesive society either.

I think that you mistakenly think that we think being a republic will turn the UK into a land of milk and honey. And so that bringing up republics that are not lands of milk and honey is a good argument.

Hence, not worth arguing with you. ??

Mollygo

And the second part of my post?
You missed that. There are several different types of Republic-or maybe only grany’s better educated republicans know that.
A head of state with Trump or Putin’s power is equally a nonsense.
So let’s look at some republics and how they have achieved Jane71’s more equal and cohesive society
The Indian Republic still allows the poverty endemic in the caste system whilst spending 1.3 trillion rupees on a space program. I’m not sure they see it as the more equal and cohesive society
Who’s checking their government?
And then there’s China.
The Constitution of the People's Republic of China (PRC) states that its form of government is "people's democratic dictatorship". The Constitution also holds that China is a one-party state that is governed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
I’m not sure those not in power there see it as a more equal and cohesive society either.

"A head of state with Trump or Putin’s power is equally a nonsense."
We also have a head of government with absolute power. Having a monarch doesn't change that does it?

Being a republic will not change the UK into a land of milk and honey as volver correctly points out. But it will mean that we can choose our HofS and indeed get rid of them if we don’t like what they do. It will also mean that we are a democracy. As long as we have inherited power, however soft the power is, we are not a democracy. I think democracy is rather important.

Exactly maddyone. Monarchy is completely undemocratic.

I would actually vote for Charles as a HofS. He seems a damn sight better than anything else around just now.

I would vote for Charles as well, but we don't have a vote do
we Nanna8

No , don’t even have a British passport these days and can’t be bothered getting one.

Charles is currently HoS in Australia too. Who knows what will happen ?

halfpint1

I would vote for Charles as well, but we don't have a vote do
we Nanna8

None of us have a vote for HoS. Undemocratic!

So this week Liz Truss has to resign to King Charles because he is HofS. Then whoever is decided upon has to go to King Charles who will ask him/her to form a government. This is because he is our unelected HofS. I know many people might feel that this is just a detail, a small, unimportant detail, but I don’t because the power Charles has has been bestowed upon him because his mother died. He’s never been elected by anyone. The day he was born his position was decided. It’s like feudal times.

If we had an elected HofS I don’t know who I would vote for because I don’t know who would be put forward. Maybe Charles would rather have not had this foisted upon him at this stage in his life.

Charles = duty

A president = power

Really?

Charles = inherited influence and power

President = democracy, answerable to the people

Funny how we all see things differently, isn't it?

It wasn’t me who mentioned an equal and more cohesive society.

I didn’t believe it, nor did I post that we could expect the land flowing with milk and honey mentioned in Volver dear’s post.

That was your phrase -why did you mention that Volver dear, that unless it’s what you think?

I have never posted that republicans think a republic would solve all the problems.

Twisting words, accusing posters of posting things they didn’t?

Hence, Volver dear, not worth arguing with you. ??

That was your phrase -why did you mention that Volver dear, that unless it’s what you think?

It was Jane71 who mentioned "milk and honey" first.

Perhaps in your rush to malign me you missed that.