The monarchy

Anniebach

Who will be Scot, Irish, English or Welsh

You mean like our Prime Ministers are?

And your point?

Hmm. Actually I’m open to exploring the concept of a Republic with a President.

I thought I asked some reasonable starter questions for a discussion, based on what has happened in some modern Republics around the world.

I don’t think I really got any answers that meant anything in concrete terms, just a reiteration of an Ideology or a certain amount off emotional backlash and whataboutery.

I think I’d need evidence of an ability to work through all the questions and possibilities before I would want such a radical change. Very few revolutions undertaken on the basis of ideology have worked. Most have ended in warring ideologies and violence.

Volver, your comments about the RF are totally disingenuous. They are not all about public sycophophancy, in case you are unaware, they do an amazing amount for charity, The Princes Trust, The Duke of Edinburgh awards that my Grandson has proudly just completed, Camilla's on line reading room, Princess Anne's numerous charities including riding for the disabled,something my daughter is very involved with, need I go on? Would your elected HoS be involved in all these vitally important activities. Reduce the RF as people of no importance then these events would certainly cease to have the same kudos.

We could elect a HoS who would design policies to provide better public services so that there is less reliance on charity and the benevolent, under-taxed super rich.

Jaberwok

Volver, your comments about the RF are totally disingenuous. They are not all about public sycophophancy, in case you are unaware, they do an amazing amount for charity, The Princes Trust, The Duke of Edinburgh awards that my Grandson has proudly just completed, Camilla's on line reading room, Princess Anne's numerous charities including riding for the disabled,something my daughter is very involved with, need I go on? Would your elected HoS be involved in all these vitally important activities. Reduce the RF as people of no importance then these events would certainly cease to have the same kudos.

If you read the Giving Evidence independent report Charities don't benefit from royal patronage. Royals don't turn up to 74% visits.

Royals have a lot of free time and spend public money on mainly their own interests and passtimes.

The Duke of Edinburgh Award was not set up or run by him.

Jaberwok

Volver, your comments about the RF are totally disingenuous. They are not all about public sycophophancy, in case you are unaware, they do an amazing amount for charity, The Princes Trust, The Duke of Edinburgh awards that my Grandson has proudly just completed, Camilla's on line reading room, Princess Anne's numerous charities including riding for the disabled,something my daughter is very involved with, need I go on? Would your elected HoS be involved in all these vitally important activities. Reduce the RF as people of no importance then these events would certainly cease to have the same kudos.

Why do they have to be Royal to do those things? Why do we have to allow people who do things for charity to have a place in the governing of this country?

Dolly Parton does an awful lot for child literacy. She's not Queen of anywhere.

There needs to be discussion about this without sentimental ideas of how lovely they all are personally. If we want Royal people to be figureheads for charities, all well and good. That doesn't mean that we excuse them from paying inheritance tax and let them have sight of laws before they are made.

And please don't intimate that I know nothing about the DoE Awards, or the people who actually organise them at a local level and make them a reality. That would be a mistake.

The Duke of Edinburgh Awards were set up by the Duke of
Edinburgh and are now in 144 countries.

If he wasn’t involved why did he present my husband with his
Gold ?

Lathyrus

Hmm. Actually I’m open to exploring the concept of a Republic with a President.

I thought I asked some reasonable starter questions for a discussion, based on what has happened in some modern Republics around the world.

I don’t think I really got any answers that meant anything in concrete terms, just a reiteration of an Ideology or a certain amount off emotional backlash and whataboutery.

I think I’d need evidence of an ability to work through all the questions and possibilities before I would want such a radical change. Very few revolutions undertaken on the basis of ideology have worked. Most have ended in warring ideologies and violence.

I looked up "ideology". Synonyms: Beliefs; ideas; ideals; principles.

Thats exactly what it's about. I believe that we shouldn't rely on a HoS being a good guy just because of who their parents were.

Of course we should talk about it. Of course we should discuss how it's going to work before we even start trying to change our constitution. It's not something that will happen overnight and not something I (or probably anybody else) know the details of. But if we don't start talking about it now, when do we start?

Now some people might say never, but that's not going to happen. We stick with a medieval system at our peril. And we look like a country out of step with the modern world. I, personally, don't want other countries to think we venerate chaps in crowns and ermine and allow them to live lives of luxury, having a say in the way things happen, just so that some people can continue to enjoy a parade or two.

Anniebach

The Duke of Edinburgh Awards were set up by the Duke of
Edinburgh and are now in 144 countries.

If he wasn’t involved why did he present my husband with his
Gold ?

In February 1956, The Duke of Edinburgh's Award was first announced. It was at first "for boys" aged 15 to 18. It was first administered, and largely designed, by John Hunt, who had led the first successful ascent of Mount Everest in 1953, and had retired from the army to run The Duke of Edinburgh's Award.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Duke_of_Edinburgh%27s_Award

Supporting an idea and then turning up to present the prizes doesn't mean you are responsible for the whole thing's success.

Awards not prizes

Aye whatever. Don't think you can prove me wrong on the DoE awards. That would be a mistake too.

Yeh. It’s that kind of emotive language that puts me off.

I get the principle. I don’t oppose it. I want it to be a rational, considered decision though. Undertaken because it would work better or not undertaken because it has flaws that make it unworkable.

When people have to resort to invective to get their views across, I tend to feel the argument itself must be weak.

Anniebach

The Duke of Edinburgh Awards were set up by the Duke of
Edinburgh and are now in 144 countries.

If he wasn’t involved why did he present my husband with his
Gold ?

It was actually started by Kurt Hahn and called the " Country Badge Scheme". Kurt was the founder of an elite school in Germany which was attended by the young Prince Philip in 1933. Hahn then fled to the Uk to escape the Nazis and founded Gordonstoun School based on the same principles of fitness, enterprise, tenacity and compassion. During it's early years, the Country Badge Scheme achieved some local success and Hahn wanted to take the scheme nationwide, but was put on hold because of WW2. He revived the scheme in 1950's and approached his former pupil, Prince Philip, to ask for his help and Prince Philip agreed. The name was changed to the D of E Award scheme and the rest is history.

Thank you, I had forgotten Kurt Hahn

Bit like Prince Harry then with The Invictus Games,cribbed from The Warrior Games in the US?

It comes down to what you think a Head of State's role should be doesn't it?
I would be supportive of a constitutional, non political HoS. I believe the role should be someone who will uphold a written constitution, have the power to hold the government to account if they overstep their boundaries or attempt to break or subvert the law or constitution and be a non political voice in times of crisis or celebration.
Given the shambles of government that the British people have had to endure recently and the impotence of the so called present HoS to intervene on behalf of the public, some kind of change is desperately need.

Normandygirl

It comes down to what you think a Head of State's role should be doesn't it?
I would be supportive of a constitutional, non political HoS. I believe the role should be someone who will uphold a written constitution, have the power to hold the government to account if they overstep their boundaries or attempt to break or subvert the law or constitution and be a non political voice in times of crisis or celebration.
Given the shambles of government that the British people have had to endure recently and the impotence of the so called present HoS to intervene on behalf of the public, some kind of change is desperately need.

Good post Normandygirl

Thank you Normandygirl.

I agree we would need a new written Constitution in order to clearly define the role and limitations of a President. And I can see that they could only intervene when that Constitution and Laws were breached. But what would they actually do in that intervention if Parliament voted for whatever it was to go ahead.

Which body would be pre-eminent? The President or Parliament. would they have power to dissolve an elected Parliament for a breach of Constitution?

Not going to happen anytime soon though. Even here in Australia where it should have happened in 1901. Still, it is interesting to see how very few are opposing the monarchy here.

I agree with you nanna8 that it's not going to happen soon. But those of us who think it's good idea will continue talking about it because we think it's right.

volver

Aye whatever. Don't think you can prove me wrong on the DoE awards. That would be a mistake too.

So angry.

I think that's the point

I'm sorry I've been distracted by posters being personal. I hope we can get back on track to discuss the constitutional implications of potentially changing to a republic.

There is more chance that the King is more morally developed than a right wing Conservative.

I used to have a republican head and a monarchist heart. The head knows it’s rather silly, but the heart enjoys the pageantry, pomp and history.
I’m veering towards republicanism and it’s hard to know where to start as the case against the monarchy in this day and age is overwhelming.
They make not one iota of difference to tourism, France and other countries beat us there, it’s a myth.
Palaces, mansions all over the country, duchy lands (why?)
jewels piled up in secret we are in the dark about, including a horde from the Russian royal family. Extortionate amount spent on security.
Did anyone else feel angry at the Queen Mother’s huge debts through racing and extravagant living settled by the Queen (i.e. us)?
It’s now a soap opera which to my shame, I rather enjoy, but that’s not good for them or me.
How anyone cannot see the sense in a HoS beats me, yes it would take some arranging, but it’s not impossible. Mary Robinson proved how effective it can be and the country would be materially much better off.
I throw my monarchist’s heart on the fire!