There are many people in this country who think we should be a republic. Not everybody, granted, not even a majority of people. And there are lots of things for us to worry about right now. However that doesn’t mean we need to stop talking about it.
Having a monarch means that some person gets that job just because of who their mum/dad was. Most people seem happy for that to continue. But I think that some people who espouse that maybe don’t understand that it's not just that we want to have an election every few years to replace the King with another person, it's that we want a more modern and representative governance system for this country.
A HoS isn’t about just sitting in a gold coach or waving on the way to open the latest community centre. It's not about being the figurehead for a charity they have decided to support – they can do that as much as they like. But what they can’t (won’t?) do at the moment is intervene to prevent the government breaking the rules they were elected to uphold. Governments can lie to the Queen, try to impose policies that fewer than 1% of the country have voted for or approved, and try to change the rules of Parliament to suit themselves and their supporters. (Owen Patterson). And the King does nothing about it. Whether that’s by law or by precedent, I don’t know. But there are things above politics that need to be controlled, otherwise we end up being an out-of-control kleptocracy.
Now people can pop up and say we’ve had this for hundreds of years and its always worked. To those people I say – have you read the news lately? People can tell us how much tourism income they bring. Well, they bring about as much as we spend on them, and an ROI of 1 isn’t that great in business. They bring joy to people? So does Strictly. If we can get an inherited HoS to do all those things, then stick with it. But any move at all to protect the people of this country is seen as "interfering in politics". The King can't even go to COP27.
In my view, we need to grow up as a country. I’m sure others will differ.
Family cultures do make a difference to moral development. The modern Windsors seem to belong to a family with a well structured moral culture. They are too rich of course, and could not pass through the narrow gate , but they are more morally upright than most other very rich people.
The modern Windsors seem to belong to a family with a well structured moral culture.
they are more morally upright than most other very rich people.
Please, please, someone answer this. I'm really trying to stay neutral here. ?
Caleo are you being serious??
Yes I do mean what I wrote. All I know about the Windsors is what I see on the media. My general impression is they are quite nice people on the whole. It's always hard for very rich people not to be greedy, but the Windsors are better for the nation than for instance would Trump or Putin or Ayatollah Khameini.
Prince Andrew.
Accepting bags of cash from people.
Selling access to senior members of the family for cash or favours.
Not paying Inheritance Tax
Not paying the full rate of Income Tax other people would pay.
Keeping their wills secret.
Allegations of historical child abuse.
Being better that Khameini isn't the great endorsement you think it is.
Graham Smith ?? ?️?
An effective, independent head of state might now address the country to reassure people and offer some leadership. Charles won’t and can’t.
Caleo
Yes I do mean what I wrote. All I know about the Windsors is what I see on the media. My general impression is they are quite nice people on the whole. It's always hard for very rich people not to be greedy, but the Windsors are better for the nation than for instance would Trump or Putin or Ayatollah Khameini.
or French Presidents
Mitterand - had a second secret family
Chirac - had a lot of secret property assets
Sarkosy - probably going to prison for being Khadaffi's mate
Holland - not a bright lad
all chosen by the people to be President
Boris Johnson was chosen by the people
Lathyrus
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?
Lathyrus
I suppose it depends on what powers we wanted the HoS to have and what our written constitution would include. It will take many years and quite a few referendums to get there but we have to at least start the process.
For example, a constitution may include a clause on how referendums have to be implemented, with a threshold having to be reached and how funding is obtained. The HoS should have the power to step in if those rules are breached in any way. The fact that the late Queen could not intervene in the proroguing of her own parliament and was forced to accept being lied to, was ridiculous.
I have no issue with the personalities of the present RF but having a HoS who cannot intervene to uphold the rights of
the people, defend our democracy, and hold parliament accountable is pointless.
Volver wrote regarding the certain alleged moral failings of the of the Windsors:
"Accepting bags of cash from people.
Selling access to senior members of the family for cash or favours.
Not paying Inheritance Tax
Not paying the full rate of Income Tax other people would pay.
Keeping their wills secret."
These are all caused by greed which is a general human failing that's not peculiar to the Windsor family.
volver
Anniebach
A Scot, Irish, English , Welsh President?
A British one.
Interesting, this.
Some but not all members of some or maybe all parts of the UK, are crying out for devolution.
Once all the parts of the UK have become devolved even for those who were not in favour, they can all be republics and all have their own HoS, paid for by their own countries.
So put forward your candidates for your:
Scottish HoS
Welsh HoS
English HoS
NI HoS
Caleo
Volver wrote regarding the certain alleged moral failings of the of the Windsors:
"Accepting bags of cash from people.
Selling access to senior members of the family for cash or favours.
Not paying Inheritance Tax
Not paying the full rate of Income Tax other people would pay.
Keeping their wills secret."
These are all caused by greed which is a general human failing that's not peculiar to the Windsor family.
I wrote that (and the rest of it which you have conveniently managed to avoid copying) in response to you saying that the Windsor family were a family with a well structured moral culture and who seemed more morally upright than most other very rich people. I think you’re wrong on both counts.
Some but not all members of some or maybe all parts of the UK, are crying out for devolution.
Once all the parts of the UK have become devolved even for those who were not in favour, they can all be republics and all have their own HoS, paid for by their own countries.
We've already got devolution in Scotland.
I'll let Wales and NI speak for themselves.
Sorry, should have put independence. Great way to avoid answering though.
Volver, I am not trying to avoid your claim. I was trying to address one point at a time. The item about Prince Andrew too falls into the category of greed . Greed is related to entitlement as entitlement rationalises greed.
When people are very rich they fear the loss of their wealth and so they are inordinately greedy which they rationalise by entitlement. Any family dynasty that has immense power and wealth is like this. Individuals from rich families that break away and become socialists are quite rare. All I am saying is that the Windsors seem to have family traditions that go some way to counter the greed that all rich families are prone to.
Queen Victoria's husband was something of a social reformer. Prince Philip's mother was a very good egg, and he himself set up The Prince's Trust. George VI and his wife did well during the war to live comparatively frugally and keep up morale. The present king is a friend of nature. I don' t know about any of the other Windsors , but they don't invade Ukraine, send police to murder girls, or head gangs of rowdies.
Mollygo
Sorry, should have put independence. Great way to avoid answering though.
Sir Ian Hunter.
Chris van der Kuyl.
Billy Kay (that's a bit off the wall ?)
Anne Glover
Jocelyn Bell Burnell
Not Ian Hunter! Tom Hunter!
Ian Hunter was somebody else entirely ?
I think this would be accurate - The Duke of Edinburgh's Award (www.dofe.org)
The Award program was designed and first introduced in the United Kingdom in 1956 as The Duke of Edinburgh’s Award. The aim was to motivate boys aged between 15 and 18 to become involved in a balanced program of voluntary self-development activities to take them through the potentially difficult period between adolescence and adulthood.
The Duke of Edinburgh’s International Award grew out of the efforts of three men –HRH Prince Philip, Kurt Hahn, a German educationalist and founder of Outward Bound and the United World Colleges, and Lord Hunt, leader of the first successful ascent of Everest – who were aware that young people’s development was lacking in certain key areas.
I think an argument for a Republic that relies almost solely on personality, when it’s rubbishing one lot or lauding another, is a really, really weak argument.
Whether Monarchy or President we know from around the World, corruption, greed, misuse of power can be attached to the persons in either.
It leaves me totally unconvinced that Republicans on this site can approach a change of Government with any kind of rational, disinterested thought.
Whether it means that all Republicans are so vitriolic I don’t know. I certainly wouldn’t want power in the hands of someone voted in by people with this approach to Government.
Do you know, I'd answer that but I just can't be bothered.
Sorry if you find that "vitriolic". You should see me on a good day.
I think that response just proves my point ?
Lathyrus
I think an argument for a Republic that relies almost solely on personality, when it’s rubbishing one lot or lauding another, is a really, really weak argument.
Whether Monarchy or President we know from around the World, corruption, greed, misuse of power can be attached to the persons in either.
It leaves me totally unconvinced that Republicans on this site can approach a change of Government with any kind of rational, disinterested thought.
Whether it means that all Republicans are so vitriolic I don’t know. I certainly wouldn’t want power in the hands of someone voted in by people with this approach to Government.
An elected HoS would be the opposite of relying on personality. It would be a clearly defined role with clearly defined rules of conduct. The unelected, heredity HoS system that we have now totally relies on personality and spin doctoring though.
Of course corruption ,greed and misuse of power can occur in either system but there is one very important difference:-
An elected HoS can be voted out, a heredity one cannot.
Lathyrus
I think that response just proves my point ?
Aye maybe.
It does seem to me that there can be no rational argument with some monarchists. Any exposition of facts is seen as complaining; any answer to the misplaced hero worship of the Windsors is perceived as treason. Any suggestion that we might want to talk about republicanism is met with a barrage of people saying nobody agrees with us and its never going to happen. Even when you try to answer people questions, you get cries of Vitriol! Vitriol!
Yet the monarchists call other country’s ex presidents “not very bright” and say they don’t want to live in a country where my preference gets taken into account.
Wish I’d never started this thread now.
Well, I tried to discuss some of the principle, potential problems and practicalities.
But it soon just descended into personal invective on both sides rather than actually exploring how a Republican system would work.
People will be avid Monarchists or avid Republicans. The problem for Republicans is that they want change. They’ll never convince Monarchists so they have to convince people like me who could vote for change if they can see how it would be better. Not who would be better. People come and go.
But I’m not allowed to ask questions about the Republican system. If I question anything, I’m dismissed as a Monarchist. Don’t listen to her, close your ears, anyone who questions must be the enemy.
Sounds more like a Totalitarian government to me. ?
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join the discussion, watch threads and lots more.
Register now »Already registered? Log in with:
Gransnet »Get our top conversations, latest advice, fantastic competitions, and more, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter here.
