The monarchy

Glorianny

I was just wondering if the new monarch had been Andrew and not Charles how many people would still be supporting the monarchy?

That’s not relevant is it, because it’s not the case. Only if Charles, William or George turned out to have done what Andrew did would we know, and he’s becoming further down the line of succession with every new child of William and Kate and Harry and Meghan. What is he, 7th in line of succession now? Life is full of ‘what ifs’, we don’t base our decision making on them.

Truss gets £115,00 per annum

What about William gets over £20 million
Like winning the lottery every year

Seeing as it was the advice of a useless and Ex-Prime Minister maybe he can go now.

Casdon

Glorianny

I was just wondering if the new monarch had been Andrew and not Charles how many people would still be supporting the monarchy?

That’s not relevant is it, because it’s not the case. Only if Charles, William or George turned out to have done what Andrew did would we know, and he’s becoming further down the line of succession with every new child of William and Kate and Harry and Meghan. What is he, 7th in line of succession now? Life is full of ‘what ifs’, we don’t base our decision making on them.

Of course he is Casdon. It's purely a "what if" scenario. But it was at one time a possibility, and what it vividly illustrates is that in a hereditary monarchy you cannot choose who is to be the next monarch, no matter how obviously unsuitable they may turn out to be.
So who would still support the monarchy if the king had links with paedophiles? Because it may be a "what if" but it isn't an impossibility.

"So who would still support the monarchy if the king had links with paedophiles? Because it may be a "what if" but it isn't an impossibility."

I think a mad monarch can be deposed in favour of a regent.
A mad or criminal king could not do as much damage to the country as David Cameron did with his referendum.

I felt that the monarch's moment came and went when Boris Johnson prorogued Parliament. It was clear to everyone, particularly those in Parliament, that this was a blatant attempt to reduce the time available for debate on the Brexit agreement. The Queen gave her consent. It fell to the Supreme Court to rule the prorogation illegal and quash it. So much for the idea that the monarch can act as some sort of check on the power of the government.

I don't doubt that she acted on advice. However, if she is advised to do nothing when the government is exceeding its powers, what is the point of her being involved at all?

People always say that they don't want to replace the monarchy with someone like an American president. But why should that be necessary? The Head of State doesn't have to be the same person as the leader of the government. In the UK, being a modern democracy, the person with the most power is the Prime Minister. That wouldn't change whether or not we were a republic. If you don't want the HoS's duties - to represent the country at home or abroad - to be undertaken by the PM, we could elect someone. It would mean that we had a choice, we weren't stuck with them forever, they wouldn't be so expensive to keep and we wouldn't have to support their relatives as well.

Bluecat

I felt that the monarch's moment came and went when Boris Johnson prorogued Parliament. It was clear to everyone, particularly those in Parliament, that this was a blatant attempt to reduce the time available for debate on the Brexit agreement. The Queen gave her consent. It fell to the Supreme Court to rule the prorogation illegal and quash it. So much for the idea that the monarch can act as some sort of check on the power of the government.

I don't doubt that she acted on advice. However, if she is advised to do nothing when the government is exceeding its powers, what is the point of her being involved at all?

People always say that they don't want to replace the monarchy with someone like an American president. But why should that be necessary? The Head of State doesn't have to be the same person as the leader of the government. In the UK, being a modern democracy, the person with the most power is the Prime Minister. That wouldn't change whether or not we were a republic. If you don't want the HoS's duties - to represent the country at home or abroad - to be undertaken by the PM, we could elect someone. It would mean that we had a choice, we weren't stuck with them forever, they wouldn't be so expensive to keep and we wouldn't have to support their relatives as well.

Agree and a lot of people could see at that moment of porogue parliament that she didn't have any say all the power given to the PM.

Glorianny

Casdon

Glorianny

I was just wondering if the new monarch had been Andrew and not Charles how many people would still be supporting the monarchy?

That’s not relevant is it, because it’s not the case. Only if Charles, William or George turned out to have done what Andrew did would we know, and he’s becoming further down the line of succession with every new child of William and Kate and Harry and Meghan. What is he, 7th in line of succession now? Life is full of ‘what ifs’, we don’t base our decision making on them.

Of course he is Casdon. It's purely a "what if" scenario. But it was at one time a possibility, and what it vividly illustrates is that in a hereditary monarchy you cannot choose who is to be the next monarch, no matter how obviously unsuitable they may turn out to be.
So who would still support the monarchy if the king had links with paedophiles? Because it may be a "what if" but it isn't an impossibility.

The point I was making is that it’s hypothetical, and the Regent option is available. If the same issue happened with a president before the end of his term, or the president had major issues of any other kind, the process of getting them out would be equally problematic - eg Trump scenario.

If we didn’t have a monarchy why have a head of state? Surely a prime minister elected every four years would do. Why would we need both?

The Monarchy should scale down and be more like the European ones. Much less formal and not so much expensive pomp.
The world has changed a lot and our royals should too.

Casdon

Glorianny

Casdon

Glorianny

I was just wondering if the new monarch had been Andrew and not Charles how many people would still be supporting the monarchy?

That’s not relevant is it, because it’s not the case. Only if Charles, William or George turned out to have done what Andrew did would we know, and he’s becoming further down the line of succession with every new child of William and Kate and Harry and Meghan. What is he, 7th in line of succession now? Life is full of ‘what ifs’, we don’t base our decision making on them.

Of course he is Casdon. It's purely a "what if" scenario. But it was at one time a possibility, and what it vividly illustrates is that in a hereditary monarchy you cannot choose who is to be the next monarch, no matter how obviously unsuitable they may turn out to be.
So who would still support the monarchy if the king had links with paedophiles? Because it may be a "what if" but it isn't an impossibility.

The point I was making is that it’s hypothetical, and the Regent option is available. If the same issue happened with a president before the end of his term, or the president had major issues of any other kind, the process of getting them out would be equally problematic - eg Trump scenario.

The great thing about an elected head of state is that their actions, behaviour and public spending are all open to proper scrutiny, and if they do something wrong they can be sacked. So unlike Prince Charles, who ignores the unwritten rule that he shouldn't become political, in a republic the head of state could be challenged if they step out of line.

Once elected by the people the head of state is expected to abide by the rules that set out how they should behave. If they break those rules then parliament will have the power to remove them and call a fresh election. The number of votes needed in parliament to do this would be high enough to ensure that the decision must have cross-party support. No decision to sack the head of state could be taken for political reasons, only on the grounds that they have broken the rules that go with the job.

Grany

Casdon

Glorianny

Casdon

Glorianny

I was just wondering if the new monarch had been Andrew and not Charles how many people would still be supporting the monarchy?

That’s not relevant is it, because it’s not the case. Only if Charles, William or George turned out to have done what Andrew did would we know, and he’s becoming further down the line of succession with every new child of William and Kate and Harry and Meghan. What is he, 7th in line of succession now? Life is full of ‘what ifs’, we don’t base our decision making on them.

Of course he is Casdon. It's purely a "what if" scenario. But it was at one time a possibility, and what it vividly illustrates is that in a hereditary monarchy you cannot choose who is to be the next monarch, no matter how obviously unsuitable they may turn out to be.
So who would still support the monarchy if the king had links with paedophiles? Because it may be a "what if" but it isn't an impossibility.

The point I was making is that it’s hypothetical, and the Regent option is available. If the same issue happened with a president before the end of his term, or the president had major issues of any other kind, the process of getting them out would be equally problematic - eg Trump scenario.

The great thing about an elected head of state is that their actions, behaviour and public spending are all open to proper scrutiny, and if they do something wrong they can be sacked. So unlike Prince Charles, who ignores the unwritten rule that he shouldn't become political, in a republic the head of state could be challenged if they step out of line.

Once elected by the people the head of state is expected to abide by the rules that set out how they should behave. If they break those rules then parliament will have the power to remove them and call a fresh election. The number of votes needed in parliament to do this would be high enough to ensure that the decision must have cross-party support. No decision to sack the head of state could be taken for political reasons, only on the grounds that they have broken the rules that go with the job.

So if the President was exposed as a Nazi, for example, that would be political so not a reason for getting rid of him/her. Hmm. I think a lot more thinking through is required.

What if’s, ok, what if a trans were monarch, would he/she be
king or queen ?

^What about William gets over £20 million
Like winning the lottery every year^

Any comments from monarchists?

I just find the alternative to the Royal Family awful, If we had no Royalty would Boris have been our President? Or Liz Truss? I know Royalty have no real clout but they do indeed give a view to the rest of the world that is admired and does definitely bring in tourism. How can you admire a country that has someone like Trump as their figurehead?

Anniebach

What if’s, ok, what if a trans were monarch, would he/she be
king or queen ?

Quing I’d guess Anniebach.

I'd hope they would be Keen Casdon ?

How can you admire a country that has someone like Trump as their figurehead?
We don’t, and neither do a lot of US citizens. But of course we’d never elect anyone like that.

How rude - this is a discussion group surely / please respect others views

Caleo

Thanks Volver.

Is an unelected constitutional monarch bound to perpetuate the class structure more than a president elected by under-educated electorate?

For instances the Brexit referendum was voted for by under-educated electorate who were too gullible. Trump followers vote for Trump because they are under-educated rowdies.

I don't see a disconnection between funding for really good schools and tertiary education on the one hand, and an unelected constitutional monarchy on the other.

I bet King Charles would have known why you have to finish a course of antibiotics, which an 'elected' health minister did not know.

I disagree with so much of what you've posted Caleo. People who voted for Trump weren't all "undereducated rowdies" and I don't think being a monarchist or a republican has anything to do with how much education someone has.

Anniel

As soon as Republicans start yet another thread denouncing the Monarchy, I read a few of the responses but personally I find some Republicans rather condescending towards those of us who are supportive of the current system. Just to say my family never inculcated me with their views on the Monarchy and I am sure many people here, like Volver and her supporters, also can think for themselves. I doubt very much that we will overthrow the current system in the lifetime of even my Grandsons who are 37 and 35. So why do Republicans here keep posting about it? What purpose does it serve? Given the current political scene in England ( I am not up to date about other parts of the UK) surely most of us are worried about what happens next in our part of the Union.

I and my "supporters" ? keep posting about it because we think it's important. Also because most of us are capable of considering more than one issue at a time.

luluaugust

The unelected Monarchy is no better or worse than the unelected Government and a lot more fun than Joe or Putin. If Andrew had been in Charles's place and well occupied he might not have gone off the rails.

Andrew was in the Navy for about 25 years and was meant to be a trade envoy for the UK after that. He had plenty to keep him occupied.

You're seeing this piecemeal because I'm doing this on my phone ?

Volver

I and my "supporters" ? keep posting about it because we think it's important. Also because most of us are capable of considering more than one issue at a time.

Your post applies equally correctly to those who support a monarchy.

We think it’s important
And
Also because. . .we. . . are capable of considering more than one issue at a time.

So well put I’m posting it about the Monarchy.

grannyro

I just find the alternative to the Royal Family awful, If we had no Royalty would Boris have been our President? Or Liz Truss? I know Royalty have no real clout but they do indeed give a view to the rest of the world that is admired and does definitely bring in tourism. How can you admire a country that has someone like Trump as their figurehead?

Zelensky is an elected President. I quite admire him and his country.

Not that that's relevant at all, but we only ever get negative examples of presidents. About time we had some positive ones.