The monarchy

Casdon

The reality is though nadeturbe, there’s a difference between facts and peoples own truths. They will apply their own value systems, sense of propriety and interpretations to all information that is available. The bottom line is that it’s an issue on which most people have a very fixed view, one way or the other.

Often true, but then there are indisputable facts which Grany often states that aren't open to interpretation.
When a fact can't be defended by monarchists it is simply ignored.

An elected head of State? We have seen many times the sort of people that are elected by voters, have we not?
The Monarchy has no real power, that lies in the hands of the government of the day, so no worries on that score.
They do very well, their job and have been doing so since King George VI, then the late Queen, and now King Charles.They care deeply for this country and host so many other heads of state from around the world, rarely putting a foot wrong.

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

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.

The reality is though nadeturbe, there’s a difference between facts and peoples own truths. They will apply their own value systems, sense of propriety and interpretations to all information that is available. The bottom line is that it’s an issue on which most people have a very fixed view, one way or the other.

Anniebach

If anyone doesn’t agree with the OP it’s because they don’t
understand or listen to that poster

You know that's not what I said Anniebach.
But you can't disagree with facts.

The monarchy is past its sell-by date. It seems incredible that we still cling to an archaic system whereby we have a ruler in place merely by virtue of birth. The fawning over the royal family as witnessed recently following ER II's death doesn't seem healthy to me. The royal family is a waste of money and much of its complex financial affairs, land, properties etc remain beyond public scrutiny. An elected head of state is the way to go. Arguments have persisted for years about the value of the royal family in bring tourism income to the UK. It's ludicrous to suggest that tourists wouldn't flock to London if we were a republic. London is one of the greatest cities in the world - historic buildings, museums, galleries, theatres, restaurants, markets, acres of beautiful parks...

If anyone doesn’t agree with the OP it’s because they don’t
understand or listen to that poster

Casdon

nadateturbe

Totally agree with your last post Grany, including the one residence.
But I fear a lot of people don't actually listen and hear.

Or even, God forbid, listen, hear and don’t agree!

It's fine to have different opinions. But facts are facts.

Normandy Girl wrote:

"What you think the role of HoS should be and do you think our present system fulfils that role?"

I think the role of HoS should be like the role of the House of Lords; which I imagine is to quell any dangerous nonsense from the Government.

Our present system fails that role because the monarch's financial and intervention interests are secret

volver

^So we just have yet another thread on the OP's dislike of the present system, same old^

You haven't actually read and understood any of my posts, have you?

Same old rudeness as well

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.

nadateturbe

Totally agree with your last post Grany, including the one residence.
But I fear a lot of people don't actually listen and hear.

Or even, God forbid, listen, hear and don’t agree!

9/10/2022 19:51
Grany
Yes good post RP

Looking forward to interesting discussions from intellengent Gransnetters after all it is a news and politics thread and at the top of our political system is Charles king a Head of State.

I’m enjoying the interesting discussions from Gransnetters, whichever side of the fence they’re sitting on. After all it is a news and politics thread. I’m not sure about how Grany assesses which Gransnetters she thinks are . . . intelligent.

Totally agree with your last post Grany, including the one residence.
But I fear a lot of people don't actually listen and hear.

Well I think I was given my mother's milk but was brought up to make my own mind up irrespective of her choice to breastfeed or not. I am one who supports the RF for many reasons and will continue to do so. If someone doesn't then that's fine - its their own opinion. I hate it when folk try to compare one side to the other when there is no comparison to one from the other. I would hate a Joe Biden for instance but I am sure there are many Americans who think he is great. But can he be compared to Royalty - I don't think so. I'm not even sure that all makes sense but hopefully you know what I mean. Crikey is it too early for a glass of vino?

Actually the way politics is going, I think we’d do better to hand the whole governance to our caring King Charles III

Office

Charles III should be the last monarch – it’s time Britain had an elected head of state

The palace itself is not fit for purpose, falling well short of the standards in public life against which we measure other institutions, such as spending vast amounts of public money on private residences, something MPs lost their jobs for during the expenses scandal.

Historians have compared the royals unfavourably to the CIA and MI5 for its obsession with keeping records locked away from prying eyes.

Britain’s royals have successfully campaigned for further exclusion from the Freedom of Information Act, meaning journalists and members of the public can’t find out details from the royal family they can get from other public bodies.

Our research suggests that the monarchy sets us back at least £345m a year, enough to fund 13,000 new nurses or teachers – but which pays for just a handful of royals.

That includes costs met by local councils and police forces around the country, and the enormous security bill for protecting 15 members of the royal family and more than 20 palatial homes around the UK.

Major events, including the new King’s accession tour and the state funeral only add to those mountainous costs at a time when schools and hospitals are struggling.

The huge and poorly reported cost is thanks to systematic misuse of public funds for royal expenses, particularly on homes and travel.

An Elected Head of State would only have one official residence and an o

Metro

Thank you Normandygirl.

Answers like that, and one you gave previous to another of my questions do make sense to me.

I agree that liking or not liking a person or a family shouldn’t come into a discussion on changes of this kind.

I appreciate your responses and that you haven’t called my questioning bizarre or ridiculous ?

Agree with OP .

I am a royalist...always have been and always will be. This argument is getting rather old on here...sighs

My paternal GPs were immigrants and very proud to become British Subjects. DF followed this thinking and I was made to stand up when the National Anthem played on the radio or TV, or during the Queen's Xmas speech.
However, indoctrination only lasts so long and I think the whole RF are a huge waste of public money, and we need a President that is elected by the people.

"So with sound bites like an elected President will defend the Constitution or an elected President will call the Government to account my questions will always be so how will that actually work, what will happen when he does that?
What will the Presidents powers be to intervene? Confined to pointing out that the Government is going against the Constitution? Power to dismiss the Government? What exactly?"
Laryus
One "detail" I would like to see.
A head of State would have to "sign off" bills in the same way that the crown gives royal assent now. The difference would be however, that an elected HoS would be required to ensure that the bill is both lawful and doesn't breach the constitution. If the bill does not meet the requirements the HoS would refuse assent and send it back to parliament. The HoS that we have at present is not able to do that, as was seen in the proroguing of parliament by Johnson.
It doesn't matter whether you like the RF or not, that's a red herring. The question is; What you think the role of HoS should be and do you think our present system fulfils that role?

So we just have yet another thread on the OP's dislike of the present system, same old

You haven't actually read and understood any of my posts, have you?