Gransnet forums

News & politics

Countries can ditch monarchy and become republics ‘calmly and without rancour’ says Prince of Wales

(88 Posts)
Blossoming Fri 24-Jun-22 20:18:11

Does he mean the countries of the UK too?

tinyurl.com/54ct2e5j

paddyann54 Fri 24-Jun-22 20:23:13

I dont think the RF could force us to keep them if we decided otherwise .Scotlands people are sovereign NOT parliament or monarchy .

Callistemon21 Fri 24-Jun-22 21:00:37

Scotland too, if it votes for independence
calmly and without rancour

volver Fri 24-Jun-22 23:14:22

I saw a bit of his speech on the news. We're no different to any other country where he's going to be head of state. Fingers crossed. Perhaps he'll become king then abolish the monarchy. 😉

Blossoming Sat 25-Jun-22 07:34:38

We can but hope Volver grin

Allsorts Sat 25-Jun-22 08:00:30

We need a different monarchy now, excellent as Her Majesty has been, it's now dated. I do think William is proving to be Just what a we need as a country.. Get rid of all these grace and favour apartments, the hangers on, just have working close members of the family.
The problems with a Democracy such as America, is you don't get people that can stay the distance, it's open to corruption and manipulation and a lot of ignorance. The Icelandic countries have successful ones as does NZ, they tend to be lower populated. With monarch comes that long schooling into protocol and talking to people on all levels, they cannot by nature if the rol be politically motivated. Not sure about Charles but he will do his best to leave things stable for William, I wish Diana could have lived to see him with his lovely family and her grandchildren.

Newquay Sat 25-Jun-22 08:05:01

Will RF accept living on less public money though?
Heard that jubilee cost about £28m and that came from
Public funds. Shameful at the mo-RF should pay for this out of their own wealth.
And stop this Duchy nonsense too!

volver Sat 25-Jun-22 08:09:01

When people write things like "the problem with a Democracy such as America is.." you know they're not really hot on the details here. We're a democracy. I think you probably mean "republic".

The Queen is also Queen of New Zealand, incidentally.

DaisyAnne Sat 25-Jun-22 08:29:11

Of course. It would be foolish to think we could not choose to do so. However, hopefully, we would choose to do it constitutionally, by vote. Although, we have seen this far-right government attacking our democracy and making a mockery of it so who knows. With 61% of the British public still wanting a constitutional monarchy, I can't see a vote being carried out at the moment but I suppose a mob could try.

Sadly, you only have to listen to Johnson to hear any proportion of voters described as "the people" and the carrying out of what he wants - not what the majority want, as "the will of the people". I hope we are all more aware now of what can happen if we allow ourselves to be swamped by a minority. I am not sure that we are.

Just looking at the Religious Courts they seem to have managed to set up in America, with frightening overtones of the Taliban, I wonder why anyone thinks a republic is so great. Nothing we have seen here, under a constitutional monarchy, compares with what the minority has just inflicted on that country. They are not doing this via the government but through courts; courts politicised in favour of the minority. It's like watching the Handmaid's tale played out in real life. So far, their much-vaunted "republic" seems unable to stop them.

I would rather the far-right, at the most a quarter of the population, with the extremists many fewer, were not in a position to inflict their views on me in this way. History is repeating itself. So far, having a constitutional monarchy seems to have just about held on to our democracy. Hopefully, it would do the same with any other extreme minority.

When someone can show a system that works better than our imperfect one maybe the country will want to listen.

volver Sat 25-Jun-22 08:43:04

What an insulting post DaisyAnne. I'll come back with a response when I'm less angry about it.

volver Sat 25-Jun-22 09:11:53

As a republican (which is not the same as a capital R Republican) I resent being associated with a mob who are trying to overturn democracy. We’re not advocating a coup, we’re trying to explain why we think a republic would be better than an inherited monarchy. We’re not trying to impose anything on anybody else, just have our own view on how a modern democracy should be constituted.

Now you are perfectly entitled to think we should stick with a monarchy. Perfectly entitled. And I am perfectly entitled to tell people that power based on who you dad was is a pre-medieval concept beloved of non-democratic countries and governments around the world.

It’s rather silly to suggest that we might think having a republic would solve all our problems with everything at one fell swoop. But you can’t hold up examples of bad things happening in republics and use that as an example of why we shouldn’t have one. If you want to have examples of bad things happening in monarchies, Google the Thai monarchy. Or the Spanish one under Juan Carlos.

As for our current monarchy meaning we have held on to democracy and saving us from the worst…what about the illegal prorogation of parliament, the government trying to engage in illegal people trafficking and the proposal that we will withdraw for the ECHR? That’s what our remarkable constitutional monarchy has allowed to happen recently. And only Charles has made the slightest comment.

Queen Elizabeth is probably too old to do much about it these days, and William is too busy selling the Big Issue and having his portrait painted. Many in this country seem to think that the purpose of a Head of State – which is what the Queen is, and what Charles and William will be, unless things change – people seem to think the purpose of HoS is to look good and work for charity. We’re missing out on so much.

Grammaretto Sat 25-Jun-22 09:13:05

I agree DaisyAnne with your post. I only hope we lose many of the outdated trappings of monarchy and properly modernise it. I see signs that it is going in a better direction. Why are you so angry Volver? you can't possibly think that the American dream works better than our system.

Grammaretto Sat 25-Jun-22 09:19:51

Just mention a change and all hell lets loose! and that's just on here. Talk about calm and no rancour. Sorry Prince of Wales but really? Good changes come gradually: no coups, no civil war, no bloodshed please. We are British.

volver Sat 25-Jun-22 09:22:16

Why do you think the American system is the only way a Republican can be run?

I'm angry that people think unelected aristos in jewelled hats have any place in the running of a modern country. I'm angry that some people do not have the slightest idea that there are alternatives. I'm angry that people say what a good King/Queen someone will be based on how good they look in a green dress and how cute their children are.

But mostly I'm angry about how hoodwinked people are and how they try to pretend that anybody who thinks we might want to modernise our democracy is part of a mob.

DaisyAnne Sat 25-Jun-22 09:25:49

volver

What an insulting post DaisyAnne. I'll come back with a response when I'm less angry about it.

Volver, I have noticed you are always prepared to see an insult where there is none. Who, exactly, have I insulted and how?

If you stopped be Mr/Mrs Angry and debated we might all learn something.

volver Sat 25-Jun-22 09:25:56

Grammaretto

Just mention a change and all hell lets loose! and that's just on here. Talk about calm and no rancour. Sorry Prince of Wales but really? Good changes come gradually: no coups, no civil war, no bloodshed please. We are British.

I'm sorry, but who mentioned coups and civil war and bloodshed?

We are British. Not like those demm colonial chappies. Now I'm really angry. wink

I quite like Charles. If he ran for President I might even vote for him. Not William though.

Grany Sat 25-Jun-22 09:28:54

Having the monarchy gives all power to the PM government that means monarch does nothing.

A president would defend our constitution if a PM was acting against it or breaking the constitutions laws. A republic would not be like USA or the French it would be a parliamentary republic similar to the Irish model effectively doing what queen can't do.

So we have a monarch who does not act in the interests of the people only the government and monarchy. Is secretive and free from FOI act.

Monarch is given huge amounts of public money many palaces and grand homes which her extended family have at very little rent or rent free doing very little in return.

We do not have a codified constitution and monarchy stops us having an elected House of Lords.

We pay Prince Charles more than £22m a year. That's more than six times the combined salaries of all democratically elected heads of state in Europe.

#AbolishTheMonarchy

There is no reason to keep them.

volver Sat 25-Jun-22 09:30:43

DaisyAnne

volver

What an insulting post DaisyAnne. I'll come back with a response when I'm less angry about it.

Volver, I have noticed you are always prepared to see an insult where there is none. Who, exactly, have I insulted and how?

If you stopped be Mr/Mrs Angry and debated we might all learn something.

You stop associating people who want a republic with being part of a mob, and we'll talk.

If people learned the difference between democracy and republic, we could have a debate. (I know that wasn't you) If people understood what a HoS was for, we could have a debate. If people stopped saying that the monarchy we have has saved us from extremism, we could have a debate. If people stopped using a bad example of things happening in a republic to say we should never have a republic, we could have a debate.

Grany Sat 25-Jun-22 09:30:49

Back wards Britain

Abolishing the monarchy would not erase Britain’s class divide overnight, but a republican form of government would at least be able to lay claim to the principles of equality and democracy.

GrannyGravy13 Sat 25-Jun-22 09:32:58

I am yet to see a valid argument/reason that has made me think that the U.K. should abolish the monarchy.

ElaineI Sat 25-Jun-22 09:33:45

I wondered that too Blossoming.

DaisyAnne Sat 25-Jun-22 09:36:26

Grammaretto

I agree DaisyAnne with your post. I only hope we lose many of the outdated trappings of monarchy and properly modernise it. I see signs that it is going in a better direction. Why are you so angry Volver? you can't possibly think that the American dream works better than our system.

I think it will ivolve Grammaretto; it has to. Some of the "trappings" bring a great deal of money into the economy, so we need to be careful what we "shed" smile

I don't see myself as a monarchist - just a pragmatist. As I said, show me something that better protects me from dictatorship; I will be happy to look at it.

volver Sat 25-Jun-22 09:36:41

GrannyGravy13

I am yet to see a valid argument/reason that has made me think that the U.K. should abolish the monarchy.

That's fine. But I've seen many reasons and will not be dismissed. We're allowed to differ on this.

But when people defend the current system, without knowing anything about it other than saying democracy works in NZ because they are sparsely populated, serious discussion seems a long way off.

MaizieD Sat 25-Jun-22 09:36:52

you can't possibly think that the American dream works better than our system.

The American system is stymied by the dead hands of the Founding Fathers and by, strangely enough, a misapplication of the British constitutional principle of 'separation of powers'. However, other versions are available.

It's also very interesting, in view of the Leave voters' hysterical fear of becoming part of a 'federal EU', to see how much autonomy individual US states have. But that's not really part of the topic in discussion.

volver Sat 25-Jun-22 09:39:15

Some of the "trappings" bring a great deal of money into the economy

Consider this serious discussion.

Do you have the figures for what the trappings bring into the economy, please? Not just feelings, actual profit and loss; what do they bring in and how much would we lose if we didn't have them, meaning that we didn't have to pay for them, to begin with?