Time to get rid of the monarchy (page 4)

You have also very cleverly got hung up on the 'dictatorship' comment and ignored the fact that there are no checks and balances. Whilst I appreciate such tactics on other threads under the Farkel rules of thread ownership there will be none of that here thank you.

Now I am not the sort who posts links but the correct term I was thinking of was elective dictatorship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_dictatorship. But it was a term merely to make the point that the system we have means that the Government can pretty much do what the hell they like. Which was my point about power needing to be shared which is why governments are so keen on a powerless head of state.

cedars

jamesmahon

I take on board your argument, and believe it or not, I do know what you're getting at. One of the things that frustrates me about British democracy is that, as with many democracies, the electorate has such a shockingly narrow political spectrum from which to choose, and the political parties are so often very similar to one another - in their ineptitude if nothing else. However, your "no checks and balances" argument falls flat on its face when you consider that each ruling government is acutely aware that, if they don't do a sufficiently good job, they will be thrown out of office within 5 years. That may not sound like much by way of "checks and balances" to you, but that is essentially what the General Election provides - an opportunity for the electorate to step in and dipose of any government that is inept or otherwise unsatisfactory, as has happened on inumerable occasions throughout our country's colourful history.

I think that, by targeting the Queen, you are making a scapegoat of the wrong person. What you should really be asking is why there are only two main parties (and another that always comes third) from which to realistically select a government. The Queen's role as head of state is the least of our worries. If you look at the actual role of a president in many republics, it is mostly ceremonial anyway. Yes, it may seem unfair to some that only one family gets a shot at the top job, but (as james_woods has hinted) they are so well drilled in the intricacies of executing their diplomatic duties (etc) that, frankly, I would rather leave it to them anyway.

Cedars

jamesmahon

if they don't do a sufficiently good job, they will be thrown out of office within 5 years

I am not sure that is actually a sufficient check or balance - especially if you have a large majority.

The role of Elizabeth Windsor is not the highest priority of what needs changing but would be part of a root and branch change of what needs changing. I would primarily aim at getting rid of the party system which with a first past the post system is the broken cog in many democracies.

I am politely ignoring your etc. so you don't have to list these other duties. But if duties are what they are then they should go to the people best suited to doing them. I think the idea that this is best resolved by being hereditary is somewhat lame. And unfair on the people born with that duty and may not want it.

I'm yet to hear a good argument for the monarchy beyond:

it is tradition and culture (so was dog fighting)
she does a good job (she may do. If she didn't? Could someone do a better job)
Everyone is behind her (erm, I'm not along with 10 million other britains)
Would you want president Blair (I weep)

I think the reason most people want to keep the monarchy is fear of change especially in uncertain economic times. Which is why I said if you kept the titles 'King' and 'Queen' with all the pomp most people would be happy if they were drawn from a hat. Beleive me - the time will come when change is demanded and I think it will be in my lifetime. Just look at the support for Scottish independence (daft that it is) and how it has grown with a clear narrative presented by the tosser, but charismatic, Alex Salmond

Las Malvinas son Argentinas

What about the monarch's official position as Supreme Governor of the Church of England? Since the Queen represents all subjects within her realm, does anyone feel that this position should be delegated elsewhere due to the fact that Anglicans are only 22% of the population? With Charles being on tap to take over when he ascends the throne, he will be in the awkward position of being titular head of a church which did not recognise his divorce. Does the fact that Diana is deceased make him officially a widower and thus legally remarried within the church?

Band on the Run

Where would Americans go to see the paegantry that we gave up? Maybe a theme park. Has anyone compared how much trade the royals bring in as opposed to their cost? I recall Diana's and Sarah's dresses were obscene when the typical citizen was hitting very hard times.

I'm American and Charles reminds me Charles I, the martyr saint. My local Anglo-Catholic church now has a St. Charles shrine open twenty four hours a day. People respect her. I can't imagine that he will receive the same respect. His privacy was invaded but the sex parts of the Camilla tapes don't bring respect to the monarchy. All the American commentary when Charles and Diana married was that she would never relive the trauma of divorce. How times change.

Andrew evidently chooses pedophiles as friends, and even appears with them publicly.

The closest we ever came to monarchy was George Washington. History texts state his most significant achievement was going home to Mt. Vernon.

jamesmahon

Has anyone compared how much trade the royals bring in as opposed to their cost?

I often thought this as the most sickening of arguments. Sacrifice self determination and democracy for a few quid. Let us bring back public hangings. they were very popular and are sure to bring in the tourists.

America saw how stupid Monarchy was over 200 years ago. We still have not learnt.

Or perhaps America would like to have King Obama? Or Queen Palin?

jamesmahon

LMAS - the points you make are valid and just further show why the institution is just daft and a crunch point is coming. Elizabeth knows this which is why she has stayed on the throne for so long. And this is where she has done a dreadful job. Failing to get her children to behave in a manner which they are supposed to ie. keep a low profile, wave a bit and do a christmas message. Don't ever make the front page of the papers.

cedars

Band on the Run

I would agree that the monarchy contributes a great deal to our tourist industry alone. One only needs to wander around London and see the swathes of tourists reveling in all the history and buying souvenirs of the royal family to understand this particular, albeit modest contribution to our economy.

As to Charles, I'm not a fan either, and he will find it tough when it's his turn to take the throne. "Her Maj" is a hard act to follow. I think most Brits are consoling themselves with the thought that Charles' reign will be relatively short compared to his mother's, and then we will have King William and Queen Catherine as new monarchs. "The king is dead, long live the king!" - and all that.

jamesmahon

I am not sure that is actually a sufficient check or balance - especially if you have a large majority.

I don't follow this line of reasoning. A government only has a large majority if it is granted such by the previous general election. It can easily lose this majority if the electorate deems the government to be unsatisfactory, hence the "checks and balances" provided by the general election.

Cedars

Chariklo

I'm with Cedars all the way on this.

Or, more accurately, Cedars and I and an overwhelming majority of the British people are on the same side, that of complete loyalty to the Queen and her successors.

British history is important to most of us. The monarchy is not an elected monarchy. The Royal family are exactly that, the Royal family, and we won't shift one inch from that position.

Tonight I have neither time or energy for a long discussion, James Mahon, but the very fact that one of those most eagerly leaping to join your doubtful bandwagon is a representative of a country with whom we were at war just 30 years ago, a country that invaded British territory and for a blink of a moment subjected British citizens to foreign domination, will be sufficient indication to anyone of the tenor and placement of your position.

And if you are not British, then frankly your feelings on the matter are of no relevance.

Time to get rid of the monarchy

Share this