Republicanism

pammygran yes the though of President Blair is enough to send shivers down anyone's spine but at least he would have been voted in t office fairly and would only be president for a "term" and then could be replaced. Additionally we would not be forced to "keep" his children and their children, aunties uncles, brothers sisters, granny, cousin..........etc. in the lap of luxury for their entire life too.

It is a comment I have heard spoken before by republicans, it would be at the time of being interviewed on the T.V. as I do not listen to the radio. I'm not sure but I think it MIGHT have been a comment made by Polly Toynbe to name but one but I would not swear it. Maybe Yasmin Adabya Brown (forgive my spelling). Is it not a republican thought then?

late Sunday, going to bed.
disappointed still nobody tried to show royals compatible with democracy ????

You can't have it both ways

pogs not sure what you are on about re colonialist etc!

Was not the jubilee weekend a huge nationalist celebration! I am proud of all sorts of things that are good and have come from Britain and of parts of British history. There are some bits that Britain is responsible for that do not make me proud. It is OK to say Britain is not perfect. It is blind nationalism that is so dangerous...

Yes, Jingle sense of history, especially when it chronicles how these individuals have killed off their rivals, married off their children to gain power overseas, and taken what isn't their's in the first place so they could assume the throne, then procreate (sons get priority) so they can keep it in the family. Let's keep a sense of history to inform us how not to behave in future.

Plenty of sense of occasion, especially when I get chance to meet someone who has done something to be admired, whether it be my chikldren graduating, my sister reaching her 40th anniversary or someone like Eddie Izzard or John Bishop being celebrated for doing day-after-day marathons and challenges to raise money for the disadvantaged. The London Marathon is a great occasion, as is Last Night of the Proms. I like to see things like the Edinburgh Tattoo and Trooping the Colour, but you don't need someone on a throne to do those traditional ceremonies.

I find history fascinating - so interesting how pecking order is decided amongst humans, especially when those who threaten the status quo tend to get bumped off by the rich and powerful.

Another thing I would like to say. Even republican countries have allowed their people to be proud of their countries but us poor sods have had to take a back seat or be classed as fools, idiots, colonialists or racist.

I did not curtsy to Prinny Anne when I met her at Buckingham Palace.

What I do not understand is whether it be king, queen, president or dictator they all rule countries that have those at the top and those with more wealth. Whether it be dictatorship, comminism, monarchy or republican they all have their palaces and lead very wealthy lifestyles.

Is it the fact our monarchy costs money that most republicans hate or is it the symbolism they create.

I cannot see how this country would opperate differently as a republican country. We would still have the right to vote or is that something we would be subjected to to fulfil the republican theory.

Oooh. Get you whenim. No sense of occasion. Or history.

A slight aside ...but whenim64 triggered an observation from when the Queen walked up/down the aisle in St. Paul's ...few if any of the women actually did curtsy ...some nodded their heads in acknowledgment ...but not all that had been sitting on the ends of rows.

So that's a bit of a 'sea-change'

Respect when

carbon the comedians will have a field day with King Charles!

jingle I have the honour of being banned, along with half a dozen others, from attending a royal visit to our probation offices because I made it clear that I would refuse to curtsey or defer in any way if I was addressed by the visitor. I was only banned because they got in there first - I had no interest in meeting any royals.

The French William the Bastard, pammygram? Well that's cool.

I am a commited Royalist, simply because I adore history..it is fascinating to think that the present Royal Family descend from William the Conqueror..a thousand years. Also I know its often said but President Blair anyone?

I had fun over the Jubilee weekend and don't mind admitting it. Whatever our preferences are I think it was a knees-up time that we needed to give us a bit of cheer. Lets face it - things are a bit grim at the moment.
I don't feel knowledgeable enough to discuss the plusses and minuses of the merits concerning monarchy or republicanism but do have some very simple views on both.
We are admired from afar in respect of our royalty and they are an asset in some ways. One of the problems is their involvement in politics - it is not necessary for there to be any connection in respect of this and this should be ended.
The majority of the British people have the unfortunate trait of being envious of other peoples lifestyles and wealth. This is one reason that the royals are not popular. They would curry more favour if they lived more as normal citizens and were not given too much priveledge.
I don't think I would like a president - even if democratically elected. A small royal family would be preferable - along the lines of the Scandinavian royals who appear much more down to earth.
Now - as to democratically elected representatives in Parliament - where does one start. We do need somehow to generate a lot more interest so that at least people use their vote. It's no surprise that we are all so disillusioned with our polititians - standards should have improved but they haven't!!
As to the House of Lords - firstly it needs to be renamed and secondly filled with elected representatives.

"We should not have to defer (I certainly don't) to nonentities who have acquired wealth and power by accident of birth".

I bet if the Queen came round your way whenim, you'd curtsy with the rest of 'em.

Thanks for putting it so well Whenim64 Glad you feel better
Anyone else who's interested: If you go back to my original post - I was trying to start a discussion on whether royalty is compatible with democracy? I think it is not. Can anyone put forward a serious argument to demonstrate that it is? If not, then one has to assume that you royalists are not in favour of democracy.

Nothing wrong with that. Personally I think there is a lot wrong with democracy - or rather the sort of systems that call themselves democracy. (note to myself: needs a new thread).

On a lighter note I can't wait for Charles to be king. It's going to be hilarious, he'll be interfering with everything. I think I'll paint all my wooden spoons red, white & blue in readiness!

It might be very beneficial to nationalise the royal estates – the Duchy of Cornwall, for a start, must be worth a few bob, especially the property that's in London. A head of state and family who pay their fair share of income tax wouldn't be a bad thing either.

Elegran The monarch is obliged to sign into law anything that has been passed by Parliament. The only other option is to abdicate. The PM can't just decide things without the support of Parliament – although it seems a modern trend to try to force through unpopular issues with a three-line whip and a lot of backroom finangling – so it would be difficult for a bloody-minded PM (and so many of them are) to force an issue with the sole purpose of unseating the monarch.

Well - I've enjoyed all the knees-ups and the coming together of communities and I sang in a jubilee concert last night - a great excuse to sing some splendid music!
But I have no great interest in the monarchy - I suppose on balance (as I said in another thread) it is better than getting a mormon or an out of work actor with their finger on the red button - but the church connection is not satisfactory to my mind - there should be a total separation between church and state and I do not like the idea of queen as head of the church by default.

Yes JessM ...I watched that programme too ...but at the time the 'world' media was publishing stories that the British public had no awareness of either ...including the nazi links.

That's one thing in today's technology that could not happen ...fortunately.

If the Queen was to become 'ga-ga' { ref Jess's cmment} wouldn't we be in the same position as with George III ...Parliament introduced the concept of a regent??

Elegran I like your list ...and await others replies

Our constitution is fundamentally undemocratic. Yes, it has some features of a democracy - for example we are 'permitted' to elect just under half of our parliament - but at its core British politics concentrates unaccountable and unlimited power in the hands of a few, at the top.

Charles writes to politicians at the rate of about 1,600 letters every year, imposing his views on political progress. He bears medals he hasn't earned, pinned on his chest by 'mummy.' How irritating is that for soldiers who have fought and been injured in overseas wars, whilst he is out shooting grouse?

If we have a republican democracy, the queen would be free to campaign to be elected president or head of state, and so would every other citizen. We need a written constitution.

We should not have to defer (I certainly don't) to nonentities who have acquired wealth and power by accident of birth. A true republic would be in the hands of the people and there would be a major shift in the balance of power. Heads of state/presidents (whatever you want to call them) can be removed/impeached if they are corrupt. They would be accountable and have to explain what they do, how they earn their wages, what they spend our money on. Who knows what the monarchy spends our money on? I don't.

A republic would not 'own' overseas territories that have nothing remotely to do with the UK, other than they were 'claimed' centuries ago. Many other countries might feel more fondly about the UK if we stopped posturing - we're a tiny group of islands with delusions of grandeur that we no longer have. Tourism wouldn't be affected - all the traditions that we have can still be carried out for tourism and trade benefits. The monarchy could earn the same pay grades as their staff and higher executives, depending on merit, not birth.

There....now I feel so much better

Jacey seemed to be many last weekend. I did not count - 12 is not doubt a slight exaggeration.
absent the monarch has to co-operate with the PM when it comes to the Queens speech and signing bills to make them laws. 2 key features of the unwritten constitution.
If the monarch refused the PM's requests in either of these, it would be a constitutional crisis.
The fact that Camilla is divorced and the C of E do not official endorse divorce (am i still right on this) is a minor constitutional issue and may mean she may be known as consort and not queen if C becomes king.
If the queen became gaga that would be a constitutional crisis, as there is no written procedure.
There was a very interesting documentary about her uncle's abdication a few weeks ago. The conclusion was the Archbish of C was behind it, machinating behind the scenes and getting the Times to come out in the open about it. Before that the UK public had no idea what was going on. Edward was naively thinking he could do what he liked. So here we have the "establishment" in the form of the C of E and the Times forcing a kind to abdicate.
(There was also the minor problem that he was reputedly a Nazi sympathiser but that didn't matter!)

Love it Elegran!!

Yes, could we hear what would be better about a republic instead of what is bad about a monarchy?

Miss out that it would be elected, that is an obvious difference.

Would it be cheaper?
Would it more efficient?
Would it raise our profile worldwide?
Would there be increased trade?
More money in the pockets of each citizen?
More of a national focus in times of celebration?
Increased tourism?
Better weather?