The public should have a debate on the monarchy Billboards

Thread title is confusing. If one reads it as written it means, despite billboards having a capital letter, that the public should have a debate about monarchy billboards. I've been wondering what monarchy billboards are. Finally I jumped into the thread and saw that it's really a call to have a debate about monarchy.

I had already decided that too, Baggs

Callistemon Wed 07-Jul-21 15:44:59
The public should have a debate on the monarchy Billboards

I've had a good think about this, debated with myself and decided I don't want any Monarchy Billboards littering the country.
Thank you.

?

Very Well Said Nothisagain wonder if you will get an answer.

Thread title is confusing. If one reads it as written it means, despite billboards having a capital letter, that the public should have a debate about monarchy billboards. I've been wondering what monarchy billboards are. Finally I jumped into the thread and saw that it's really a call to have a debate about monarchy. #brainmush

We've had debates about monarchy quite a lot on Gransnet.

Anyway, good luck with the campaign. May the best arguments win.

As good as any other suggestions so far Blossoming!

Chewbacca

Who would you nominate as Head of State?

Gareth Southgate, obviously.

Chestnut

Leave the Queen alone Grany. She has dedicated her life to serving her country for 70 years and hasn't put a foot wrong. I don't think anyone could have done better.

Hi Chestnut,

Could you say more about how the queen ‘serves’ the country?
I know we are told this endlessly but apart from being brought to shake hands for a few moments I really don’t see what this ‘serving’ comprises exactly .

Of course it must be very important to create the impression among the masses that the royal family ( I do note that monarchists almost always only refer to the queen - I don’t blame them , slim pickings for you after she goes) are working themselves to the bone for the good of the nation.
Hmmm

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-queen-lobbied-for-change-in-law-to-hide-her-private-wealth

Leave the Queen alone Grany. She has dedicated her life to serving her country for 70 years and hasn't put a foot wrong. I don't think anyone could have done better.

Teacheranne

At the risk of being derided, I do want to ask two questions.

Which country already has an elected head of state? I’d like to know so I can find out how their system works.

Why do we need a head of state? Do we really need one?

Ireland has an elected Head of State and Republic UK would like something similar to this.

We have a Head of State that is the queen hereditary, not elected The monarchy is wrong in principle wrong in practise and is bad for British politics.

The monarch gives too much power to the government and only does what PM asks her. So she has no role to play she is pointless and powerless. And no checks or balances on the government.

With an elected Head of State the role would be properly defined in a written constitution which would be above politics.

The queen and Charles are involved in politics when really there job should be to not interfere but they do. She has a say in anything that affects her private interests She had a transparency law changed in the 70s to exempt her from revealing to the public her embarrassing wealth.

If you want to know more. See Republic UK new website and their Republic Campaign YouTube channel.

Alegrias1

Teacheranne

At the risk of being derided, I do want to ask two questions.

Which country already has an elected head of state? I’d like to know so I can find out how their system works.

Why do we need a head of state? Do we really need one?

Off the top of my head Teacheranne, probably every country without a monarch has an elected head of state. France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, US.

The head is state isn't necessarily the head of government. France's President is Macron, Germany's President is....well I don't know without googling. That's why the question about "who do you want for HoS" is so premature. We'd need to define the parameters of the job first, and IMO we would have separation between HoS and head of government. That's why the constant comments about not wanting President Trump are so wearing; whole different system of government.

Thanks for replying without having a go at me! I had forgotten about all those countries, I must have a look at the roles these Heads of State have and how they are elected. I do read the papers every day but I’ve not seen much about them, any foreign news items are usually about the government.

Civilised disagreement is always a good thing MaizieD

You're welcome to disagree with me. Alegrias.

I don't join the chit chat threads either.

I disagree with you about it being pointless and futile MaizieD. Discussions about the constitution of our country are never futile, even when there are matters which people think are more urgent.

While we have perfectly acceptable threads discussing whether Sue Barker looks like Judy Finnegan, or whether quizmasters have had too much plastic surgery, a discussion about the future of the monarchy is never futile.

I think the head of state argument ( ie monarchists repeatedly asking for a name to replace the queen) is a complete red herring.
The arguments against a hereditary monarchy go much deeper than that . Unearned wealth and privilege as a starter. Never mind the utter disgrace that is Andrew.
For anyone who is starting to get up off their knees and wants some facts I recommend you read ‘ And what do you do?’ by Norman Baker.

I think this is a completely futile and pointless argument. We have far more serious things to deal with at the moment than whether we have a hereditary or elected Head of State. Like a freeloading (I found Grany's little diatribe about the RF's life of luxury deeply ironic) pathological liar as PM whose government is hell bent on destroying the credibility and reputation of the UK in the eyes of the rest of the world.

At least the Queen has dignity and integrity, and is respected worldwide.

I notice that one of the main reasons people seem to object to having an elected H of S is that they can't imagine who will stand. It seems to me that accepting whoever happens to be next in line, which is what a monarchy does, is actually far worse You may be lucky and land someone like Charles who is basically decent,but you never know. William or George could turn out to have the same proclivities as Uncle Andrew and would anyone want that????
If you really want a monarchy why not an elected one? All interested members of the family could stand. Then you could choose. It's not something I would want but some might.
One of the things I strongly object to is the way the Queen refers to the government as "MY" government. It shouldn't be hers. It isn't hers. It's OUR government and naming it as such makes us responsible and makes democracy stronger. I love the words of the Gettysburg Address "government of the people, by the people, for the people." and haviing an elected H of S is part of that.

I've no doubt the monarchy will change and develop over time. Charles is already on the case. In 20 or 30 years the monarchy of the 21st century will be different and more in keeping with the times, but still keeping our history intact. Who doesn't enjoy the glorious spectacle of a royal event to brighten the spirits and bring people together?

At what?

Anyway, well have to live with Charles as monarch first, wherever we like it or not. And what about George? No idea what he'll be like come 2080.

Can you think if anyone you would think better than the Queen or William?

Teacheranne

At the risk of being derided, I do want to ask two questions.

Which country already has an elected head of state? I’d like to know so I can find out how their system works.

Why do we need a head of state? Do we really need one?

Off the top of my head Teacheranne, probably every country without a monarch has an elected head of state. France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, US.

The head is state isn't necessarily the head of government. France's President is Macron, Germany's President is....well I don't know without googling. That's why the question about "who do you want for HoS" is so premature. We'd need to define the parameters of the job first, and IMO we would have separation between HoS and head of government. That's why the constant comments about not wanting President Trump are so wearing; whole different system of government.

Sorry wink should have been . It's still early!

Chewbacca

Who would you nominate as Head of State?

Now there's the makings of a good thread. wink

Rosycheeks

So if we got rid of the monachy what would happen to all the royal buildings would Windsor Castle become an office block?, Buckingham Palace a hotel.? Kensington Palace a refugee center? Would the head of state live in an ex royal residence? I dont think the monachy will be abolished not in my lifetime anyway.

The former Royal palace in Paris is now one of the world's foremost art galleries. Anyone can visit Versailles, for a fee, and see it's glories for themselves. We can visit Windsor Castle today, I don't see why that should change?

I don't think most people are suggesting a communist coup where the Royal Family are turfed out of their houses and sent to live in Acacia Avenue.

It is amazing that the monarchy think it's OK to put their money abroad to not pay tax.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-41880153

When you believe something is wrong you find a solution. You don't keep doing it because you can't think of something better.

Just going back to the billboards idea. Does everyone want to see the UK plastered with billboards with people proclaiming what they think is the right thing to do about whatever?
I can understand people wanting a bigger audience for their beliefs, but billboards are a messy way of doing it. A scruffy looking poster does nothing for a cause, and billboards take a lot of upkeep, even if they’re not quickly defaced by those who disagree with the point being made.