My gut reaction is, and always has been, abolish the monarchy, write a new, modern constitution for the new millenium and make Britain a Republic.

I find the fact that the head of state is handed the position through the bloodline to be archaic and downright wrong. Nobody should have that sort of position just because they were born into it.

But should we keep the Crown around in some form or another? It's a hard question. The Monarchy does provide a figure head for people to look up to. It does provide tourist revenue.

But are those things worth maintaining such an archaic system?

You can't elect a monarch, because as Byron says, that just creates another politician.

So i'd say get rid of it entirely. But that might just be the easy way out.

I'm against the idea of a monarchy as nobody should indeed be born into such a position. I wouldn't put one in place now if a "fresh" system of state had to be picked but this is history and those choices have been made a long time ago. So we have one and through the ages their tasks have been reduced to something mostly ceremonial. They create a good figure head and use their priviliges to do some good. And a choosen head of state (with actual powers) doesn't by definition have to be a better solution.

It's kinda like having a bullet lodged against your spine. If you had a choice you wouldn't put one there but you're stuck with it now. It's in there deep and it is put into place pretty securely so you can savely leave it there. Removing it on the other hand comes at great risk and will probably do more harm than good.

So I would say leave it for now, but keep an eye on it because if it starts to move and becomes a risk.....

(Edited by Chambler 04/05/2006 11:02)

---

It's popular, good for tourism, and we should keep it.

---

That argument's always fascinated me. How many tourists actually see a genuine royal when they visit the UK, and how many just have a walk around the palaces?

Most of the power they still have these days is strictly ceremonial, with the actual business end having been delegated to the Prime Minister and having been so since the days of Queen Victoria's seclusion and beforehand.

They're not representative of people within the UK today and - if you want to play the nationalist card - they're not even English, and the monarchy hasn't even been English since around 1066.

I'm not saying that I welcome the idea of making the Head of State partial, but if we find a politician unpalatable, at least we can vote them out.

As it is, the monarchy's just a very large, very arrogant white elephant that's in need of being shot before it gobbles up any more revenue.

---

by Samanfur
How many tourists actually see a genuine royal when they visit the UK … ?

---

I agree completely. When I visited the Louver it was as packed as Buck Palace (well fewer Germans ), and the Whitehouse is never short of visitors.

---

Most of the power they still have these days is strictly ceremonial ...

---

Yep, mostly, the Crown is pure theatre, although it does hold some residual power and enormous patronage.

Actually I have a bigger problem with its lack of power. It can't veto tyrannical Bills in the way an elected president does; although you could come up with another system to stop them.

---

They're not representative of people within the UK today and - if you want to play the nationalist card - they're not even English, and the monarchy hasn't even been English since around 1066.

I'm not saying that I welcome the idea of making the Head of State partial, but if we find a politician unpalatable, at least we can vote them out.

As it is, the monarchy's just a very large, very arrogant white elephant that's in need of being shot before it gobbles up any more revenue.

---

I wouldn't call the Queen arrogant: her claim to be the nation's servant is born out by her ceaseless schedule and political impartiality. Her offspring are a different matter, but bad princes have a habit of becoming good kings (just witness George's IV and VI) or else abdicating (Edward VIII).

By instinct I'm Republican, but by necessity I'm a Monarchist. Would I prefer an elected head of state for practical and symbolic reasons? Yes. Would I trust our current government or their successors not to use it as another power grab? No. I've seen what they've done to the House of Lords; and the Aussie government tried to replace the Queen with a president elected by MPs!

There's a lot that needs setting right in this country before the monarchy. I'm more concerned about the Executive than the Crown. Until we have our own house in order we've no business abolishing the Windsors'.

Oh, and this German thing, tempting as it is (did it myself just now didn't I? Bugger) is unfair. They've been born here at least since George III; that makes you English by any definition.

---

by Byron
Yep, mostly, the Crown is pure theatre, although it does hold some residual power and enormous patronage.

---

Patronage more so than power, I'd say. Can you imagine the furore if the Queen ever decided not to give royal assent to a Bill our elected reprentatives threw at her?

In today's climate, an unelected Head of State with that sort of power just couldn't work in this country.

---

Actually I have a bigger problem with its lack of power. It can't veto tyrannical Bills in the way an elected president does; although you could come up with another system to stop them.
(/quote]

See above. Rock and a hard place, really.

[quote]I wouldn't call the Queen arrogant: her claim to be the nation's servant is born out by her ceaseless schedule and political impartiality. Her offspring are a different matter, but bad princes have a habit of becoming good kings (just witness George's IV and VI)

---

I'm not sure I'd be that nice about George IV (at least on the domestic front) - and by the time George VI came along, we were firmly in that era where the monarch didn't have enough power to screw anything up that effectively.

---

or else abdicating (Edward VIII).

---

Ironically, one of the most popular royals for generations, which is why his views and behaviour got people so worried.

---

By instinct I'm Republican, but by necessity I'm a Monarchist. Would I prefer an elected head of state for practical and symbolic reasons? Yes. Would I trust our current government or their successors not to use it as another power grab? No. I've seen what they've done to the House of Lords; and the Aussie government tried to replace the Queen with a president elected by MPs!

---

The possibility of an elected House of Lords - which would mean two elected governing chambers which could argue equal power - disturbs me. I've never claimed to be a total republican or even know what to replace the royals with - I just know that I'm not a monarchist.

---

There's a lot that needs setting right in this country before the monarchy. I'm more concerned about the Executive than the Crown. Until we have our own house in order we've no business abolishing the Windsors'.

---

Except for the fact that it basically doesn't do anything. It's bad enough that the BBC spends my licence fee on Eastenders without me having to support two long-running public sagas of dysfunctional families.

To be honest, I'd call it a mercy for the likes of William, Beatrice and their generation to be able to get the heck out of the goldfish bowl and have some choice about whether or noyt they want their family's intimate details to be public knowledge.

Not, of course, that the press would lose interest in them immediately if you stripped them of their titles and packed them off to live on their own fortunes or whatnot. But it'd be a start.

---

Oh, and this German thing, tempting as it is (did it myself just now didn't I? Bugger) is unfair. They've been born here at least since George III; that makes you English by any definition.

---

It was just a badly-phrased attempt to point out that the concept of "English-ness" isn't all it's cracked up to be. I'm actually 1/4 German myself.

---

by Samanfur
In today's climate, an unelected Head of State with that sort of power just couldn't work in this country.

---

Of course. I agree about the patronage as well; despite her opposition the Queen couldn't stop women priests in the Church of England, but she has blocked them preaching in any of the royal chapels.

---

I'm not sure I'd be that nice about George IV (at least on the domestic front) - and by the time George VI came along, we were firmly in that era where the monarch didn't have enough power to screw anything up that effectively. Ironically [Edward VIII was] one of the most popular royals for generations, which is why his views and behaviour got people so worried.

---

Ah the Adonis of 50, much maligned by history. I won't dispute his vile domestic habits (my bookshelf strains under a hefty collection of Prince of Whales satire) but personal excess masks constitutional restraint. He set two important precedents with the 1829 Catholic Emancipation Bill: threatening abdication not veto; and finally agreeing to sign something he profoundly disagreed with.

Due to Tory infighting, George VI had some influence in choosing between Halifax and Churchill in 1940; thankfully he followed his namesake's example and set aside personal dislike to choose the best man. He also bravely faced down a stutter and crippling fear of public life to be a strong wartime king.

Is ironic Edward was so popular, but that points to an uncomfortable bonus to the monarchy; sometimes an undemocratic element is good for a country.

---

The possibility of an elected House of Lords - which would mean two elected governing chambers which could argue equal power - disturbs me. I've never claimed to be a total republican or even know what to replace the royals with - I just know that I'm not a monarchist.

---

Was my position, but decided if I didn't want a republic then, by default, I was for the house of Windsor.

Although I oppose the House of Lords changes because I want parity between the chambers. Democracy needs some restraints.

---

Except for the fact that it basically doesn't do anything … To be honest, I'd call it a mercy for the likes of William … Not, of course, that the press would lose interest … But it'd be a start.

---

I believe the tourist revenue the Windsors bring outweighs their cost to the taxpayer; although I'd happily prune the pointless hangers-on off the civil list. Offering a non-partisan national focus is doing something; just look at the trouble Americans have splitting their affections between the office of president (which most love) with the holder (which half loathe).

You've got a good point about the inhabitants of the goldfish bowl, but all famous offspring share the same fate. They're free to renounce the succession if they choose, and a life of riches has to be reasonable compensation.

---

It was just a badly-phrased attempt to point out that the concept of "English-ness" isn't all it's cracked up to be. I'm actually 1/4 German myself.

---

Being half Jock and quarter Irish, no complaints from me.

So, should they revert back to Saxon-Coburg Gotha or what?

---

by ByronAh the Adonis of 50, much maligned by history. I won't dispute his vile domestic habits (my bookshelf strains under a hefty collection of Prince of Whales satire)

---

I've got a few anthologies of political caricature and royal blunders, myself.

---

Due to Tory infighting, George VI had some influence in choosing between Halifax and Churchill in 1940; thankfully he followed his namesake's example and set aside personal dislike to choose the best man.

---

I'll have to do some research on that - my academic history went from 1793-1899 (UK) and then from 1919-1939 (European), with just mass politically correct gaps inbetween. And I congfess that when it comes to extra-curricular nosiness, it's an era I'm light on.

---

He also bravely faced down a stutter and crippling fear of public life to be a strong wartime king.

---

I have respect for the man for that. It's not as though he'd had any grooming for the position before Edward VIII basically dropped him in head first.

---

Although I oppose the House of Lords changes because I want parity between the chambers. Democracy needs some restraints.

---

Again, constitutionally, I find that a tricky one... Total parity is a recipe for stalemate, but having an unelected chamber always comes along with the baggage of the selection procedure: heredity doesn't work for me because of the prescriptive nature, letting politicians decide puts us into the position we've been in for the last few weeks, and if you let the majority of the public have a vote - if they didn't elevate today's politicians out of familiarity in the first place, I suspect that we'd probably be having laws reviews by Jade Goody, David Beckham and that Bardsley thing from Wife Swap...

Although the fact that it'd be the motivated who'd have to vote might cancel that out somewhat.

---

I believe the tourist revenue the Windsors bring outweighs their cost to the taxpayer; although I'd happily prune the pointless hangers-on off the civil list.

---

Likewise.

Monarch, consort, heir apparent. I don't see why we need the gravy train.

---

Offering a non-partisan national focus is doing something; just look at the trouble Americans have splitting their affections between the office of president (which most love) with the holder (which half loathe).

---

Part of me thinks that we're in the same situation already - I know very few anti-monarchists who necessarily dislike the Queen herself, precisely because she's doung the best in a situation that she's been born into, and knows nothing else.

---

You've got a good point about the inhabitants of the goldfish bowl, but all famous offspring share the same fate. They're free to renounce the succession if they choose, and a life of riches has to be reasonable compensation.

---

Which was my immediate thought when Prince Harry started complaining about the paparazzi following him around expensive nightclubs with the rest of the idle trust-funded. If he wants to use his position to do some good, then standing on a platform means that he's a better target.

---

Being half Jock and quarter Irish, no complaints from me. So, should they revert back to Saxon-Coburg Gotha or what?

---

I'd love to see the reaction if they tried... *snicker*

(Edited by Samanfur 05/05/2006 16:08)

ooops, ignore edit msg

(Edited by Byron 05/05/2006 16:34)

---

Originally posted by Samanfur
Total parity is a recipe for stalemate …

---

You'd think equal power was a recipe for constant stalemate, but it didn't work out like that before the 1911 Parliament Act. The Lords would block anything they considered too radical, and if there was genuine public demand for the blocked bill there'd be a few riots and the Lords gave way. Crude, but effective. The Lords usually read the public mood well; it got genuine reform through while protecting our constitution from elective dictatorship. (Will of Commons and public are not synonymous, whatever the MPs say.)

Sure, sometimes it went wrong (like when the Peers blocked Irish Home Rule) but was a darn sight better than Labour's constitutional bonfire.

---

Part of me thinks that we're in the same situation already - I know very few anti-monarchists who necessarily dislike the Queen herself, precisely because she's doung the best in a situation that she's been born into, and knows nothing else.

---

But you hit on why we're not in the same situation right there. People, whatever their feelings for the monarchy, usually respect Queenie. A few hardline republicans aside (I had to laugh when Scargill demanded Liz was packed off to a council house ala The Queen and I) she creates more indifference than hostility. The Blairs and the Thatchers polarize; we've got enough of that already in this country.

---

Which was my immediate thought when Prince Harry started complaining about the paparazzi following him around expensive nightclubs with the rest of the idle trust-funded. If he wants to use his position to do some good, then standing on a platform means that he's a better target.

---

Can't blame the wee lad, all that Hewitt DNA wasn't designed for this life … hey, you, yes, you, the blokes in balaclavas, what you doing in my house … *mummmfmummmf*

---

I'd love to see the reaction if they tried... *snicker*

---

Could get Piers Morgan back at the Daily Mirror for a one-off special edition: For You Fritz, Zee British Succession is OVER!

---

by Byron(Will of Commons and public are not synonymous, whatever the MPs say.)

---

You're talking to a qualified journalist who used to hang around Westminster - believe me, I know more about that than I probably want to!

---

Could get Piers Morgan back at the Daily Mirror for a one-off special edition: For You Fritz, Zee British Succession is OVER!

---

Nah. Leave that to Rebekah Wade.

The Mirror is a lot more respectful than it lets on - including under Morgan's tenure. I still remember being rather miffed at its front page "Where are you all?" rant when the initial reaction to the death of the Queen Mother appeared to be apathy.

(Edited by Samanfur 05/05/2006 17:41)

---

by Samanfur
You're talking to a qualified journalist who used to hang around Westminster - believe me, I know more about that than I probably want to!

---

My admiration ... and comiserations.

So, what *is* in the brown envelopes?

---

The Mirror is a lot more respectful than it lets on - including under Morgan's tenure. I still remember being rather miffed at its front page "Where are you all?" rant when the initial reaction to the death of the Queen Mother appeared to be apathy.

---

True enough, though they did break those pics of Fergie.

The flip side of that is Ms Wade is a lot less respectful than her uber-royalist stall makes out. The Scum always dig up the worst dirt on the royals after all, & remember they had quite a go at Queenie for not mourning Diana properly.

---

by Byron
(quotes)
My admiration ... and comiserations.

So, what *is* in the brown envelopes?

---

Wood pulp, as far as I know.

Nearly got run down by the late, much lamented Tony Banks, collared QCs when I couldn't be bothered to pull my daily agenda out of my bag, almost nicked Dennis Skinner's front bench seat whilst on the floor of the house one day (until I noticed Dennis Skinner behind me waiting for it ) and ended up drinking with Paul Routledge in thr Strangers' Bar and The Mirror's parliamentary office at one point... but I couldn't spin hard or fast enough to get that far!

---

The flip side of that is Ms Wade is a lot less respectful than her uber-royalist stall makes out.

---

Precisely. If anyone was likely to made Fritz jokes, I'd be putting my money on her.


(Edited by Samanfur 05/05/2006 18:24)

---

by Samanfur
Wood pulp, as far as I know.

---

Well if MPs will insist on hiring secretaries for extra curricula reasons instead of ability to haggle a good minimum bribe level ...

---

… and ended up drinking with Paul Routledge in thr Strangers' Bar and The Mirror's parliamentary office at one point... but I couldn't spin hard or fast enough to get that far!

---

Ah good old rummy Routledge. Only seen the great man from afar (well, few seats back) while he was fantastically rude about everyone who mattered. Must have been a revealing evening.

---

Precisely. If anyone was likely to made Fritz jokes, I'd be putting my money on her.

---

Any blackmail worthy-quotes to that Swiss acount STAT.

---

by ByronAh good old rummy Routledge. Only seen the great man from afar (well, few seats back) while he was fantastically rude about everyone who mattered. Must have been a revealing evening.

---

Afternoon, actually - I'd just come out of PMQs. But once Mr. Routledge'd bluffly frightened off the trust-funded Sloane I'd been working with, much amusement ensued.

---

Any blackmail worthy-quotes to that Swiss acount STAT.

---

*giggle* Believe me, you have NO idea...