Abolish the UK and German Monarchy

[TheEdge]

If we were to become a republic I doubt we would go down the line of the USA where the president is the head of government and state, I find it much more likely we would still adopt the same style of system we currently, a President and a Prime Minister.

And at that point I don't really see much reason in spending lord knows how long arguing and paying to get it changed. We'd adopt a system like Germany, with a ornamental figurehead President and then a much more powerful head of government. I challenge most people to name both the Chancellor and President of Germany.

So we end up with a (in reality) a politically powerless monarch or a politically powerless President. It just seems pointless.

 

[AlterEgo]

If we were to become a republic I doubt we would go down the line of the USA where the president is the head of government and state, I find it much more likely we would still adopt the same style of system we currently, a President and a Prime Minister.

And at that point I don't really see much reason in spending lord knows how long arguing and paying to get it changed. We'd adopt a system like Germany, with a ornamental figurehead President and then a much more powerful head of government. I challenge most people to name both the Chancellor and President of Germany.

So we end up with a (in reality) a politically powerless monarch or a politically powerless President. It just seems pointless.

That's kind of the point of constitutional presidents. People don't know who the President of Greece is, or Ireland, or Italy, or many other countries.

The point of a president is to make the head of state accountable, but also to act as an international representative on state occasions.

I don't like how monarchy demands deference and insularity from criticism. It's basically forbidden to ask the queen a question, in a way that would be unthinkable if it were Higgins, or Obama, or Mattarella, or Pavlopolous. I think monarchy makes us look a little backward.

I have no problems with Elizabeth herself, it's the system I don't like. If I could vote for a head of state I'd seriously consider her, as she has undoubtedly been a fine servant.

 

[Howardh]

That could well mean six months of one of these as our head of state.

Would you really want to take that risk?

Hmmm, see what you mean.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

With regards to tourism, we could open up the royal houses as museums. Much easier when the nonagenarians have moved out, and I bet the Americans will pay top dollar to see inside the Queen's former bedroom.

1. Aren't there privacy issues there? Would you really want tourists to be invited to pay to see the bedroom that you used to sleep in a few months ago, while you are still alive, and without your having any say in the matter?

2. They may pay top dollar now, but what about in 20 years time? If you abolish the monarchy, then they will slowly fade from public consciousness, and so over time the tourist potential will largely go away (other than a residual historical interest). That will obviously not happen as long as the monarchy remains.

 

[me123]

1. Aren't there privacy issues there? Would you really want tourists to be invited to pay to see the bedroom that you used to sleep in a few months ago, while you are still alive, and without your having any say in the matter?

You can already see one of the Queen's former bedrooms. Visit the former Royal Yacht in Edinburgh. She presumably doesn't mind all that much. Being the Queen, if she didn't want it to happen then I'm pretty sure she could just say so!

2. They may pay top dollar now, but what about in 20 years time? If you abolish the monarchy, then they will slowly fade from public consciousness, and so over time the tourist potential will largely go away (other than a residual historical interest). That will obviously not happen as long as the monarchy remains.

Lots of historic sites still attract lots of visitors. The Tower of London has been a tourist attraction for many years, even though today it serves no other purpose. It's lasted a lot longer than 20 years. Stately homes up and down the country still attract lots of visitors, and with Downton Abbey in recent years have probably even gained popularity. It could be argued that no home in the country is more stately than Buck House.

Buckingham Palace as a tourist attraction about the history of the monarchy would undoubtedly be popular for generations to come. However, I think that the grandeur of the palace lends itself to continued use in state occasions should the monarchy be abolished.

I have no particular preference on the constitutional arrangements after the abolition of the monarchy (should it happen). However, surely the fact that the head of state is in their job purely because of which uterus they popped out of is just wrong.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Some form of republic is long, long overdue.

We tried one before. It didn't work. Some bloke called Cromwell.

 

[Domh245]

The problem with all of these suggestions of "ah we'll just open Buck Palace to tourists" is that if we were to become a republic, without some kind of violent revolution, the Windsor family would still own all of their properties. We (as a country) would have to purchase it all from them for it to become state property instead of crown property.

Or at least, that is my understanding of it.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

The problem with all of these suggestions of "ah we'll just open Buck Palace to tourists" is that if we were to become a republic, without some kind of violent revolution, the Windsor family would still own all of their properties. We (as a country) would have to purchase it all from them for it to become state property instead of crown property.

Or at least, that is my understanding of it.

Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle are State property - It's Balmoral and Sandringham which are privately owned.

 

[Butts]

I think we are looking at this the wrong way around

Instead of a Constitutional Monarchy we should revert to the absolute variety.

We all surely believe in the divine right of Kings/Queens to rule over us.

If Liz had been in control for the last 60 years would we be any worse off than we are today - an interesting thought

 

[Groningen]

Rather late to start this thread. So Charles will take over if Elizabeth dies. Will not be a long reign.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Rather late to start this thread. So Charles will take over if Elizabeth dies. Will not be a long reign.

Somewhat similar to the period when King Edward VII assumed the role of monarch on the death of his mother, Queen Victoria

 

[NSEFAN]

On the issue of cost of the royal family, I thought that the taxpayer was quids in? Whilst they are paid an amount for existing, they own so much land that they make enough to repay that and more in taxation?

 

[Tetchytyke]

So Charles will take over if Elizabeth dies. Will not be a long reign.

And moving beyond him, putting huge amounts of faith in the progeny of Charles and Diana is...touchingly naive.

 

[Dave1987]

On the issue of cost of the royal family, I thought that the taxpayer was quids in? Whilst they are paid an amount for existing, they own so much land that they make enough to repay that and more in taxation?

Yes that's the line the pro monarchy people like to pedal but they never like to admit how much it costs the taxpayer to pay for the protection detail the Royals get 24/7. The pro Monarchy brigade says the Royals only cost the taxpayer around £40m a year but it's rumoured to cost the Met near quadruple that to pay for all the round the clock protection the entire family plus extended family enjoy. Why on earth the taxpayer is paying for entire Middleton family to be protected is ridiculous, not as if they can't afford it either.

 

[jonty14]

The Royal family do a good job of advertising Great Britain. A lot more than politicians. Most people in the world know about the Royal family. Don't think the world knows much about our politicians.

 

[Trog]

I think we are looking at this the wrong way around

Instead of a Constitutional Monarchy we should revert to the absolute variety.

We all surely believe in the divine right of Kings/Queens to rule over us.

If Liz had been in control for the last 60 years would we be any worse off than we are today - an interesting thought

She could hardly have done a worse job, and if you are planning to be in control for decades you are more incentivised to plan ahead than someone who's aim is to look good in time for the next election.

 

[northwichcat]

So you are proposing the abandonment of parliamentary democracy in favour of an American style presidential system?

That is an even bigger constitutional can of worms than simply converting to a Parliamentary Republic.

If we have a president the role of the PM would automatically be less powerful even if you didn't get rid of the PM, it would be more like the role of the deputy PM. If that became the case then why would the PM keep the same salary, incur the same level of expenses, need the same level of security etc.

 

[NSEFAN]

Yes that's the line the pro monarchy people like to pedal but they never like to admit how much it costs the taxpayer to pay for the protection detail the Royals get 24/7. The pro Monarchy brigade says the Royals only cost the taxpayer around £40m a year but it's rumoured to cost the Met near quadruple that to pay for all the round the clock protection the entire family plus extended family enjoy. Why on earth the taxpayer is paying for entire Middleton family to be protected is ridiculous, not as if they can't afford it either.

I'm not really a monarchist, but wouldn't those costs be incurred for any head of state and their relatives?

If you wanted to do away with this cost entirely, we could replace the head of state with a machine. After all we can probably build a robot to hand-shake with important people and generate generic motivational speeches based on topical events. But that might destroy the economy as we have discussed elsewhere.

 

[AlterEgo]

The Royal family do a good job of advertising Great Britain. A lot more than politicians. Most people in the world know about the Royal family. Don't think the world knows much about our politicians.

No, the Royal Family do a good job of advertising themselves.

What can a foreigner learn about Britain when the Queen visits? She doesn't give interviews.

 

[northwichcat]

I'm not really a monarchist, but wouldn't those costs be incurred for any head of state and their relatives?

If you wanted to do away with this cost entirely, we could replace the head of state with a machine. After all we can probably build a robot to hand-shake with important people and generate generic motivational speeches based on topical events. But that might destroy the economy as we have discussed elsewhere.

Or we could get Queen Victoria back in the form of a hologram to do that job with one of Winston Churchill ready for when the public get bored of Victoria.

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm not really a monarchist, but wouldn't those costs be incurred for any head of state and their relatives?

If you wanted to do away with this cost entirely, we could replace the head of state with a machine. After all we can probably build a robot to hand-shake with important people and generate generic motivational speeches based on topical events. But that might destroy the economy as we have discussed elsewhere.

Indeed the argument is not really about cost. It's about:

1) Principle - the highest office in the land ought to be able to be won on merit
2) Progress - monarchy is an anachronism; we laugh at the deference of other peoples, but you can't even discuss the Queen's affairs in parliament as it is illegal
3) Class - the Queen heads the class system in the UK. The class system is an closed shop anachronism too, and with the monarchy gone, I'd also abolish all aristocratic titles. They're just people and they won't die if you call them Mister.
4) Accountability - it is unacceptable to have a head of state who is not accountable to anyone but their own family. They give no interviews, explain nothing.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . , no parliament, . . . .

No parliament?

I can't see how that follows from a dismantling of a monarchy, it only removes the process of its grant of sovereign authority. But even if such a change were to be brought about, would not parliament be the forum to decide its own dissolution - which seems a curious contempt of its own electorate and mandate.

There's a lot to criticise in our parliaments, but I'd need some persuasion that a viable solution is to abolish it.

Or are we thinking of something more in the form of late 20th cent. revolutions? Civil unrest, storming the palaces, explosions in parliament, shooting at the walls, public informers, arrest of anyone suspicious, burning the naval fleet, invading the state broadcaster, etc.?

 

[NSEFAN]

Or we could get Queen Victoria back in the form of a hologram to do that job with one of Winston Churchill ready for when the public get bored of Victoria.

Plus when it makes bad decisions, we can take satisfaction in smashing it up without worrying about harming it. After all, it's just a machine. Rather than elections, we'd have a revolution every 5 years for a laugh.

Indeed the argument is not really about cost. It's about:

1) Principle - the highest office in the land ought to be able to be won on merit
2) Progress - monarchy is an anachronism; we laugh at the deference of other peoples, but you can't even discuss the Queen's affairs in parliament as it is illegal
3) Class - the Queen heads the class system in the UK. The class system is an closed shop anachronism too, and with the monarchy gone, I'd also abolish all aristocratic titles. They're just people and they won't die if you call them Mister.
4) Accountability - it is unacceptable to have a head of state who is not accountable to anyone but their own family. They give no interviews, explain nothing.

Why should cost not come into it? The head of state is merely a function in society. One way of looking at it is that, in a monarchy, we raise people specifically for the job of head of state, and instill in them a sense of duty to that role. I can see the advantage of that over the comical popularity contest that is the US presidential election, with the countless billions of dollars wasted on campaigning, lobbying and bribery.

Of course, this is not particularly fair. But then neither is a democracy. You mention the class system, but realistically anyone running for a presidential role in a society like ours also needs to be from a wealthy background in order to have sufficient education, friends and connections to get there.

You also mention accountability, however I see little accountability for the actions of a certain former prime minister and a certain war. Unfortunately, those in charge will always find ways to weasel out of responsibility when the going gets tough, so I don't see how making the head of state elected solves that problem.

I'm of the view that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. And if it really does need fixing, then make sure that the fix is properly understood before pressing ahead with it, especially when public opinion gets involved! (Brexit, anyone?)

 

[AlterEgo]

Why should cost not come into it? The head of state is merely a function in society. One way of looking at it is that, in a monarchy, we raise people specifically for the job of head of state, and instill in them a sense of duty to that role. I can see the advantage of that over the comical popularity contest that is the US presidential election, with the countless billions of dollars wasted on campaigning, lobbying and bribery.

Of course, this is not particularly fair. But then neither is a democracy. You mention the class system, but realistically anyone running for a presidential role in a society like ours also needs to be from a wealthy background in order to have sufficient education, friends and connections to get there.

You also mention accountability, however I see little accountability for the actions of a certain former prime minister and a certain war. Unfortunately, those in charge will always find ways to weasel out of responsibility when the going gets tough, so I don't see how making the head of state elected solves that problem.

I'm of the view that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. And if it really does need fixing, then make sure that the fix is properly understood before pressing ahead with it, especially when public opinion gets involved! (Brexit, anyone?)

The argument about cost is moot because the current head of state probably doesn't cost much more or less that a president would. So it is not along those lines that the argument should lead.

It is really tiresome when people hear "president" and then immediately start talking about the USA's executive presidency, which is a deeply flawed and unusual system. Why don't you talk about OTHER presidential systems - in fact, the one used by most Western democracies doesn't look like the USA's. Look at Israel, or Finland, or Ireland, or Portgual, or...etc, etc. A constitutional president with a prime minister as head of government does not confer a great deal of political authority on that president. In fact, it's kind of like an elected constitutional monarch.

Blair is accountable for the Iraq War. He is asked many questions about it, talks about it, there was a damning report on his role. The same cannot be said for an unelected head of state! Just because Blair isn't in prison (and it is not clear he should be) doesn't mean he is unaccountable. You can remove electable heads of state you know...

Other points you make - "well democracy isn't fair and people always weasel out of stuff" are just silly and stand nicely on their own as a testament to your apathy to the whole subject without me having to illustrate further.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I'd also abolish all aristocratic titles. They're just people and they won't die if you call them Mister.

Baroness Trumpington, still going strong at the age of 94, may still well take umbridge at being called Mister.....

 

[NSEFAN]

The argument about cost is moot because the current head of state probably doesn't cost much more or less that a president would. So it is not along those lines that the argument should lead.

Agreed.

It is really tiresome when people hear "president" and then immediately start talking about the USA's executive presidency, which is a deeply flawed and unusual system. Why don't you talk about OTHER presidential systems - in fact, the one used by most Western democracies doesn't look like the USA's. Look at Israel, or Finland, or Ireland, or Portgual, or...etc, etc. A constitutional president with a prime minister as head of government does not confer a great deal of political authority on that president. In fact, it's kind of like an elected constitutional monarch.

Any elected president would still go through what is basically a popularity contest. You yourself said the head of state should be elected on merit. I would rather government spent more time governing and less time making the opposition look bad. How would we ensure that we end up with a president who is suitable for the job, rather than someone who is just good at winning elections?

Blair is accountable for the Iraq War. He is asked many questions about it, talks about it, there was a damning report on his role. The same cannot be said for an unelected head of state! Just because Blair isn't in prison (and it is not clear he should be) doesn't mean he is unaccountable. You can remove electable heads of state you know...

Damning reports are all well and good, but if they are not acted upon then they are more of a formality than anything else, and we just carry on as we were before.

Other points you make - "well democracy isn't fair and people always weasel out of stuff" are just silly and stand nicely on their own as a testament to your apathy to the whole subject without me having to illustrate further.

Again, if changing over to an elected head of state from a monarch doesn't actually fix any social problems, then what's the point of making any changes? I'm sorry if that's a childish way of looking at things, but then perhaps I demonstrate the problem with democracy.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Let us remember that the Kim dynasty in now in its third generation lineage of North Korea yet they have been revered in just the same way as occurs in European monarchies, possibly even more so with vast rallies rergularly singing the praises of their Glorious Leader.

 

[AlterEgo]

How would we ensure that we end up with a president who is suitable for the job, rather than someone who is just good at winning elections?

But that is an argument against democracy as a whole! And one which continually fails.

There are lots of monarchs who are unsuitable for the job. Charles will be a poor king. How are you going to get rid of him?

 

[NSEFAN]

There are lots of monarchs who are unsuitable for the job. Charles will be a poor king. How are you going to get rid of him?

This is the point, we're no better off either way (except perhaps that monarchs tend to last longer than 5 years, which has it's advantages and disadvantages). What's the point of making any changes if we don't actually fix the problem of getting rid of bad leaders?

 

[AlterEgo]

This is the point, we're no better off either way (except perhaps that monarchs tend to last longer than 5 years, which has it's advantages and disadvantages). What's the point of making any changes if we don't actually fix the problem of getting rid of bad leaders?

The point is you can't get rid of Charles. It is literally illegal for your elected MPs to discuss the monarch's interests in parliament unless the monarch consents, which means that the only available methods of forcing an abdication are probably violent coercion or assassination. That's not how a modern democracy ought to work!

You can vote out, or impeach presidents. You can get rid of them! I'm baffled you can't see the difference at least between those two points.

The idea that "well, leaders mostly suck anyway so why bother" is just a statement of apathy rather than an argument for or against a monarchy or republic.

The government of the country is elected and I think we can all agree that's a lot better for our society than letting the monarch have absolute power. It is a fairer, more transparent and more accountable method of running things. But then again, I hear you ask, why change things? Pfft!