Abolish the UK and German Monarchy

[northwichcat]

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?

In the olden days an a not fit for purpose monarch would have caused a civil war with a group of rebels trying to remove them by force. These days they are untouchable and remain in the position for the rest of their lives unless they choose to remove themselves from the position.

 

[NSEFAN]

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!

I agree that the head of state should be accountable and should also not have absolute power, but my concern is with a system whereby harm is done because the head of state is selected by populism, not merit. Otherwise, the outcome is the same: a bad head of state who makes bad decisions (and hence my comment that a system change is ultimately pointless, as it doesn't fix the underlying problem).

It's not so simple to say, "well, we can vote them out". Our current situation with party politics is showing that we're "forced" to vote for one party because the others are all "unelectable". What's to stop the same problem occurring with an elected head of state? Or do we just have to accept that we're always going to have a risk of bad leadership, and should be thankful they're only in for a few years rather than a few decades? Is that not also apathy?

 

[ExRes]

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!

Precisely which monarch has 'absolute power'?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I wonder if the monarch would have an 8 foot stone tablet made and fail to declare it in their expenses .............

 

[DarloRich]

Put them against the wall! They are dysfunctional, council house, dwelling benefit scrounging leeches!

Then raise the scarlet standard high.
Beneath its shade we'll live and die,
Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer,
We'll keep the red flag flying here.

etc

 

[AlterEgo]

I agree that the head of state should be accountable and should also not have absolute power, but my concern is with a system whereby harm is done because the head of state is selected by populism, not merit. Otherwise, the outcome is the same: a bad head of state who makes bad decisions (and hence my comment that a system change is ultimately pointless, as it doesn't fix the underlying problem).

What decisions do you actually think a head of state makes? They make extremely few decisions in a constitutional presidency with prime minister as head of government. As I have explained three times now, in this system (the most common in Western democracies), a president is a sort of elected monarch. The Queen makes very few decisions of her own; she simply signs bills into law, dismisses or recalls parliament, acts as an international ambassador, and so on.

It's not so simple to say, "well, we can vote them out". Our current situation with party politics is showing that we're "forced" to vote for one party because the others are all "unelectable".

The problem with our situation is actually first past the post, which results in wasted votes, not in actually the concept of voting.

In any case, unelectable parties are usually the result of dumb or unpopular policies, or internal wrangling. With a president, you'd vote for an individual. They don't have any policies, because they don't head the government. They don't have internal wrangling, as they're not a party. It's a totally different kettle of fish to electing a government.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Precisely which monarch has 'absolute power'?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I wonder if the monarch would have an 8 foot stone tablet made and fail to declare it in their expenses .............

I think you misunderstood my post. I was illustrating that parliamentary government was better than absolute monarchy, because the poster I was responding to appeared apathetic about the concept of elected leaders.

PS: the monarch doesn't *have* to submit expenses for public scrutiny, for anything. In any case, the Labour Party wasn't expensing the tablet but simply was supposed to declare that they had spent money on it.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Put them against the wall! They are dysfunctional, council house, dwelling benefit scrounging leeches!

Then raise the scarlet standard high.
Beneath its shade we'll live and die,
Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer,
We'll keep the red flag flying here.

etc

Uncle Joe Stalin of "scarlet standard" fame was not exactly berift of the odd dacha or two.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Put them against the wall! They are dysfunctional, council house, dwelling benefit scrounging leeches!

But that would mean a sudden drop in the numbers available to appear on "The Jeremy Kyle Show"....:cry:

 

[DynamicSpirit]

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?

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

I think it's more subtle than that. Democracy does motivate Governments to spend time rubbishing the opposition - which is a disadvantage. But of course in the case of a Government that's hugely outweighed by the advantage that democracy means the Government is also motivated to Govern in the interests of its citizens and pay attention to their concerns when formulating policy. On balance, that would appear to make representative democracy a good way of choosing a Government.

If you elected what is basically a ceremonial head of state, then you get those same disadvantages, but since our monarchy has basically no real powers to set any policies, there is no corresponding benefit. That suggests that electing a ceremonial head of state might not be such a good thing.

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?

I don't think we know that. I'm guessing your basis for making that statement is that Charles has in the past expressed political views that, in the context of the UK system, would be inappropriate for a King to express. But Charles wasn't King at the time. Lots of people - probably most of the population - are able to adjust their behaviour to match the responsibilities they have at the time. Who's to say Charles won't do that, and would not act appropriately if/when he is King? Seems a bit of an unwarranted assumption about his character.

 

[AlterEgo]

I think it's more subtle than that. Democracy does motivate Governments to spend time rubbishing the opposition - which is a disadvantage. But of course in the case of a Government that's hugely outweighed by the advantage that democracy means the Government is also motivated to Govern in the interests of its citizens and pay attention to their concerns when formulating policy. On balance, that would appear to make representative democracy a good way of choosing a Government.

If you elected what is basically a ceremonial head of state, then you get those same disadvantages, but since our monarchy has basically no real powers to set any policies, there is no corresponding benefit.

Only if you think that moving to a fairer, more egalitarian, and more transparent system equates to "no benefit".

Certainly, there will be no *practical* benefit, but I am arguing for change which will percolate the whole of society and change how things work in a much less direct way. No monarch means no aristocracy, no more deference. I'd change the honours system too while I was at it.

I don't think we know that. I'm guessing your basis for making that statement is that Charles has expressed political views that, in the context of the UK system, would be inappropriate for a King to express. But Charles wasn't King at the time. Lots of people - probably most of the population - are able to adjust their behaviour to match the responsibilities they have at the time. Who's to say Charles won't do that, and would not act appropriately if/when he is King? Seems a bit of an unwarranted assumption about his character.

He has already fatally compromised his position by letting his political views become known. His mother was a great deal more guarded.

 

[Trog]

Charles will be a poor king. How are you going to get rid of him?

If you can tell the future you should get yourself down to the bookies pronto.

Edward the Seventh was a poor prospect as Prince of Wales but did well as King, how do you know that getting the top job may not cause a similar change in Charles. If nothing else being kept busy doing main stream ruling, may divert him from some of his more way out interests.

 

[AlterEgo]

If you can tell the future you should get yourself down to the bookies pronto.

Edward the Seventh was a poor prospect as Prince of Wales but did well as King, how do you know that getting the top job may not cause a similar change in Charles. If nothing else being kept busy doing main stream ruling, may divert him from some of his more way out interests.

Would you vote for him?

 

[HSTEd]

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?

The Establishment will do for him just as it did for King Edward VIII

 

[AlterEgo]

The Establishment will do for him just as it did for King Edward VIII

Oh no, not "the Establishment" again. I forgot I was on the Internet!

 

[HSTEd]

Oh no, not "the Establishment" again. I forgot I was on the Internet!

Sorry, the Government, Church of England and Civil Service will do for him like it did for Edward VIII.
He will be convinced to immediately abdicate because of 'ill health' or for some other reason in favour of William V.
And all will be well.

Assuming he actually lives long enough which is open to question.

 

[AlterEgo]

Sorry, the Government, Church of England and Civil Service will do for him like it did for Edward VIII.
He will be convinced to immediately abdicate because of 'ill health' or for some other reason in favour of William V.
And all will be well.

Assuming he actually lives long enough which is open to question.

I don't get the impression William wants to be King. He seems quite happy in himself at the moment, with his young family and job.

 

[yorksrob]

The Establishment will do for him just as it did for King Edward VIII

Edward VIII was seen as a good prospect and very popular as Prince of Wales, yet turned out to be unsuitable as monarch.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Abolish the monarchy is a good idea, many fairer and more sensible ways of picking a head of state exist.

Abolish the UK?
Not until the nations want to seperate.

 

[PeterC]

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

Buck House and Windsor specifically belong to "the crown" along with a lot of other property that is managed by The Crown Estate and pays a hefty surplus back to the exchequer ater the Royals have their cut. It will be an interesting legal question about how much of this estate should revert to the Windsors.

 

[HSTEd]

Edward VIII was seen as a good prospect and very popular as Prince of Wales, yet turned out to be unsuitable as monarch.

And once it became clear he was unsuitable he was swiftly dealt with.

 

[yorksrob]

And once it became clear he was unsuitable he was swiftly dealt with.

I think the phrase was removed "out of harm's way" to the Bahamas.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

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

A bit harsh? William seems to be a reasonably competent royal (if such a thing can exist which is the point of the thread but seems to follow the example of his grandmother/great grandmother) and clearly isn't stupid

 

[Trog]

Would you vote for him?

I don't vote for anyone, to my view one of the big problems with democracy is that the sort of people who put themselves up for election are not the sort of people you want to lead you. Which is I admit a bit of a catch 22.

 

[DarloRich]

Edward VIII was seen as a good prospect and very popular as Prince of Wales, yet turned out to be unsuitable as monarch.

I think it was more his choice of wife that was the problem rather than his kingleyness

 

[northwichcat]

Buck House and Windsor specifically belong to "the crown" along with a lot of other property that is managed by The Crown Estate and pays a hefty surplus back to the exchequer ater the Royals have their cut. It will be an interesting legal question about how much of this estate should revert to the Windsors.

It also needs to be considered whether they can afford to keep the estates if they lose the government funding. Many of the Lords who had large estates could not as a result of them not having the level of power their ancestors had. The Lord of Frodsham had to sell his estate and the buyer was a French footballer who inherited the title as owner of the estate!

 

[ExRes]

Edward VIII was seen as a good prospect and very popular as Prince of Wales, yet turned out to be unsuitable as monarch.

It should also be remembered that he was widely known as a nazi sympathiser and had, allegedly, been lined up by Hitler to take the throne as a puppet monarch after the invasion of Britain, he was by no means seen as a good prospect by many and his sojourn in the Bahamas was simply to get him out of the way

Another thing that should be borne in mind, particularly today, is that he was also known for his racist views and, amusingly, that he and his wife were financially kept by the anti monarchist government of France, a country he was quite happy to see Hitler enslave

'unsuitable as a monarch' would seem to be an understatement

 

[ChiefPlanner]

It should also be remembered that he was widely known as a nazi sympathiser and had, allegedly, been lined up by Hitler to take the throne as a puppet monarch after the invasion of Britain, he was by no means seen as a good prospect by many and his sojourn in the Bahamas was simply to get him out of the way

Another thing that should be borne in mind, particularly today, is that he was also known for his racist views and, amusingly, that he and his wife were financially kept by the anti monarchist government of France, a country he was quite happy to see Hitler enslave

'unsuitable as a monarch' would seem to be an understatement

Very well said - we had a very fortunate "near miss" with that monarch. Several good books on this - thoguh if you want a sickening read , try Wallisi Simpsons ghosted book "The Heart has its reasons" - yeh - right.

He was at a very loose end for most of his life - on the QM2 last year there were interesting observations on the history tableaux through the ship - he used to go down and observe the 0630 staff presentation of the ships messenger / page boys and spend a quiet hour or so on the bridge after 2300 smoking his pipe and probably being a nuisance to the night watch.....

 

[DarloRich]

Uncle Joe Stalin of "scarlet standard" fame was not exactly berift of the odd dacha or two.

but they were granted by the adoring proletariat in admiration for his hard work in founding the socialist workers paradise where all men were able to own dacha, enjoy the benefits of a free society, holiday freely in Cuba and travel in Zil limousines

Not like the Germanic royal family in this country who stole precious resources and oppressed the natives throughout the world in order to feather their own nests while forcing the common man at home to toil in subservience to the evil bourgeoisie and used the corrupt capitalist system to keep people under the yoke of financial oppression and deny them their innate freedoms and rights.

or something

 

[Harbornite]

but they were granted by the adoring proletariat in admiration for his hard work in founding the socialist workers paradise where all men were able to own dacha, enjoy the benefits of a free society, holiday freely in Cuba and travel in Zil limousines

Not like the Germanic royal family in this country who stole precious resources and oppressed the natives throughout the world in order to feather their own nests while forcing the common man at home to toil in subservience to the evil bourgeoisie and used the corrupt capitalist system to keep people under the yoke of financial oppression and deny them their innate freedoms and rights.

or something

You're Corbyn and Paul claims his £5!

 

[Dave1987]

A bit harsh? William seems to be a reasonably competent royal (if such a thing can exist which is the point of the thread but seems to follow the example of his grandmother/great grandmother) and clearly isn't stupid

He hasn't quite learned the art of keeping his opinions to himself like the current Queen does. He has been asked before whether he will follow in the steps of his father or grandmother, he said his grandmother, yet he couldn't help but hint on his opinions on the EU referendum. Unless he can learn to realise we are a democracy and he will merely be the figurehead at the head of it then we may well head towards a republic in the future.

 

[DarloRich]

in honesty I don't have any issue with the Royals APART form having to pay for them. That really sticks in the craw when we are supposed to be on our uppers. Why cant they fund their own lavish lifestyle form their own resources?

 

[ExRes]

in honesty I don't have any issue with the Royals APART form having to pay for them. That really sticks in the craw when we are supposed to be on our uppers. Why cant they fund their own lavish lifestyle form their own resources?

The thing that needs to be understood though, is if the country chooses to replace the monarchy with something else, if it does and it chooses a President for example, then you, I and everyone else will still be paying for it

The French pay in excess of £100m per annum for their President and another £5m plus for the former holders of the post, it's not all about kicking out the monarchy and saving the cash, unless you want to do it on a budget and make the Prime Minister the figurehead as well, that would give the country some choices ...........