|
I'm agnostic about the Monarchy. My heart says we'd be a better society as a Republic.
My head says that, while you wouldn't devise a Constitutional Monarchy with a clean sheet of paper we've got one. At least in the time of the late Queen it seems to function well. I'm reminded by the legal blogger David Alan Green that it was not always so. The Abdication crisis had the potential to be terminal and it was arguably the war and George VI that recovered its position.
Let's see how Charles III shapes up. I suspect his may be a short reign and that William will have to pick up the reigns/pieces.
As ever one deterrent from a Republic as been the idea of previous PMs as President. Whether Thatcher, Blair or Johnson the name seemed a disincentive
|
|
I shall miss the Queen. I'm no royalist but, like many others, she has been the Queen for my entire life. Rest in peace.
|
|
|
|
We often vehemently disagree, but I think that's a fair and respectful comment.
I think this is why Queen Elizabeth II was so well respected the world over, because of how she conducted herself throughout her life. Very few world leaders in history could be said to be held in such high regard, including by republicans and enemies of this nation.
Hopefully the current set of world 'leaders' and others amongst the great and the good might reflect on that and her accomplishments, so they might strive to serve their nations and the world at large in a more responsible and dutiful way.
|
|
|
.... one deterrent from a Republic has been the idea of previous PMs as President. Whether Thatcher, Blair or Johnson the name seemed a disincentive.
I'm old enough to remember visiting neighbours across the road to watch the coronation on their new TV as a teenager. Also old Queen Mary. Tonight's TV claimed that 94% of people had known no other monarch, so I seem to be in a shrinking minority. Although monarchies are becoming steadily more old-fashioned, they often seem to be more stable than republics. I boggle a bit at the idea of King Boris ....
|
|
Personally I'm a republican but I bear the royal family no ill will. I accept the Queen did a lot of good and I suspect that I'm one of the few people that had a lot of time for Prince Phillip mainly due to the way he treated my wife when she was a girl guide. I feel sorry for the family's loss.
But mostly I'm a couldn't give a f***ist. I'd like a republic along the lines of Germany or France but I'm not going to do anything about it.
|
|
I had great respect for the queen even though I find monarchy an archaic concept and hence not fit for the modern world.
I guess only way to abolish monarchy is via referendum but that's not going to happen anytime soon.
|
I guess only way to abolish monarchy is via referendum but that's not going to happen anytime soon.
You are probably right, but there is limited evidence that referendums lead to the best outcome. Brexit ? probably not. Scottish devolution ? probably yes. But the bulk of the population, while happy to vote on their opinion, usually can't work out where their decision might lead.
|
|
Best outcome is a relative term, as best as per A's opinion could be worst as per B's opinion.
Referendum is fine as long as there is a clear winner like 80-20 or 70-30. Problem happens with 52-48 type outcome because it shows no side has clear majority.
A referendum to abolish monarchy may only happen when there is enough sentiment to sway the needle on either side. At this very moment pro-monarchy camp will easily win. However, in 10-20 years time, when UK's demography has major shift, it can be very different result.
Various stats show support for monarchy is higher in older population where as lower in younger and immigrant generation (as majority of countries in the world king/queen only exists in fairytale and history books).
|
Various stats show support for monarchy is higher in older population where as lower in younger and immigrant generation ...
I suspect that may have nearly always been the case. But if we agree that any nation has to have a figurehead, the question is whether that person should be chosen somehow, or just produced automatically, as it were. The UK's arrangement is that politicians do the realpolitik while the figurehead provides the ceremony and glad-handing. It does avoid quite a bit of hassle, but may cost a bit more.
|
It does avoid quite a bit of hassle, but may cost a bit more.
But does it even cost anything? How many people come to the UK due visit due to fact we have all the history and still have a royal family? How many people visit from overseas hoping to have seen the Queen at Buckingham Palace and how much money/tax revenue will they have paid?
|
It does avoid quite a bit of hassle, but may cost a bit more.
But does it even cost anything? How many people come to the UK due visit due to fact we have all the history and still have a royal family? How many people visit from overseas hoping to have seen the Queen at Buckingham Palace and how much money/tax revenue will they have paid?
Quite apart from its stabilising influence, it is probably impossible to quantify the financial benefit of the monarchy to the UK. It's a bit like an entertaining film series with a budget of 10 million and a box office take of 100 million. The contribution of all the tourism and memorabilia expenditure, plus the enormous amount of unquantifiable pleasure given to hundreds of thousands of people must surely outweigh the cost of the civil list. It'd be really boring to be like Switzerland with no head of state, and even worse to have the likes of Johnson or Corbyn as president.
|
|
And What Do You Do?: What the royal family don't want you to know
www.amazon.co.uk/What-Do-You-royal-family/dp/17859...6
|
|
I don't think many people would expect him to. Any anyway, if the law had not specified this the assets would have been placed in a family trust anyway and so exempt from inheritance tax.
|
|
All the inheritance tax could have helped fund the government's policy on freezing the price cap on energy.
|
|
I am sure if people know rules are different for royals, then many supporters would turn into republicans. Most people assume they are figurative and they cost very little to maintain (which is not necessarily the case).
In last week I learnt more about royal family (than knowledge of several years in the past combined) and leaning further and further on republican site.
I see the 2 frequent arguments in support of monarchy but neither holds water.
1. They bring tourists to UK.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Tourism_rankings
How many of those countries ahead of UK has monarchy? Tourists visit to see royal palaces, not actual royals (99.99% of them never meet any royals anyway). They'd still visit UK if royalty is removed.
2. We don't need BoJo or Blair as president/head of state etc.
If people get elected by majority (even when I don't like them) I have no issue. The benefit of elected head of state is that if they are no good, they can be removed. Whereas a bad royal stays bad for ever with no way to remove him/her.
|
1. They bring tourists to UK.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Tourism_rankings
How many of those countries ahead of UK has monarchy? Tourists visit to see royal palaces, not actual royals (99.99% of them never meet any royals anyway). They'd still visit UK if royalty is removed.
How do those figures show that people dont come to the UK due to the Royal Family? Just because the UK is not the most visited country in the world does nor mean the Royal Familiys presence does not encourage people to visit.
As for the PM becoming head of state instead - would you not want a sperate vote for that? In the UK we vvote for the party, not the person.
Edited by alan1302 on 15/09/2022 at 13:11
|
How do those figures show that people dont come to the UK due to the Royal Family? Just because the UK is not the most visited country in the world does nor mean the Royal Familiys presence does not encourage people to visit.
It is hard to prove exactly how many tourists visit UK for royal family only. Since France attracts most number of tourists and does not have a royal family, it can be argued other contributory factors influence more than presence of a royal family.
I am not aware of any impartial research exactly how much royal family costs versus how much revenue they bring exclusively for their presence.
|
|
I think there are other considerations like hosting banquets during trade talks and during foreign head of state visits that probably contribute to the income the royal family generate for the country. Of course it's difficult to quantify though.
|
|
<< I am sure if people know rules are different for royals, then many supporters would turn into republicans. >>
Rules are different for various others too. We have several retired prime ministers (6 I think) each of whom gets (or at least is entitled to) £115K a year for life. Perhaps less than royal funds, but worth questioning when most of them do pretty well on the after-dinner speaking merry-go-round.
There is too much money sloshing around in the professional sport arena, much of which escapes taxation by going offshore. Most royals have to run their households like any other business, tho you might argue there are too many flunkeys - but that helps to reduce unemployment marginally :-)
|
|
Former prime ministers getting fat salary and protection is common in most countries. They create few enemies during the time in power and hence they need protection when they are no longer in power.
Anyone can become a PM or President - not that everyone wants to be or have the competency, capacity to be one - but in theory, it is possible.
This is a big difference with monarchy. There is no meritocracy in the system - which is affront to democracy and equality.
Monarchy is tied with royal family - which is hereditary and does not take account of competency or selection by people.
Whether head of state is King/queen or President - it is all just semantics. We can say all other countries also have monarchs but they are called presidents. It is not the title, but the selection process what matters.
If you get a numpty like Trump as president, there is a way to remove him after few years.
Now imagine getting a king like that and we are stuck for life!
|
|
The US president takes the role of the king in the 13 states before the revolution, i.e. having quasi-absolute power subject to some degree of control by the elected representatives. The monarchy has adapted over the years such that the reigning monarch has limited powers. BUT, the armed forces owe their allegiance to the monarch rather than the prime minister which some would consider a good thing.
Other states such as France and Turkey have a head of state with similar powers to the US president, which can lead to somewhat autocratic governments, with the danger of nepotism.
An alternative is to have a figure-head head of state, elected by the people, or the elected representatives, with no powers, no authority and often little respect. I see no real difference between the two types of figure-heads and I doubt the relative costs would be much different.
|
|
The monarchy has adapted over the years such that the reigning monarch has limited powers.
They get first sight of legislation and choose to opt out of its powers...
Edited by groaver on 16/09/2022 at 18:18
|
Monarchy is tied with royal family - which is hereditary and does not take account of competency or selection by people.
If you get a numpty like Trump as president, there is a way to remove him after few years.
Those two statements are somewhat contradictory. If the people could be relied upon to select and vote for competent candidates, that would be OK. Certain recent events here and elsewhere suggest otherwise. All one can say afterwards is that we voted for what we got, and what a shame we have to wait those 5 years.
Elected presidents tend to be people who have pushed themselves forward on ambition, not necessarily a reliable formula. At least a monarchy is no longer that, and (especially for our new king) he has spent a lifetime being trained in how to do the 'job'.
|
|
I guess only way to abolish monarchy is via referendum but that's not going to happen anytime soon.
That at least is a simple binary question where the 'leave' campaign would be required to have a worked up proposal for a Republic.
Nonetheless it will be a cold day in hell before a UK government decides a question like that with a referendum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
