The Royal Family

[Rolta]

9 hours ago, sidcow said:

It's almost like there's no full stop in there (that's going to be my excuse) 

But yeah, that's what that flavour of countries do. I'm sure other countries do other things. I'm not sure we dump Royalty and all public celebrations and cost stops. 

Don't France do it? Trump famously went a few years ago and said he wanted one for the USA. Spain also do something with their air force. They do a kind of air parade in Madrid.

[bickster]

9 hours ago, sidcow said:

So yeah. Bastille Day may be a lot cheaper to hold but I doubt it's attracting tens of thousands of paying tourists

It absolutely does… every year. There's probably 5k tourists on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice alone. We always used to time our trips there to coincide with Bastille Day as did many others

[VillaJ100]

The biggest reason to support the monarchy in my opinion is otherwise you'd have to trust the public or worse the government to elect the head of state, so we'd probably have President Olly Murs (if left to the public) or President Murdoch (if left to the government). There's also not an insignificant chance someone like William could run for president and win (that actually happened in Bulgaria)

[Seat68]

Just now, VillaJ100 said:

The biggest reason to support the monarchy in my opinion is otherwise you'd have to trust the public or worse the government to elect the head of state, so we'd probably have President Olly Murs (if left to the public) or President Murdoch (if left to the government). There's also not an insignificant chance someone like William could run for president and win (that actually happened in Bulgaria)

If we have a democratically elected government, with a Prime Minister, is there a need for a head of state? Charles doesn’t really have any powers, what he has are relatively ceremonial. 

[Mic09]

3 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

If we have a democratically elected government, with a Prime Minister, is there a need for a head of state? Charles doesn’t really have any powers, what he has are relatively ceremonial. 

Depends what system UK (no longer a United "Kingdom" in that case?) Would go for.

Polish president holds little power. French president holds more power.

You'd also probably need a codified constitution.

No change is coming. Yeah they own land and have parades. And the idea of a "monarch" is abstract and grotesque.

But I don't get the hate for the idea of it. It just a ceremonial gig. Paid partially for tax payer (so are presidents) but also bringing its own revenue in. I bet if we changed to a presidential model, we'd have a parade to celebrate the day with thousands of military and public services involved and people on the streets. Not much would really change. 

 

[mjmooney]

8 hours ago, Chindie said:

But Elizabeth apparently loved him

They were, of course, cousins. 

[VillaJ100]

1 minute ago, Mic09 said:

Depends what system UK (no longer a United "Kingdom" in that case?) Would go for.

Polish president holds little power. French president holds more power.

You'd also probably need a codified constitution.

No change is coming. Yeah they own land and have parades. And the idea of a "monarch" is abstract and grotesque.

But I don't get the hate for the idea of it. It just a ceremonial gig. Paid partially for tax payer (so are presidents) but also bringing its own revenue in. I bet if we changed to a presidential model, we'd have a parade to celebrate the day with thousands of military and public services involved and people on the streets. Not much would really change. 

 

I pretty much agree. Also the idea of like every tinpot dictator or modern country looking on as the King in the 1000 year old cathedral with the 1000 year old rituals is wrapped in some solid spun gold cloth that's older than most of the countries in the world, it's hilarious and grotesque as you say but you can't buy that sort of history and you know these arseholes like Putin would do anything for that sort of legacy and continuity, even the USA would which is why they appear to love the royal family so much. 

[Seat68]

Doesn’t answer why we would need a head of state. 

[Mic09]

1 hour ago, Seat68 said:

Doesn’t answer why we would need a head of state. 

There is an argument that without a codified constitution the UK prime minister is the most powerful leader in the western world. 

[choffer]

 

[Seat68]

21 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

There is an argument that without a codified constitution the UK prime minister is the most powerful leader in the western world. 

Well isn’t it government already that has the power, not a single person. The king doesn’t have power so removing the King wouldn’t change anything. 

[tonyh29]

[UpTheVilla26]

The more I see Camilla, the more I'm convinced she actually died years ago and somehow her corpse is being controlled by some high-tech puppetry. 

[bickster]

2 hours ago, VillaJ100 said:

The biggest reason to support the monarchy in my opinion is otherwise you'd have to trust the public or worse the government to elect the head of state, so we'd probably have President Olly Murs (if left to the public) or President Murdoch (if left to the government). There's also not an insignificant chance someone like William could run for president and win (that actually happened in Bulgaria)

The idea that democracy is bad because it might elect people you don’t like is laughably stupid

Also, Ukraine elected a comedian as president now he’s considered one of the best leaders of a country in the world right now.

[Davkaus]

2 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

Well isn’t it government already that has the power, not a single person. The king doesn’t have power so removing the King wouldn’t change anything. 

Indeed. I'd have thought the complete lack of consequences for the unlawful prorogation and lying to the queen should have ended any discussions about whether the monarch actually provides any some of safeguard against the government.

They wave and rubberstamp things in exchange for a fancy hat.

[MakemineVanilla]

I suppose ultimately we would have to decide which President we would have voted for, given the opportunity:

Thatcher: combined modesty with the common touch?

Blair: Sincere pacifist, humanitarian and Christian?

Brown: Tactful, elegant and sophisticated?

Cameron: Descended from a royal bastard so he didn't qualify.

May: Best sartorial taste since Bet Lynch?

Boris: Subtle, graceful, and honest as the day is long.

Truss: Who was she, again?

Sunak: Great British patriot with unimpeachable loyalty to the country, when he's not in America.

 

[Davkaus]

I guess the fundamental question is whether there'd value in some of the PM's powers being curtailed and held by another elected head of state rather than the monarch acting as a puppet for a de-facto combined PM and President, and whether the head of state should actually be directly elected rather than being the current flavour of the month on the tory leader conveyor belt.

If we sacked off the royalty and continued exactly as we are without them, I'm not sure there'd be any noticeable difference other than a different host for our state visits, but would it be an excuse to change things for the better in some way?

[VillaJ100]

17 minutes ago, bickster said:

The idea that democracy is bad because it might elect people you don’t like is laughably stupid

True democracy isn't bad. I'd argue FPTP and the fact an elected government can just choose the prime minister as they think it gives them some sort of remit is terrible. We're already on our second unelected prime minister in this government term alone. 

Also, let's face it most of the public are gullible, manipulatable idiots. Which is probably due to long term government policy to be honest but it means I wouldn't trust them to vote in a head of state. If you think things are bad now depending on who is voted in things could get way worse. Universal suffrage is a noble but thinking about it is bit of a daft idea, meaning you get to vote just because you were born in a certain place and reached a certain age. 

Edited May 8, 2023 by VillaJ100

[Rds1983]

3 hours ago, Mic09 said:

There is an argument that without a codified constitution the UK prime minister is the most powerful leader in the western world. 

There's an argument that the UK doesn't need a fully codified constitution as it is better to have various legislation (including Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, Human Rights Act etc) designed by politicians/law makers and then have the Judiciary actually confirm how the law should actually work and have the precedent legally binding. This would remove issues such as the 2nd Amendment in the USA.

Nor saying I agree with this as there's clearly issues with both options but just highlighting that a written constitution isn't necessarily as good as some people suggest.

Getting back on topic to Royalty. The Monarch doesn't really have any official say in the laws of the country.

[markavfc40]

Steph McGovern spoke for a lot of people here.

eph