(Original post by gladders)
My attachment to the monarchy is not irrational. Indeed I started out as a die-hard republican, then I studied the subject seriously and made a substantive about-face.
We'll have to see, but even if the monarchy takes a slight knock, I think it can survive.
I, personally, weren't, as I understood the hard work they do.
Well this particular problem is more to do with the power of declaring war not being with Parliament - but you don't need to abolish the monarchy to remedy this. For myself, I would support placing the power in Parliament as long as the law that would make this so mad the definition of armed conflict sufficiently broad to prevent it being toothless.
Can you imagine elected Doctors or mathematicians? Equally absurd!
This has been explained many times before - the point of the hereditary system is that it is a method by which the occupier attains the position through uncorrupt means. The Queen, born into the role, has nobody to thank for attaining it, nobody to keep sweet to maintain it, and nobody to fight or provoke to keep it.
Additionally the long tenure in the position ensures a continually growing and improving expertise and natural talent for the role, which can only be fair-to-middling at best with an elected politician.
They've taken the £40m, added the Duchies for no reason at all
, and completely made up a security figure, which is irrelevant as it would remain the same under a president.
Agreed, though republicans tend to be the worse informed about it
I have to disagree, sorry. Would you elected judges? What is your position on elected police chiefs?
So your criticism that 'the Queen does nothing' was for what purpose?
As a politician, how would this be ensured?
So not neutral at all then? And what if the president and PM are of the same party? What if they're of a differing party and end up clashing over pointless issues?
I really, really do not see this happening at all.