The Government says there's no money...but Gove says get a £60m yacht for the Queen?

Socialising and doing stuff all the time is fun. It beats going to college every day 9-5 then coming home playing games alone in your room then sleeping.

Where you don't get final say in your love life. Where every week you are going somewhere else to meet the locals and make a show. Every night you have to attend some function or another for somebody or some cause. You think it's having fun? You're probably the same sort of person that think sbeing an MP isn't much work.

Right. Just gunna stop you there.

Socialising? So you'd like to spend every day and night acting as a dutiful envoy of the UK, whether you like the people or not, no matter what mood you're in, conforming to a standard of behaviour required of you at all times. Day after day. You honestly think that is better than going to college, studying what you choose, socialising with whomever you choose and having total control over your life?

Well, better is very subjective, it just seems you really don't aprreciate what being the Head of State would mean.

Actually, it's pretty horrifying whoever is right out of you two. On one hand, we have a lazy, lazy Head of State. On the other, we have modern day slavery on our hands (working without having the option to opt out!). Either way, I find it abhorrent and tragic.

Yes. I am the head of state I have a legacy, I am a somebody not just some no name loser.

They have a choice. Once they make that choice the expectation is ridiculously high.

Democracy is letting The People decide how hard they want their Head of State to work.

Ridiculously high by whose standards? Their own. The only people who regulate how hard they work is themselves.

That is not Democracy.

Democracy is letting The People decide how hard they want their Head of State to work.

There is no accountability in the system.

Wasn't the definition of democracy last time I checked.

Other parts of the Monarchy, members of the Civil Service and Government etc

We have the Parliment for Democracy, the Roayl family would not be the Royal Family if they were held accoutnable in the same way MP's are. But they are held accountable by public opinion and the government.

OAFC as in Paul Dickov's Gods, right????

The Democratic issue isn't as simple as you might think. The Head of State has no power at all. This creates a power vacuum, which has to be filled. Where do you suppose the power goes to? Technically Parliament, but since Parliament is basically controlled by a single person, it goes to the Prime Minister. The PM is therefore both Head of Government and de facto Head of State. Now, this combination works OK in America, because the Executive is only 1/3 of the Government. They have a separate, and thus strong Legislature, and the Judicial system is much stronger than ours due to their codified Constitution.

We have a very, very weak Legislature, and the Judiciary can't strike down Laws. The PM has far, far too much power in this country. Look at Iraq. If we had a proper Head of State, Blair certainly wouldn't have been able to rush in as he did: there would have had to have been a much longer phase of consideration.

I don't want a Royal family, I want an elected President if you hadn't noticed that!

I acknowledge that Democracy is not the best way to run everything: elected Doctors would be a nonsense, for instance (although heredity Doctors would be even worse!! )

Parliament (which is a weak, weak body) is Democratic.
The Judiciary and Civil Service is Meritocratic.
The Monarchy is Aristocratic. I see no place for Aristocracy in the modern world.

Oh please. This is a drop in the ocean compared to the Olympics or the benifits bill. The Diamond Jubilee isn't something that happens everyday, when was the last one?

Yes, yes indeed

However, hopefully without sounding arrogant I do have an offer for Law at Cambridge so don't worry, I do understand the meaning of democracy!

And? Who gives a ****? I cannot stand snivelling royalists - they don't give a **** about you, so celebrating them makes you look like a tit.

Well I do. A Head of State any other way would be internally political, which is not something we want. A Head of State should represent the country on the international stage, they shouldn;t have anything to do with internal politics, and no matter how you try to frame it, an elected President would. I believe a Monarchy is a good way to have a Head of State totally independant of intrnal Politics, it also allows us closer relations to a great many countries whom also have Monarchies, it allows us to fill various diplomatic positions with people who were pretty much raised to do the job, the Monarchy is well respected all over the Globe. The list of pro's goes on and on.

Well I do. A Head of State any other way would be internally political, which is not something we want. A Head of State should represent the country on the international stage, they shouldn;t have anything to do with internal politics, and no matter how you try to frame it, an elected President would. I believe a Monarchy is a good way to have a Head of State totally independant of intrnal Politics, it also allows us closer relations to a great many countries whom also have Monarchies, it allows us to fill various diplomatic positions with people who were pretty much raised to do the job, the Monarchy is well respected all over the Globe. The list of pro's goes on and on.

At least it's not a Daily Mail link!

*come into thread*
*see link to The Guardian*
*leave thread*

Well, there is no proof that you would be able to keep up with her daily routine and pressures. I for one am glad it is impossible for you to EVER find out

Are you serious? You're not serious. Are you?

I think if you find shaking people's hands strenuous you should see a GP.