Well, as a firm monarchist, I hope I can tell you that you won't get hatred from me as long as the debate is respectful
Having an unelected Head of State is a perfectly democratic thing to do as long as it's something the people genuinely consent to. And seeing as a) support for a republic is low, and b) there are no major republican parties, it should be evident that it's freely consented to.
Moreover, having an unelected state is not an unusual thing. There are plenty of republics who have something similar. Germany and Italy, for example, don't have elected Presidents but have their own parliaments choose them.
The important determinant is what kind of role the office has in a constitution: a ceremonial role, like ours, can be unelected and not impinge on a country's democratic credentials; an executive office though, like the US President, would require it to be a directly elected position.
I agree with this - the tourism argument is silly for both sides. However, it should still be noted that the monarchy
is a huge draw to visitors. The difference is that quantifying what percentage of their money is spent by dint of their attraction to the monarchy. That's difficult, as some of the most popular things are actually free at the point of delivery, such as standing outside Buckingham Palace to glimpse the Queen.
As for Versailles, I don't think that's a fair equation with what the UK has, as Versailles is really the French equivalent of Hampton Court Palace, with a metric ton of bells and whistles added on. Seriously, Versailles is
gorgeous, and enormous. Buckingham Palace is a functional, drab, and ugly building. Its true equivalent is the residence of the French President, the Palais d'Elysee, and nobody notices that place.
But yeah, it matters little either way, although I do notice some republicans, in an attempt to undermine the argument of this sort that some monarchists make, over-egg the tourism attractions of a republic.
How so? I am not saying you're wrong here, but you've simply made an assertion that amounts to 'I just don't like your answer'. It would be good to get some elaboration.
Not billions. Around £40 million, roundabouts. The flaw in your logic is assuming that that sum of money is something that goes straight into the Queen's pocket. It doesn't. It's the basic cost for the operation of the office of Head of State in this country. It pays, not for the Queen's jollies, but for building maintenance, travel, staff salaries and pensions, training, food and drink, electricity, uniform repair, correspondence and State functions.
All countries have an office that does these things - whether a monarch or a president, and it costs a fair sum. The cost of ours isn't that much different from, say, the German President.
The Queen has quite a clear role in State ceremony, and also in government. She still exercises considerable Royal Prerogatives
on the advice of the Government. The execution of most of these are near-automatically granted routinely, because we are fortunate enough to live at present in a constitutional state and with ministers that work within the constitution. But they could be abused in the wrong hands, so it makes eminent sense to put them formally into the hands of the one person in the land who, really, it would be considered utterly unacceptable to use for her own purposes. The Prerogative is a means of denying a sense of entitlement to a power, which would risk being cultivated if such a power were bestowed in a Secretary of State.
I think you overstate your case there. Yes, I imagine it's a role the royals dread doing, but they stick to it out of a real sense of duty. But the fact is, there are tons of occupations that are psychologically damaging and still essential for society. *shrug*
You could say the same thing about the Prime Minister and Downing Street. Its purpose isn't to be a tourist trap, although I do recognise some monarchists do rely on that argument a bit too readily.
Not really. If you've read Walter Bagehot's
The English Constitution, you would know he mentions the three key rights of the Sovereign - the right to be informed, to encourage and to warn. This entails, and it's been recognised by all ministers and constitutional scholars since the Victorian Age, that the Crown has the right to be as frank with ministers as it likes
in private as long as it is scrupulously impartial
in public. Furthermore, ministers have the absolute right to ignore or disagree with the Crown, and can threaten them with resignation and scandal if they feel the monarch is being truculent. All monarchs, however, know their rights only go that far and they could never force the issue, as it would be the end of the monarchy.
In short, a minister who is persuaded by the monarch can only be persuaded by a good argument, and if they are, then that minister takes on the responsibility for it. If they ignore that idea, then again, the minister takes responsibility for it.
Quite so, and there are plenty of functioning presidencies out there. But they do run some risks - firstly, in a directly elected president, the candidate has to get publicity and support in order to be elected. That entails doing and promising favours in return for money and support. Therefore, they could be beholden to someone else as favours for their victory.
Secondly, before they entered private life, they had private interests, and as they are only temporary in that post, they may be tempted to use their time to steer the ship of state to a certain advantage. Heed the last two German presidents and the scandals that erupted there a few years ago.
The monarch, at least, has the job by inheritance, which is arguably the most incorruptible and impartial means of appointment possible. They owe their position to nobody, have nobody they need to butter up to, and will be there long after the current flock of ministers are gone, and so hold a longer-term view. As a family, with a long line behind them, there's also a built-in concern to ensure the office is passed on intact as much as possible to the next holder.
And even if these differences weren't there, and Presidents were paragons of virtue, all you're demonstrated is that they're no worse than our monarchy - not outstandingly better.
Not really. In Germany and Ireland, the counsel that the President gives the PM is still confidential, in an attempt to preserve the public impartiality of the office.
No, we're not. We are equal before the law, this is true, and the monarch is a powerful reminder of that. The Prime Minister, the most powerful official in the country, still has to go weekly and report on his work to his formal constitutional superior. He remains in full control of the ship of state, but here, before him, is someone who has been there for decades, and will be there for years after he's gone, with incredible knowledge, experience, and skill.
Well, for the reasons I have put above, but also because
the monarchy is fun. It makes this country unique, and we have a living, breathing link to this country's past and origins. It's an enormously powerful tool for national cohesion but also in helping reconcile people to change - a social constant in a changing world.
Vivat! Vivat Regina! Well, not to put too fine a point on it, he was elected, and by the time he left office it was too late to undo the damage he did. But yes, it is a poor argument.
Edward, Andrew and children are not 'hangers on' as they do not receive public funds.
Why? Telling everyone they're equal is not the same as it being true. I'd rather we spend more time doing rather than tinkering in such a way. Look at America - a republic, but with some of the worst inequality, racism, sexism and injustice in the West, while the kingdoms of Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Holland, to name a few, are paragons of social democracy. I know which I would prefer.
PR bull****? Dude, everyone and his cat has a PR department these days, and I don't understand why people begrudge the monarchy having what everyone else has. Republicanism is in a poor state because the arguments put forward by republicans tend to be quite unpersuasive, and miss the mark enormously. Take your point about 'we are all equal'. We're not. I'd love everyone to be, but people know that removing the monarchy wouldn't change anything, and would rather we keep something actually interesting and glamorous than tear down yet another institution for politicians to occupy.