What does good does the Monarchy really do ?

British India, an exercise in colonialism and blunt racism rolled into one. The fact that the Queen is our HoS does not reduce any aggression or dislike felt towards us by nations we have fought with or otherwise wronged in the past. The nation that oppressed its people is still that same nation whether Lizzie is on the throne or 'President Blair' (ugh) is on the platform.

The question I will put to you is: why is a commoner any less fit to be head of state than a Windsor? If we must have a ceremonial leader (for argument's sake), why not allow the people to choose who it is?

That supports my view, if anything. People don't hold Lizzy personally accountable for it, and no-one associates her personally with colonial suppression. And it'd be unreasonable to as she indeed had very little to do with it.

No countries that I'm aware of has an elected ceremonial leader who is actually treated as a big deal. We either keep Lizzy or don't have one in place of her. Why must we have a ceremonial position?

HM is head of the Commonwealth which is a weird celebration of our colonial exploits, so she is not entirely removed from this association. She has largely overseen the Empire's decline though, I accept that. I don't favour a ceremonial position at all but I was arguing on the basis that if we had to have one, I'd want them elected.

My view has been that our head of state should be chosen on the basis of merit, and that we shouldn't respect titles given to those who inherited them.

2. Do you think he is popular with those he offends? How is our popularity in the Middle East?

3. He was head of the CoE which didn't fancy its leader marrying a divorcée, I suspect that has more to do with it. Doesn't stop the man being demonised even now.

4. The post being elected offers several things. It makes the position of head of state open to every British citizen rather than an exclusive family.

It makes the person in this position accountable to the electorate.

It makes the public more involved in how their country is run and/or represented.

The Royals may be very popular in the USA, but note how there is no appetite there for an unelected President.

5. Tell me, what taxing things does the Queen do for her life of privilege and luxury? Hosting a banquet is one, cutting ribbons another, shaking hands and waving a third. The average person would give a lot for that kind of 'work'.

6. If a position you wanted was denied to you because of nepotism you'd be fine with it?

7. The most popular stance on the monarchy is actually ambivalence, with support for and against roughly equal. There is only one notable republican newspaper and no republican leaning TV coverage, hardly a balanced media.

You only have to watch the BBC whenever it reports royal news, it's less reporting and more sycophantic garbage. It is not a matter of trust, it's a matter of people being given a one-sided viewpoint their whole lives.

8. Wrong, we had an SNP politician at last year's Republic annual meeting who said they were opposed to the monarchy since it was a symbol of British nationalism, but they couldn't openly oppose it because it would cost them Yes votes from undecideds in the referendum. Besides, there are several 'under the radar' Labour MPs and more outspoken ones like Dennis Skinner.

9. Our numbers were limited by the size of location we were allocated. Still, why would foreign news give us the time of day if we were so insignificant?

Say what you want about me, I at least have the conviction to go out and demonstrate in support of something I'm passionate about.

Not easy when you are accused of being 'anti British' by morons in the street but there we are.

HM is head of the Commonwealth which is a weird celebration of our colonial exploits, so she is not entirely removed from this association.

She has largely overseen the Empire's decline though, I accept that. I don't favour a ceremonial position at all but I was arguing on the basis that if we had to have one, I'd want them elected.

Apparently the Queen pays £1362 in council tax for Buckingham Palace, and the government pays for repairs.

An elected head of state would be less problematic. Having a Queen descended from an Emperor of India or from Plantagenet kings who conquered Ireland as our head of state merely because of her father being a king has a huge damaging effect on the image of the UK.

No, that's your personal slant, and another revelation of your bias.

OK the Commonwealth isn't neo-colonial, what is it then?

That make doesn't sense.
Witty!

An elected position can be ceremonial, too: look at Ireland. What exactly are you after here? keeping the same job but electing it, or do you want the position to have executive power, like France or the US?

If we did the latter, I would agree it must be elected, but it's a proposal neither popular nor realistic. If you mean electing the present ceremonial role, than I can only say that's an enormous waste of time.

I'm a staunch republican and I get a lot of hatred from the vast majority of people when I say that I am - they seem to think I'm attacking our national values or something. What I would really like to know if you are a monarchist what good do you think they have done our country ? because I can't think of anything, but then again I'm biased

By adding pittance? Why? Why not expect the same of the Prime Minister, or my grandad who was working at the time?

At the end of the day, such an act would have been a political one, and would have been harmful.

Because our beloved Queen is a figurehead and source of inspiration in difficult times, and more sympathetic to the public than any elected politician could hope to aspire to be. It would be a symbol of HM recognising the problems her people were facing. No Three Day Week at the Palace I presume? The PM, or your grandad for that matter, were nowhere near as wealthy as HM (unless I am mistaken?). Doing real jobs may also be a factor.

I dunno, is our popularity there because of the monarchy or because of how our elected officials offended the people there?

But the Queen is loved worldwide right? Why would jihadists want to attack a country with Lizzie Windsor in it? If politicians are so disastrous for PR that the Royals make no difference (and note Prince Andrew's recent scandals in the US working the opposite way), what is the point of using them as a PR tool?

Stanley Baldwin, the Prime Minister, constitutionally advised him that he had two options: marry and abdicate, or stay as King as ditch the divorcée. That's the long and short of it.

So if he married her and stayed King they'd have done what?

Big deal. I know that in actual fact it'll be open only to the select few who have money and contacts to become remotely electable.

Not if you set aside funds for people with sufficient popularity to run. In the age of the Internet this popularity wouldn't be difficult to build.

Not necessarily. If they intend to stand down, they won't particularly care. If they are seeking re-election, that merely indicates political preference for left or right, not necessarily opinions on their conduct. And the idea that you have to be elected to be accountable is just hilarious.

Which is why you make it possible for particularly incompetent and/or otherwise unpopular figures to be removed from office ahead of re-election. Also, the Tory back-stabbing of Lady Thatcher shows that a party can do this themselves if they think the leader is harmful to their election prospects. Though for ceremonial positions where the President is supposed to be apolitical this does not apply.

Nope. There's something you should be aware of called electoral fatigue. And how are elections for police commissioners and free hospitals going, by the way?

Police commissioner elections are comparable to elections for head of state, got it.

That's irrelevant. You insisted that the monarchy is popular because of some conspiracy among the press to shut out republican debate in this country, which is patently false.

It is part accusing republican views of being 'anti British', and part just overwhelmingly sycophantic coverage of the family. Take a glance at the Royal section of the Telegraph for instance:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily

Republicanism is usually shouted down as unpatriotic and opposed to British values, as any right-leaning media source is happy to state.

Before I answer this, do you consider the President of Germany to be having a doss job?

If his responsibilities stretch to shaking hands and eating Michelin star food then yes I do. At least he isn't treated as a God-like figure for carrying out these taxing jobs though. Germany is a country which doesn't quite have the same obsession with class that the UK does, which may be a contributing factor.

If it was a position that I recognised functioned because of that nature, I'd be fine with it.

Why does the role of head of state only function because of it being inherited?

'Balanced' does not mean that two views get equal exposure. It means exposure corresponds to public interest. If it's niche, it's only occasionally addressed. Pretty simple.

If only mainstream opinions are presented then it ensures the preservation of the status-quo. Opposing views not being given a platform prevents them from reaching the numbers needed to no longer be 'niche', although I'd argue 1 in 5 isn't that.

You're entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to be taken seriously.

And honestly, in this age of the internet, do you honestly believe that it's hard for people to acquire information negative to the monarchy? The reason republicans get short shrift here is because their arguments and facts are sloppy.

Why not ask the Guardian if it's hard for people to acquire such information. The government openly stated its opposition to publishing just a series of letters, and has since closed the loophole that allowed even that. The British establishment does not want people publicising things against the monarchy's interests.

That's just your perspective because you are biased. Indeed, and they won't discuss it much because being republican is in general a vote-harmer with the public. That's not some top-down conspiracy: that's the public spontaneously having little patience with your views *shrug* sucks to be you.

A public that has been given a one-sided impression of the monarchy by the press which ties it in with British identity and patriotism. Still, Dennis Skinner's annual bashing of Black Rod doesn't do him harm in his constituency.

Because they were curious? I saw a BBC item on it too, if that's what you mean. Good for you - seriously, I mean it. But your lack of success isn't due to the BBC or the monarchy's PR department. The plain fact is, republican arguments on the whole are based on misunderstandings, sloppy facts and stale arguments. I used to be one myself, and am still friends with some republicans, and as much as we disagree, they agree with me that the lack of success of republicanism is due to its lack of imagination and its fossilisation.

I would in fact argue that what you're saying applies exactly to the monarchist argument, which is based on sentiment first and rationality second. Lazy arguments of them being good for tourism, 'President Blair', them not really having any power anyway, only costing £40m and so on. The idea that a commoner is not fit to rule shows a lack of imagination, not the other way round.

Yeah, well, the number of people I've seen accusing me of being a 'sycophant' (remember that from earlier, buster?) makes up for your hurt feelings.

If Sinn Fein politicians are 'unable' to sit in the House of Commons because they are obliged to swear an oath to the Queen, isn't this unnecessarily damaging? (of course, if they were unwilling to swear an oath not involving the queen, this is a moot point).

An elected president could do this

It would be much harder for an elected President to do! That's the whole point, and one reason why we need a written constitution.

But oh no, saintly tradition...

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




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!

Very, very few of the elected politicians have anything in common with the people. So why do you think election would solve this apparent problem?

For the record, the attitudes of the previous monarchs of the past century, when their thoughts have been disclosed, has shown that they have considerably more sympathy with the downtrodden than most people in their governments. So the concept that you have to be of a people to understand them is utter rot.

And yet our relations to both Ireland and India are pretty good. Ireland in particular had a royal visit a few years back which was enormously successful and healed wounds. The grievances that remain are rightly targeted towards our elected government.

My preference is for a HoS with executive powers. However if we must have a ceremonial leader my preference is for this to be an elected position so we aren't dependent on the lottery of birth for a position of status, wealth and privilege. There is a big difference between someone (and their family) ruling the country for life, and one individual running it for a specified term.

If Sinn Fein politicians are 'unable' to sit in the House of Commons because they are obliged to swear an oath to the Queen, isn't this unnecessarily damaging? (of course, if they were unwilling to swear an oath not involving the queen, this is a moot point).

I can't really think of anything either. I'm a proud republican and long for the day that Britain is freed of its chains of monarchy.

If Sinn Fein politicians are 'unable' to sit in the House of Commons because they are obliged to swear an oath to the Queen, isn't this unnecessarily damaging? (of course, if they were unwilling to swear an oath not involving the queen, this is a moot point).