Monarchy, Keep them or not?

Anyone who believes that the Queen has a say in the laws of the country these days (this isnt the 18th century) is completely delusional. I am actually amazed, abashed, flabbergasted, shocked to realise that people really do think she hold clout! The whole "queen must sign" thing is about keeping up appearances, giving way to old traditions....i suggest you all go and read a few law books!

i quote from a recent law book-
"although the queens position in the constitution may be a largely ceremonial one..."

"when she signs her assent to them. It is, however, her constitutional duty always to do so"

Understanding the Law, Third Edition, Geoffrey Rivlin.

Reply 63

MMA

Samtheman said:

Basically: pure ignorance of the world. Most modern countries have a monarch.

It is rubbish to suggest that most modern countries have a monarch. What about USA, Germany, France, Italy, China, Russia.........and those are just off the top of my head. There is no reason why the UK can't have a President like that of Germany, someone who has earned their position and actually has the intelligence to carry out the job.

Astor said:

....Hence the barrier that prevents the sudden removal of our monarchy. As history teaches you, over the years, centuries, many people such as yourself have been and gone, and the monarchy, and the loyal monarchist Britons, have survived with good will.

The problem is that this was not the case in France or Germany. Those countries were intelligent enough not to arse lick a bunch of incompetant fools. It is only a matter of time, probably within a hundred years, before the people of Britian see sense and get rid of these fools. I cannot understand why people run to the defence of the Royal Family. It is not as if they set a good example to the people. Look at their most recent behaviour: Prince Harry wearing a Nazi uniform. Disgraceful when you think of how many people lost their lives so they could continue to take millions of pounds off of the taxpayer every year.

Reply 64

MMA

Samtheman said:

It is rubbish to suggest that most modern countries have a monarch. What about USA, Germany, France, Italy, China, Russia.........and those are just off the top of my head. There is no reason why the UK can't have a President like that of Germany, someone who has earned their position and actually has the intelligence to carry out the job.

Astor said:

The problem is that this was not the case in France or Germany. Those countries were intelligent enough not to arse lick a bunch of incompetant fools. It is only a matter of time, probably within a hundred years, before the people of Britian see sense and get rid of these fools. I cannot understand why people run to the defence of the Royal Family. It is not as if they set a good example to the people. Look at their most recent behaviour: Prince Harry wearing a Nazi uniform. Disgraceful when you think of how many people lost their lives so they could continue to take millions of pounds off of the taxpayer every year.

USA, Germany, France, Italy, China, Russia: exactly, hardly, the most liberal countries in the world and who knows the name of the German President or the Italian President? There you go: another case of someone in a quasi-ceremonial position, with none of the symbolism that the Royal Family has.

Whereas: Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Denmark, the UK, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Luxembourg are by far more "modern" countries in the liberal sense of the term.

This is just another case of people not quite understanding that we are not the US. Their history and how they achieved democracy explains why they have a president. Our history and how we achieved democracy explains why we have a strong parliament and a ceremonial head of state. The Westminster parliamentary model is a wide-spread and admired democratic political system. Even the countries you mention who have a president would have a monarch if they had managed to limit the powers of their monarch (the UK managed to do so, way before other European countries) or if their countries hadn't experienced so many changes. Germany and Italy are states that have only been around for a little more than a century.

The Royal Family is a good business so debating the whole financial issue is pointless.

In a modern world where undeserving CEOs can reward themselves millions for leading their company to bankruptcy, I have few issues with how much the Royal Family receives.

Reply 65

LibertineNorth

Sam: I was under the impression that France too had a Parliamentary system and that the presidential system was only employed in tin pot little african/south american countries.

I should remember this from basic history/geography lesson, I think that France has what's considered a semi-presidential system, but now I'm not sure.

As you know, Chirac was in a hospital for a week and French politicians like Nicolas Sarkozy, head of the UMP (Chirac's party) and François Bayrou, head of the UDF have complained how the system equates to archaic monarchy. The latter pointed out how the political life of the whole country is frozen as soon as the president leaves: he compared the system to "17th century monarchy" because noone talks about the president's health (in the past, noone spoke about the King's body). Not to mention the immunity from justice the president gets, even though he's as corrupt as can be.

I think most people when they actually understand why we have a parliamentary system, and the fact that in a parliamentary system, especially the Westminster model, a head of state, whether he be elected or non-elected, usually has a ceremonial role and basically, politically, doesn't matter, aren't bothered whether the head of state is royal or not. At least having a Royal Family has advantages that a boring President, that supposedly represents the country but noone knows (examples: Italy, Germany) does not have.

Then you have Sun readers who just focus obsessively on the fact that they receive a rather decent salary for representing the country.

Reply 66

Who's heard of Horst Köhler or Carlo Azeglio Ciampi, the German and Italian presidents? Not many people on this forum I bet...

The Italian president has very few political responsiblities at and the German president is basically an elected monarch:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Germany

The role of Federal President is similar in some ways to that of a constitutional monarch found in other European states, with the important difference being that the Federal President is elected, and selected based on his distinguished reputation.

I'm sorry but between having a Royal Family or having a guy like Köhler, just to vent my frustration, I think the choice is quite easy.

Reply 67

username9303

3

Keep them, brings tourists in = MORE MONEY :biggrin:

Reply 68

Lord Waddell

1

SamTheMan

Who's heard of Horst Köhler or Carlo Azeglio Ciampi, the German and Italian presidents? Not many people on this forum I bet...

The Italian president has very few political responsiblities at and the German president is basically an elected monarch:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Germany

The role of Federal President is similar in some ways to that of a constitutional monarch found in other European states, with the important difference being that the Federal President is elected, and selected based on his distinguished reputation.

I'm sorry but between having a Royal Family or having a guy like Köhler, just to vent my frustration, I think the choice is quite easy.

Exactly. Why waste time and money holding elections for one more politican, when the Royal Family does the job perfectly well?

Reply 69

Astor

I know - that Cottommotth "effort" said the Royals were "incompetent" - huh!?

Does "it" even know what the Queen actually does? Is "it" prepared to actually research the Queens role - Does the Queen really do nothing? Hmmm...

...Remember - the Queen didn't decide to become a Royal - she was born with it - throughout her life time she has had no competition to the throne - she didn't use bitter tricks and scandals and lies to earn her position - she has no need to be bitter, twisted and bias - she is the Queen - end of - a president like Bush - Chirac - will do their utmost to win the seat. Difference eh?

Reply 70

Astor

I know - that Cottommotth "effort" said the Royals were "incompetent" - huh!?

Does "it" even know what the Queen actually does? Is "it" prepared to actually research the Queens role - Does the Queen really do nothing? Hmmm...

...Remember - the Queen didn't decide to become a Royal - she was born with it - throughout her life time she has had no competition to the throne - she didn't use bitter tricks and scandals and lies to earn her position - she has no need to be bitter, twisted and bias - she is the Queen - end of - a president like Bush - Chirac - will do their utmost to win the seat. Difference eh?

What/Who is Cottommotth ? :confused:

Exactly, our monarchy has nothing to do with the traditional monarchies that some countries like France got rid of. That was a monarchy believing that they were sent on earth by God, and there was no parliament so all decisions were made by the monarch. Things haven't been like that in the UK since the 16th century!

Plus, how many truly envy the Queen and the Royal Family? I certainly don't. As you said, they didn't choose to be part of the Royal Family. The Queen adds that neutrality which is required in politics. Plus to be honest, it's a lot better having a monarch representing your country, than a boring president that noone would care about.

In fact, a lot of people in the US wish they had a monarch, just to represent the country. The UK gets a lot of attention thanks to the Queen, that we just wouldn't get without her. We'd become somewhat of a faceless country.

Several countries have been born through revolutions but modern Britain has been made through small changes, reforms, compromises, common sense...that's what's great about Britain. We're reasonable people!

Reply 71

legbreakgoogly

We should all have to swear allegence to the Crown, and then prove it somehow. We need a monarchy with power, a nobility that actually acts the part, and then a intellectual/economic class who yield political power thru partial democracy.

That way, 16 y/o teen mothers, chavs and there ilk have no say in the political discourse. The established classes and the economic class (we'll define those fit to vote as those who are graduates in a classical subject, or in a modern but wholly respectable subject such as Computer Scienece) would keep the extremists at bay, whilst listening to ppl who can actually make a proper contribution to the political order.

Reply 72

cottonmouth