Should the UK have a Monarchy?? Yes or No?

Why am I repeating myself? Appointing the PM in a politically neutral manner; offering impartial advice to the government; signifying Royal Assent to legislation...

Hardly! The point stands: people know what republicanism is, and it bears enormous similarities with our present system, with no real benefits beyond what we already have. It would be a highly expensive image change. That's about it.

I'll repeat my point again: you insist the British monarchy is supported by a common conspiracy not to expose it to faults, but you don't hold the French republican model to that same charge. You're using double standards.

Mr 'gladders' sounds like a monarchy teacher, no need to upset. My commentary the other day upset him(her) too and he was about to send me back to France, if I prove I don't like or understand the UK monarchy. ) chill Mr or Mrs gladders.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I did not write the word conspiracy here and I do not believe that. This system goes beyond any conspiracy because it is a make believe since early ages.

Now, please answer this question: if you think this system is so good, then why do you have so many poor people in this country? Please don't take it as an attack!

Also, why did Ireland preferredto become a republic? I really want to understand this for a long time.

But, your comments show very high dedication and belief in the system without questioning if the republican system would work in your country.
The similarities you see with Germany or France are only in your imagination. You want to see it that way. I, for example, would not want to see people for life in half of my parliament. Neither me, nor my people.

Also, by associating Cromwell with the idea of republicanism proves the indoctrination that is practiced here. Cromwell proved to be a dictator who used the idea of the time of whatever they thought a republic would be, but definitely his intention was not to be a democratic republican. Nowadays, the British population is EDUCATED enough to distinguish between a dictator and a democratic person, isn't it? Cromwell's madness is clearly used by the system to block change and new ideas by infusing fear.

But, they are just manipulation strategies, don't call it conspiracy, but the system is battling to preserve itself. In the same time, it doubts the capacity of the British people to elect someone of their free choice! Do you think, the British people are capable or not , Mr gladders? Would you be capable of distinguishing between a scam dictator and a democratic person in this century? There is also a government system that limits the powers of any elected leader, a balanced and smart one.

You want proof that it will work because you are afraid of change. But, I guess the younger generation has the right to question and make a change if so they wish.

The only thing you do in here, since the beginning of this post, is to block any intention of challenging the system by presenting light interpretations . Also, twisting the reality by comparisons with other countries in the EU which have completely different effects, as systems. Believe me, any German and I, as a French, I am laughing at your flawed comparisons with our systems.

Except that the PM is already too busy for these functions already - and as he's a clearly political person, his ability to act as a symbol for all or most of the country is questionable.

As I said - if it were that easy, other countries - and plenty have written new constitutions in the last few decades - would have made the attempt.



Why am I repeating myself? Appointing the PM in a politically neutral manner; offering impartial advice to the government; signifying Royal Assent to legislation...

Appointing the PM in a politically neutral manager- Hardly needed, all she does is confrims who has won

Offering impartial advice to government-An example would be useful as I question the very fabric of this point.

Royal assent-again pointless, give me one example in recent times of royal assent not being granted on a piece of legislation, harly a check and balance is it

It annoyed me because it was an unhelpful comment denigrating people like me. You insulted me.

You claim that the UK is 'brainwashed' into supporting the monarchy. I have put it to you that by this logic, I can claim France is 'brainwashed' against monarchy. I don't believe this myself, but you have refrained from backing up or justifying your claim.

It's the sign of someone who knows he's on logically thin ice; don't do it again.

Okay, not brainwashed, but you claimed that there is royalist propaganda in this country. Amounts to a similar claim.

Your arguments don't stand (even when you say to change the France tricolor with the Italian one, that is getting the discussion into a completely different territory, even implying war) wt Italy eventually. What I said is that you deny any opportunity to make a change because you don't have the proof. Is like anyone shouldn't swim, because they don't know if they are going to die.

You have no proof that the actual system is the best. What is your proof? France had monarchy and we don't want it anymore. You did not have democratic republicanism, how do you knwo if want it or not? And when are stopping using other countries as examples as proof for your system? You are just being subjective, picking and choosing elements of other systems to complete your puzzle. I doubt some sort of madness there, sorry I have to write it. I am not a psychologist, but there is a breakage there in the way you construct your subjective reality.

I find it futile to continue talking here, unless you give me a satisfactory answer about the link between the corporation of london and the preservation of this system as it is (which you sustain clearly).

These examples are suppositions, not proofs

They are not real republicans then. If they are born and raised in Britain it is hard not to be half monarchist, even if they wouldn't want it.

]I am talking about the link between the people in the upper house (even the lower house) and the people in the square mile. Rumors are saying they are interconnected and it is to their benefit to preserve the system and not have a written constitution. You know the city is a financial haven, don't you?

That's fundamentally untrue. Your definition of republicanism and democracy is too narrow.

What part of 'the people control the country through the House of Commons' don't you understand?

On the contrary, countries with elected Upper Houses and elected Heads of State risk undermining democracy because they create institutions which challenge the people's power too strongly.That is exactly what I say about your system: life peers challenge the power of the people and the people are not sovereign because it is not elected or appointed for a short period of time 9same wt the head of state and the constitution).
By not having a constitution and by not having an upper house made by people on limited mandate, anyone can do things in your country that in others are punished by law (just an example, why does your system punishes mothers that kill babies wt 3-4 yrs in prison? I guess the system is loose wt the population, so it can get tolerance in exchange!) .






I don't deny that there are a large number of industrialists in the House of Lords, but then the very purpose of the Upper House is to give voice to captains of industry, alongside other fields of expertise. There's more than enough lawyers and judges in there, and plenty of scientists, doctors, charity workers, culturists, defence chiefs and many more in there too.

It's not a bug, it's a feature

The House of Commons is also replete with bankers, for that matter. I don't doubt the French parliament has similar characteristics.

As for your comment on the unwritten constitution - I have no idea where you're getting this from. On the contrary: our unwritten constitution has been our greatest asset in fighting special interests. The codified constitution of America has failed to prevent it being ensnared by big business.

The codified constitution of America has failed to prevent it being ensnared by big business.

That is exactly what I say about your system: life peers challenge the power of the people and the people are not sovereign because it is not elected or appointed for a short period of time 9same wt the head of state and the constitution).
By not having a constitution and by not having an upper house made by people on limited mandate, anyone can do things in your country that in others are punished by law (just an example, why does your system punishes mothers that kill babies wt 3-4 yrs in prison? I guess the system is loose wt the population, so it can get tolerance in exchange!) .

It happens to have different news sources in my country and other in Europe and we can see how lots of fraudulent people go to London , super rich guys, to avoid laws and taxes in their own country. If you deny this, I invite you to speak on any TV channel in France and sustain your point of view. Well this is what I want to understand, especially now for the financial regulation reformation and you should know what I am talking about. If you don't ,then you are out of touch and again you live in your own world.

America was built for business, as an ideology. the connection of politics and business is popularly accepted historically, they make public their political campaigns funding.
It is true, it got out of control lately, but this is a general phenomena, a possible effect of the crisis, it's a global one actually.

But the main players on the American market were doing business in the city before 2006, And here we go again, back to the city. They have been punished in America, while the city is still in business...

So why can't we have someone who is a national figurehead, but not there for political or religious reasons?

The answer is because this kind of reform would be very complicated and nothing (save of course a bloodthirsty, European-style revolution, what fun that would be) can topple a monarchy in any short space of time.

But I believe that some kind of social figurehead should be put in place, visiting schools, appearing on telly, awarding grants to the hard-working, a Queen 2.0. And then over the years the Royal Family would get phased out, because we wouldn't need them anymore.

Like Miss Great Britain?

i think i'd rather keep liz