Britain: Dump the monarchy?

[Lambert Simnel]

Told you you were old

I never said you were wrong...

 

[Mega Tsunami]

How can the monarchy of today be doing a "job", let alone a good job? Do they really do anything productive that Blair couldn't?

The Queen has a daily red box of documents to go through - just like Ministers have - that keeps her well informed as to all the political and other goings on in the country. This includes many documents of state she has to sign in her capacity as head of state.
She also has meetings with various advisors to help her on such matters and she also meets the PM once a week to discuss matters of state and even give advice.

Her job also includes meeting visiting heads of state and other dignitaries, opening hospitals, schools etc. She apparently does over 400 such engagements every year.
She also makes state visits overseas and seems to average about 5 a year.

Her main job however is being a non-political representative for us the people of Britain. She is the one who actually makes sure Blair does not cross the democratic line and try and pass a bill that hands him more power for example. All bills require her signature and if she wanted could refuse. As this hasn’t happened for 300 years I believe, you can see that she, and her predecessors, keep the PM and democracy in their place. And if it came to it, we all know on whose side the Armed services would be on – Hers of course, and therefore on our side.

Our unique Constitutional Monarchy has meant that, apparently, Britain has the longest continuously serving democracy in the world. During a period that France is on to its 4th or 5th Republic (I lost count) and Germany and Italy have had the likes of Hitler and Mussolini, we have gone serenely on, democratic as ever.

And much of this is down to our Monarchy. Why fix something that ain’t broke.

 

[ComradeDavo]

In the poll I voted 'British - Yes.'

 

[Rossiya]

The Queen has a daily red box of documents to go through - just like Ministers have - that keeps her well informed as to all the political and other goings on in the country. This includes many documents of state she has to sign in her capacity as head of state.
She also has meetings with various advisors to help her on such matters and she also meets the PM once a week to discuss matters of state and even give advice.

Her job also includes meeting visiting heads of state and other dignitaries, opening hospitals, schools etc. She apparently does over 400 such engagements every year.
She also makes state visits overseas and seems to average about 5 a year.

Her main job however is being a non-political representative for us the people of Britain. She is the one who actually makes sure Blair does not cross the democratic line and try and pass a bill that hands him more power for example. All bills require her signature and if she wanted could refuse. As this hasn’t happened for 300 years I believe, you can see that she, and her predecessors, keep the PM and democracy in their place. And if it came to it, we all know on whose side the Armed services would be on – Hers of course, and therefore on our side.

Our unique Constitutional Monarchy has meant that, apparently, Britain has the longest continuously serving democracy in the world. During a period that France is on to its 4th or 5th Republic (I lost count) and Germany and Italy have had the likes of Hitler and Mussolini, we have gone serenely on, democratic as ever.

And much of this is down to our Monarchy. Why fix something that ain’t broke.

The key thing in the thing I said was the "that Blair couldn't" bit. Surely Blair could do all that?

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

The key thing in the thing I said was the "that Blair couldn't" bit. Surely Blair could do all that?

Her job also includes meeting visiting heads of state and other dignitaries, opening hospitals, schools etc. She apparently does over 400 such engagements every year.
She also makes state visits overseas and seems to average about 5 a year.

Again, I've prefer him to be running the country rather than shaking hands.

 

[ComradeDavo]

I don't get the 'the prime minister should run the country so he shouldn't be head of state because it will take up to much of his time' argument. We are a democracy, not a dictatorship - the government is more than one person. The Prime Minister should become head of state as the head of the ruling party, i.e. in effect the ruling party is the head of state.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

I don't get the 'the prime minister should run the country so he shouldn't be head of state because it will take up to much of his time' argument. We are a democracy, not a dictatorship - the government is more than one person. The Prime Minister should become head of state as the head of the ruling party, i.e. in effect the ruling party is the head of state.

Who does the meeting and greeting then?

Don't you think foreign relations will be tarnished if Heads of State from other nations fly half-way around the world to meet the Margret Becket?

 

[ComradeDavo]

Who does the meeting and greeting then?

Don't you think foreign relations will be tarnished if Heads of State from other nations fly half-way around the world to meet the Margret Becket?

I think your just trying to pick holes for the sake of it with hypotheticals that would be obsolete with the practicalities of the situation are established.

Put it another way, Americas Head Of State is it's President.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

I think your just trying to pick holes for the sake of it with hypotheticals that would be obsolete with the practicalities of the situation are established.

Visiting Foreign Dignitaries is 'hypothetical'? I'm merely asking what is so wrong with the current situation that it needs change.

I happen to agree with MT, most 'Republicans' only seem concerned with the perception that the Royals are 'above them' and thus must be removed.

Put it another way, Americas Head Of State is it's President.

We're not Americans. Let them have their system and we ours.

 

[ComradeDavo]

What is wrong about the current sistuation is that we have an unelected heiredity Monarch as our head of state, someone who has no relation with the common British people as our represntative.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

The key thing in the thing I said was the "that Blair couldn't" bit. Surely Blair could do all that?

Blair has a more-than full time job and as I explained the Queen also has a more-than full time job so how can one person do both?

And if you answer – by getting a Tony Crony to do it for him you entirely missed my point behind the fact that she is a politically neutral person making sure Blair doesn’t get up to no good.
Do you seriously think that Blair should monitor what Blair gets up to?

We could well end up with a Mussolini type figure in charge if the PM wasn’t somehow kept in check.
Perhaps the Italian in you would actually want a Mussolini in charge? It would at least explain your viewpoint.

At least the trains would run on time I suppose.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

What is wrong about the current sistuation is that we have an unelected heiredity Monarch as our head of state, someone who has no relation with the common British people as our represntative.

You seem to fail to grasp what is going in this country. The Queen is kept in place by the will of the people, including the ‘common’ people. (whatever ‘common’ means). If a majority of us, common or otherwise, didn’t want them, a political party would put that in their manifesto, get into power and get rid of them for us.

It is called democracy by the will of the people

I am afraid you are going to have to wait until a King Charles or a King William makes a serious blunder or two and we the people – as a whole - feel the need to get rid of them.

PS Although I haven’t seen it, perhaps you, Lambert etc. should go and see “The Queen”. It has apparently changed a number of Republicans into Monarchy appreciators, if not outright Monarchists; and made them realise just how damn lucky we actually are to have our Monarchy.

 

[Rossiya]

Blair has a more-than full time job and as I explained the Queen also has a more-than full time job so how can one person do both?

And if you answer – by getting a Tony Crony to do it for him you entirely missed my point behind the fact that she is a politically neutral person making sure Blair doesn’t get up to no good.
Do you seriously think that Blair should monitor what Blair gets up to?

We could well end up with a Mussolini type figure in charge if the PM wasn’t somehow kept in check.
Perhaps the Italian in you would actually want a Mussolini in charge? It would at least explain your viewpoint.

At least the trains would run on time I suppose.

What has been suggested before is that a Head of State is actually elected, as well as the leader, Blair. So a Head of State is democratically elected, which is one of the fundamental rights of people living in a democracy. Therefore, with a Head of State, we can still have the things that Elizabeth Windsor does.

The Queen has no real power. If she decided not to sign a new law, the royals would lose even more power.

Talking of Italy, the country has a similar system to this, where they have a prime minister (Presidente del Consiglio dei ministri della Repubblica Italiana), Romano Prodi, and a president-type figure, a Head of State democratically elected (Presidente della Repubblica), Giorgio Napolitano, who does the same sort of things as Elizabeth Windsor.

 

[Truronian]

If Tony Blair has time to appear in Comic Relief, I'm sure he has time for a little meet-and-greet.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Compare how many people know Giorgio Napolitano and Elizabeth Windsor and you will appreciate some of the reason why the Royals should stay.

 

[Rossiya]

Compare how many people know Giorgio Napolitano and Elizabeth Windsor and you will appreciate some of the reason why the Royals should stay.

Do people know Betty for the right reasons? ... Infact, what could she have done, to be attributed "the right reasons"?

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Do people know Betty for the right reasons? ... Infact, what could she have done, to be attributed "the right reasons"?

Right reasons? I think most people know her as being the British Head of State, what other reason would you need?

 

[ComradeDavo]

You seem to fail to grasp what is going in this country. The Queen is kept in place by the will of the people, including the ‘common’ people. (whatever ‘common’ means). If a majority of us, common or otherwise, didn’t want them, a political party would put that in their manifesto, get into power and get rid of them for us.

It is called democracy by the will of the people

I am afraid you are going to have to wait until a King Charles or a King William makes a serious blunder or two and we the people – as a whole - feel the need to get rid of them.

PS Although I haven’t seen it, perhaps you, Lambert etc. should go and see “The Queen”. It has apparently changed a number of Republicans into Monarchy appreciators, if not outright Monarchists; and made them realise just how damn lucky we actually are to have our Monarchy.

I'd call expressing political views in public a big enough blunder to ensure Charles is never King.

As for you democracy argument - pah! Lets have real democracy and actually elect a head of state. Poepel aren't being democratic in their support for the monarchy, their being apathetic.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

I'd call expressing political views in public a big enough blunder to ensure Charles is never King.

Freedom of Speech is also restricted for members of the Monarchy? I'm glad I'm not as privileged as they are!

Poepel aren't being democratic in their support for the monarchy, their being apathetic.

Or, "if it ain't broke".

 

[ComradeDavo]

Freedom of Speech is also restricted for members of the Monarchy? I'm glad I'm not as privileged as they are!

So you agree that the Monarchy should be allowed to inflence the running of this country? You just destroyed your argument.