Time to get rid of the Monarchy?

Should the UK get rid of the Monarchy?

  • Yes

    Votes: 33 42.3%
  • No

    Votes: 26 33.3%
  • Radioactive monkeys should rule all countries

    Votes: 19 24.4%

  • Total voters
    78
Government spent £400,000 failling to stop us finding out about Charlies lobbying (7 year old story)

A cache of secret memos between Prince Charles and senior government ministers has been released after a 10-year legal battle, offering the clearest picture yet of the breadth and depth of the heir to the throne’s lobbying at the highest level of politics.​
The 27 memos, sent in 2004 and 2005 and released only after the Guardian won its long freedom of information fight with the government, show the Prince of Wales making direct and persistent policy demands to the then prime minister Tony Blair and several key figures in his Labour government.​
From Blair, Charles demanded everything from urgent action to improve equipment for troops fighting in Iraq to the availability of alternative herbal medicines in the UK, a pet cause of the prince.​
In a single letter in February 2005, he urged a badger cull to prevent the spread of bovine tuberculosis – damning its opponents as “intellectually dishonest”; lobbied for his preferred person to be appointed to crack down on the mistreatment of farmers by supermarkets; proposed his own aide to brief Downing Street on the design of new hospitals; and urged Blair to tackle a European Union directive limiting the use of herbal alternative medicines use in the UK.​
The government has spent more than £400,000 on legal costs in its ultimately failed attempt to block the original 2005 freedom of information request by the Guardian journalist Rob Evans. The case was eventually decided at the supreme court and the decade-long saga involved in total 16 different judges.​
 
Not possible in post Victoria monarchies. Not all monarchies are the same you know.
If you think British monarchy is same as Saudi monarchy...

How is it impossible?
 
I thought the saudi monarchy is post-victorian too. Maybe in their case it is monarchies in those levantine regions :mischief:

I like you, @Kupe Navigator , I just don't see why you think royal families serve a purpose. As for the diplomacy you've mentioned, would Charles (or his mother) really play an important role there? One would expect foreign dignitaries to pay less attention to a royal than any type of elected or at least voted in by parliament, head of state.
 
How ironic that their perfect republic now has an elected king, with far more power than any descendant of George III.

At leaat they're elected instead of getting the job by being the right member of an inbred family of Germans
 
Getting occasionally ruinous leaders is part of democracy and has been since ancient Athens.
Monarchy or aristocracy are in no way preferable.

Terrible leaders, now with no recourse!
 
elizabeth came to Turkey three times . 1961 , she invited herself in before boarding the plane in Tahran as she would return home from an official visit to Iran . Pro-British junta had condemned the pro-American ex-Prime Minister to death . Didn't work out that much . 1971 , she was invited as a distraction of sorts as the country had seen some sort of a Military intervention . 2008 , she was such a globally respected figure that her visit made the 11th President fly in the clouds . That the Ergenekon Conspiracy had been blessed by Her Majesties the Queen ! Even if actually she had done nothing of the sort . Well , she let British Propaganda claim she descended by some convulated means from Prophet Muhammed , but only in Muslim countries , much like Charles III is known to be secretly a Muslim , also only in Muslim countries and her silence sent New Turkey aloft and whatever . Tries to help people but won't , can't help them all . Should find some archival piece on how she heavily berated the Iron Lady to stop her in her tracks , so that Ronnie could not start the WW III ...
 
Yes - yearning for a system of democratic accountability is quite disgusting :rolleyes:

Funny how the very generously-paid public servants known as MPs and MLAs don't seem to understand that they are accountable to ALL their constituents, not just those who voted for them or who are on the party's list of donors.

I have to keep explaining this to the UCP supporters on my MLA's FB page because they seem to think it's the other way around, that "public servant" means the public does the serving and we have no right to criticize our representatives.
 
in a monarchy that is literally true, you are the king's subject

My point is that voting doesn't necessarily get you people who understand that they serve the public. I'm still trying to figure out who my worst MLA has been that I remember - the one now, or Stockwell Day. Considering what a monumental idiot and screwup Stockwell Day was, that's saying something.
 
We do not have an elected head of state. We elect members of parliament, who choose the Prime Minister who serve at the monarchs pleasure.

"Serves at the monarchs pleasure" is such an extention im the UK's case.

It makes you all sound like spoiled kids of western democracy who forgot that some monarchs, to this day, really have their governments under their thumb. Their ministers literally serves at their pleasures.

There are some cases here and there where the UK monarch has a political say or influence, in addition to a passive influence on the general agenda - but way far from the words used by you to describe it.
 
Imagine if Andrew had been the older son...
He's still only one minibus or helicopter crash away from being king.
 
There are some cases here and there where the UK monarch has a political say or influence, in addition to a passive influence on the general agenda - but way far from the words used by you to describe it.
Why should there be any cases at all?
 
I'm hearing reports of people being arrested in Britain for protesting and insulting the royals? Can anyone here who voted to preserve the monarchy defend these arrests?

Have to say, as an American this stuff is very triggering. Those of you from Commonwealth countries may feel a special place in your hearts for the monarch, but we Americans have a special place in our hearts for telling monarchs to eff off when they violate our rights
 
Imagine if Andrew had been the older son...
He's still only one minibus or helicopter crash away from being king.

I think that now it would go to Charles III offspring, but maybe Andrew would have been second in line before that? (some people have argued in the Uk thread that no, if the next in succession has children, even if he dies before becoming monarch the line continues with his children)
 
I think that now it would go to Charles III offspring, but maybe Andrew would have been second in line before that? (some people have argued in the Uk thread that no, if the next in succession has children, even if he dies before becoming monarch the line continues with his children)

I think i saw a graphic of the succession that has William at #1 and his children coming next so I guess that checks out
 
I'm hearing reports of people being arrested in Britain for protesting and insulting the royals? Can anyone here who voted to preserve the monarchy defend these arrests?
This is the worst way they (police) could have handled this, since England still has some care for civil liberty and it will be impossible to defend. (at least I hope so :) )

By the way, speaking of Andrew:


Those thugs (non-police) who yell "God save the king" at the person who shouted against Andrew, are really pathetic.
 
This is the worst way they (police) could have handled this, since England still has some care for civil liberty and it will be impossible to defend. (at least I hope so :) )

By the way, speaking of Andrew:


Those thugs (non-police) who yell "God save the king" at the person who shouted against Andrew, are really pathetic.

Defending a pedophile. This is your brain on royalism
 
Back
Top Bottom