Why does the UK have royalty?

[Kathryn]

You mean the Catherine of Aragon who was screwed over by the British monarchy?

One and the same!

But she was a true lady and very brave. Those are two qualities I admire. She was also a strong Christian and stuck to her principles. I like those traits in her as well.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The Royal family protect us from having a president.
Think Of the last few American ones, The power they have,the errors they have made, and the costs to their nation.
Then think of the ones that have become dictators in other countries.
Think of the Queen as a place holder, who prevents this from happening in the UK
She is cheap what ever she costs.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Royal family protect us from having a president.

Effectively, you already have a president. The functions of a president are inherent in your governmental system; they're just divided up between a handful of individuals instead of being vested in one person.

Think Of the last few American ones, The power they have,the errors they have made, and the costs to their nation.

Are British politics free of costly errors made by governments? Costly errors made by kings?

Then think of the ones that have become dictators in other countries.
Think of the Queen as a place holder, who prevents this from happening in the UK
She is cheap what ever she costs.

Wait... so to protect yourself from having your government led by an unelected, unaccountable person, you put in place an unelected, unaccountable person to lead your government?

Also, you're presenting a false dichotomy. There are more options besides British-style constitutional monarchy and an American-style presidental republic. As I mentioned before, another alternative immediately comes to mind: a parliamentary system in the manner of Canada or Australia, complete with a Governor-General appointed for a fixed term, only with the Governor-General appointed by Parliament instead of the British monarch. This sort of system eliminates most of the disadvantages of the monarch, but still keeps a placeholder person to prevent your rather inexplicable concern of "having a president".

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It's none of my business whether the UK has a royal family or not, of course .... but there have been some great arguments made either way. Unfortunately, I'm out of frubals for 9-10ths Penguin.

 

[kai]

Effectively, you already have a president. The functions of a president are inherent in your governmental system; they're just divided up between a handful of individuals instead of being vested in one person.

dividing up such powers is a safety factor and looking at what you have said just reinforces the fact that ----we dont have a President
Are British politics free of costly errors made by governments? Costly errors made by kings?
costly errors of government and parliament --no of Kings yes they dont make any decisions any more they are ceremonial

Wait... so to protect yourself from having your government led by an unelected, unaccountable person, you put in place an unelected, unaccountable person to lead your government? unelected --yes but the queen is accountable she is certainly not above the law or crticism and she doesnt lead the government

Also, you're presenting a false dichotomy. There are more options besides British-style constitutional monarchy and an American-style presidental republic. As I mentioned before, another alternative immediately comes to mind: a parliamentary system in the manner of Canada or Australia, complete with a Governor-General appointed for a fixed term, only with the Governor-General appointed by Parliament instead of the British monarch. This sort of system eliminates most of the disadvantages of the monarch, but still keeps a placeholder person to prevent your rather inexplicable concern of "having a president".

the governor general is not really appointed by the Monarch anymore Again isnt it a ceremonial and constitutional post?


Now, the Queen of Australia is generally bound by constitutional convention to accept the advice of the Australian Prime Minister and state Premiers about Australian and state constitutional matters respectively, however the practice of Premiers advising the monarch has only become the convention since the passage of the Australia Acts (1986).[citation needed]

Governor-General of Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Governor General of Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


There are lots of diiferent options and we have ours and most of us are quite happy with it ,after all how is it harming anyone ? is it dangerous to have a constitutional ,ceremonial head of state ? and if you are going to have one have one with some credibility .

 

[zenzero]

Friend dust1n,

Why does the UK have royalty?

The Englanders will best respond to the question; however personally find *OLD HABITS DIE HARD* thing as other wise the world has moved away to democracy.

Love & rgds

 

[kai]

Friend dust1n,


The Englanders will best respond to the question; however personally find *OLD HABITS DIE HARD* thing as other wise the world has moved away to democracy.

Love & rgds

you have a point there Zenzero its kind of like knowing your house is safe because it has firm foundations.

 

[zenzero]

Friend kai,

knowing your house is safe because it has firm foundations.

One should also know that everything in life is in a flux and foundations too are subject to movements of the earth. Transcending the mind [thoughts] is the only way as then one is both the cause and the effect.

Love & rgds

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Friend dust1n,


The Englanders will best respond to the question; however personally find *OLD HABITS DIE HARD* thing as other wise the world has moved away to democracy.

Love & rgds

The British were one of the very first to have democratic government, they did it under Monarchy.

The oldest democratic government in the world is in the Isle of Man.
They share the monarchy with the UK.

Most democracies were established under a monarch, or hereditary leadership

It is not a case of either / or ... both work together very well.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Terry,

Personally am a king like Jesus and so see every being as EQUALS.
Well, cannot speak for others as human perceptions are individualistic.

Love & rgds

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The British were one of the very first to have democratic government, they did it under Monarchy.

The oldest democratic government in the world is in the Isle of Man.
They share the monarchy with the UK.

Most democracies were established under a monarch, or hereditary leadership

It is not a case of either / or ... both work together very well.

It's not a matter of fully one or fully the other, but it is a sliding scale between the two extremes: to the extent that a country is a monarchy, it is not democratic.

 

[Pithyoneliner]

It is no coincidence that most countries with a extant monarchy are constitutional monarchies (UK, NL,Sweden etc.), all those with absolute monarchies (with the possible exceptions of the House of Saud and Bahrain) have gone the way of the dodo (France, Russia etc.).

In none of the European monarchies does the monarch exert any real power, and of course no-one here believes this particular German family was ordained by god to rule. So why do we have them?

- Having a monarchy is a key part of our national identies, they do no real harm, they don't cost a great deal, but the Queen is a key part of being British (or Dutch), we have them because other countries don't!
- Having a titular head of state that is not elected is no bad thing, Her Majesty was trained from birth in her role, and behaves impeccably 99.9% of the time. She does not meddle in the affairs of state and serves as our greatest ambassador. I for one was enormously proud of her when she met Bush, the man was cleary shi**ing himself and remained nervous throughout her visit. The leader of the free world - scared of a little old lady... Hilarious!

What happens when she expires is another question, Charles has shown a disturbing tendancy to meddle and express opinions where he should not (homeopathy - WTF?), IMHO, it'll skip Charles and go to William V. God Save The King

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In none of the European monarchies does the monarch exert any real power, and of course no-one here believes this particular German family was ordained by god to rule. So why do we have them?

- Having a monarchy is a key part of our national identies, they do no real harm, they don't cost a great deal, but the Queen is a key part of being British (or Dutch), we have them because other countries don't!

All the more reason to me, as a Canadian, to no longer have a head of state that's a strong part of some other country's national identity.

The British Empire Loyalists may get mad at me for saying this, but I don't think that the Queen (or the monarchy generally) is a key part of the Canadian national identity. We've never even had our head of state live here, for crying out loud!

- Having a titular head of state that is not elected is no bad thing, Her Majesty was trained from birth in her role, and behaves impeccably 99.9% of the time. She does not meddle in the affairs of state and serves as our greatest ambassador. I for one was enormously proud of her when she met Bush, the man was cleary shi**ing himself and remained nervous throughout her visit. The leader of the free world - scared of a little old lady... Hilarious!

I feel similarily about our current Governor General, Michaelle Jean. I don't think she strikes fear in anyone's hearts, but IMO she's handled herself admirably as a representative of Canada.

So... if we can have the benefits all with a single representative appointed for a fixed term instead of someone who takes the role for life (while the rest of his or her family suckles at the public teat) and hands it to their children with no public oversight or input, then where's the advantage of the British system?

What happens when she expires is another question, Charles has shown a disturbing tendancy to meddle and express opinions where he should not (homeopathy - WTF?), IMHO, it'll skip Charles and go to William V. God Save The King

But that's the thing: the downside of a monarchy is that your representatives are selected based on heredity, not merit. If you don't like Charles, too bad: he's next in line for the throne, so if the monarchy has any basis, then he's your man.

If you want to select your head of state based on merit (or even basic competence), then you're not really talking about monarchy. Also, giving your head of state a fixed term means that if you do get a bad one, you're only saddled with them for a few short years; under a monarchy, when you get a bad king, you'll have a bad king until he dies.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

All the more reason to me, as a Canadian, to no longer have a head of state that's a strong part of some other country's national identity.

The British Empire Loyalists may get mad at me for saying this, but I don't think that the Queen (or the monarchy generally) is a key part of the Canadian national identity. We've never even had our head of state live here, for crying out loud!


I feel similarily about our current Governor General, Michaelle Jean. I don't think she strikes fear in anyone's hearts, but IMO she's handled herself admirably as a representative of Canada.

So... if we can have the benefits all with a single representative appointed for a fixed term instead of someone who takes the role for life (while the rest of his or her family suckles at the public teat) and hands it to their children with no public oversight or input, then where's the advantage of the British system?


But that's the thing: the downside of a monarchy is that your representatives are selected based on heredity, not merit. If you don't like Charles, too bad: he's next in line for the throne, so if the monarchy has any basis, then he's your man.

If you want to select your head of state based on merit (or even basic competence), then you're not really talking about monarchy. Also, giving your head of state a fixed term means that if you do get a bad one, you're only saddled with them for a few short years; under a monarchy, when you get a bad king, you'll have a bad king until he dies.

I quite like Charles, and certainly prefer the Duchess of Cornwall to the princess of Wales.
I especially like the way he is prepared to fight for what he believes. And also his work for young people and for rural communities.
I was especially impressed when he paid, Margaret Thatcher's, Community tax for all those living on his estates, out of his own pocket. (the Tax was later abolished and Thatcher sacked by her own party.)

The Royals might not get directly involved in politics, but they get things done, and galvanise others to do the same. Charles has shown how to do this today, Much as Prince Albert did before him..

Kings and queens can be asked to Abdicate... so their term is not fixed.
Edward Vlll was sent packing even before he was enthroned... He later turned out to be a least a sympathiser of Hitler... so perhaps it was just as well his brother replaced him.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I quite like Charles, and certainly prefer the Duchess of Cornwall to the princess of Wales.
I especially like the way he is prepared to fight for what he believes. And also his work for young people and for rural communities.
I was especially impressed when he paid, Margaret Thatcher's, Community tax for all those living on his estates, out of his own pocket. (the Tax was later abolished and Thatcher sacked by her own party.)

The Royals might not get directly involved in politics, but they get things done, and galvanise others to do the same. Charles has shown how to do this today, Much as Prince Albert did before him..

If all that's the case, then what would be wrong with appointing Charles as head of state for a fixed term, and then renewing the appointment as many times as is desired? Can't people do good work without looking forward to an official position for life for themselves and their children?

 

[Pithyoneliner]

I didn't think there was a strong republican movement in Canada? We hear of it frequently from the Australians, but never from Canadians?

Of course I was only speaking from the British perspective not the Commonwealth. I have seen quite a few portraits of her Majesty in Canada though! Is their no case to be said that having a monarchy in Canada is a point of identiy versus your larger uglier neighbour?

The problem with an elected head of state is, well you might get Bush!

Not so that "If you don't like Charles, too bad: he's next in line for the throne" we have a history of not letting candidates we don't like become regent... sometimes we cut their heads off, sometimes we exile them, sometimes they are 'urged' to abdicate. I think we will have the case in point when Elizabeth dies, my point is precisely that I do not believe Charles will ever be King.

But admittedly monarchy means a smaller pool of candidates.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I didn't think there was a strong republican movement in Canada? We hear of it frequently from the Australians, but never from Canadians?

I wouldn't say there's a strong republican movement, but the issue does come up occasionally. I just happen to have rather strong views on the subject.

Of course I was only speaking from the British perspective not the Commonwealth. I have seen quite a few portraits of her Majesty in Canada though!

Yes - they're mandated in places like schools and government offices.

Is their no case to be said that having a monarchy in Canada is a point of identiy versus your larger uglier neighbour?

Some people might see it that way, but I personally don't. IMO, our identity permeates our culture in all sorts of ways. We're not just our "uglier neighbour" with a tiara.

I also think that an important aspect of the Canadian national identity is the enshrinement of equality in our laws and culture; it certainly goes against this to have a head of state who is prohibited by law from being a Catholic... especially considering that our French Canadian culture has strong Catholic roots.

IMO, the Canadian national identity comes out of the traditions of four fundamental groups:

- the indigenous peoples
- British Canadians
- French Canadians
- immigrants from all over the world

The Queen really only represents one of these traditions, and then, only arguably - my background is almost entirely British and Irish Protestant, but even on the British side, my Jacobite ancestors would've been against deference to a Hanoverian monarch, and my Quaker ancestors would've been against deference to any monarch at all.

At the same time, it directly alienates one of our founding traditions and is, IMO, generally irrelevant to the other two major groups. Add all this up and I think the result is that the monarchy is not a point of Canadian national identity.

The problem with an elected head of state is, well you might get Bush!

IMO, the best option for us would be to simply elevate the office of Governor General to full head of state. The office already exists; it's a Parliamentary appointment that's simply "rubber stamped" by the monarch. The G-G already acts as the de facto head of state for Canada as it is, and as such, things have generally worked out well. All I want is to see that de facto status changed to de jure.

Not so that "If you don't like Charles, too bad: he's next in line for the throne" we have a history of not letting candidates we don't like become regent... sometimes we cut their heads off, sometimes we exile them, sometimes they are 'urged' to abdicate. I think we will have the case in point when Elizabeth dies, my point is precisely that I do not believe Charles will ever be King.

But admittedly monarchy means a smaller pool of candidates.

All the methods you listed had either of two things in common: they either depended on violence or on the consent of the monarch in question. I don't think the one method has a valid place in the normal running of a government, and as for the second, it seems to me that your argument basically amounts to saying "we have power over our monarch because they'll leave if they want to"... but I don't think that sounds like power at all.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

If all that's the case, then what would be wrong with appointing Charles as head of state for a fixed term, and then renewing the appointment as many times as is desired? Can't people do good work without looking forward to an official position for life for themselves and their children?

It does not work that way. There is no legal way to preselect a term of office for a KIng.

Unless Charles dies first, he will be the next King.. .There is no selection process. The moment the Queen dies he is King.
( he might later abdicate in favour of his eldest son, but that would be his choice) News paper polls do not come into it.

Some people believe that Edward Vlll was never king. He was. His reign laster from the death of George Vl to the moment he abdicated some weeks later.

 

[Tiapan]

As strange as it seems, although its origins come from the concept of feudal Lords. The present queen (Liz II), is a figurehead, politically isolated from the realm she is supposed to reign and acts more like a moral compass, not to the wishes of the queen but to the "crown" which now sits firmly on the elected parliament's head. By divesting the head of state from the political turmoil of modern day society, minimizes corruption and means a society can remain altruistic and rational at the same time.

The British colonial empire under Victoria was guilty of many near genocidal treatments of its colonies, but it also brought education, equitable government and management to many countries. We in Australia like those of Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, India and many other nations are members of a group of "ex-british" commonwealths (see CHOGM) of demonstratable stability and wealth indicating that British colonization resulted in parliamentary system which has been aparticularly successful and workable model in the modern world. Part of its success is the figure head , independent head of government concept. It works. With the current US presidential system there is always the question of wealth and influence manipulating power.

Cheers

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just to go back to this...

The problem with an elected head of state is, well you might get Bush!

Why do you think this is a compelling argument against an elected head of state? Having a monarch didn't stop you from getting Thatcher.

I'm really not clear on what it's supposed to mean. Is it just that it gives you a way to distance yourself from the actions of the actual leaders of your country?

"Well, yes, she's done some awful things, but she's not our 'head of state'. She's just the person who runs the government... the 'hired help', as it were, keeping an eye on things for the real owners, who are all fine, upstanding, noble people."

Really - what argument is your statement supposed to serve?