Why does the UK have royalty?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

I know. I was suggesting a fundamental change to the system, not a new way to do things under the current rules.

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.

I agree. That was the point I was trying to make to Pithyoneliner.

 

[Pithyoneliner]

Can't say I agree with Terry on that one, opinion polls do come into (for better or worse) it is generally understood that Edward the VIII did not want to abdicate, but reluctantly did so because of public opinion, IMHO the same will occur with Charles - but Penguin's earlier comment is true that that is a matter of soft power not actual law. But you do have a case that technically Charles would be King from the moment of the queen's death to the moment he abdicated.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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 like a 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, minimises corruption and means a society can remain altruistic and rational at the same time.

I'm not sure how things work in Australia, but here, "crown" property is legally owned by "the Queen in right of Canada", not some abstract "crown" that's separate from the real person.

The British colonial empire under Victoria was guilty of many near genocidal treatments of its colonies, but it also brought education 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 commonwealths of demonstratable stability and wealth indicating that british colonistation and its parliamentary system is a workable model in the modern world.

Recognizing the monarch of Great Britain as the head of state of your country is not required for membership in the Commonwealth. A number of Commonwealth countries are republics.

Part of its success is the figure head , head of government concept. It works. With the current US presidential system there is always the question of wealth and influence manipulating power.

This has also been a serious problem in the UK. It seems that having a monarch hasn't insulated them from this issue.

 

[Pithyoneliner]

Thew difference between Thatcher and Bush is that Thatcher was never our head of state! She always was answerable to a higher power. Of course democracy is the only practicable way of running a modern country - however I do not see that as incompatible with Monarchy. I see the queen as a "check and balance". It should be remembered that she does have real power, but does not exercise it. Any law requires her approval (she's never withheld) any government requires her to invest them (again she's never withheld) and she can at any time disolve parliament (she has done that before - to universal approval).

The other argument cited earlier in the thread that she is a diplomatic ace in the hole has some weight, can either of you name me the current German Head of State? (no googling!)

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Can't say I agree with Terry on that one, opinion polls do come into (for better or worse) it is generally understood that Edward the VIII did not want to abdicate, but reluctantly did so because of public opinion, IMHO the same will occur with Charles - but Penguin's earlier comment is true that that is a matter of soft power not actual law. But you do have a case that technically Charles would be King from the moment of the queen's death to the moment he abdicated.

The public were very much on Edward Viii side, It was the political , Royal and religious establishment, that were against a Royal Marriage to a divorcee.

To day there is not an "Establishment" in the sense there was then.

Princess Margaret was not permitted to marry a divorcee.
However both Charles and Anne were.
The Permission to marry, is in the hands of the Queen alone for all heirs. If she says no they can not legally marry, unless they give up their and their potential childrens rights to the throne.

 

[Pithyoneliner]

Come on the divorce thing is just a case of changing social standards, divorce was just as scandalous in a republic at that time as it was in the UK

You are correct the "establishment" as such does not wield the power it did, or even exist in the same form as the 1930s, the establishment now is the media, the house of commons and Richard and Judy, and the Establishment will be the ones that persuade Charlie not to try and fit the crown over his ears...

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Come on the divorce thing is just a case of changing social standards, divorce was just as scandalous in a republic at that time as it was in the UK

You are correct the "establishment" as such does not wield the power it did, or even exist in the same form as the 1930s, the establishment now is the media, the house of commons and Richard and Judy, and the Establishment will be the ones that persuade Charlie not to try and fit the crown over his ears...

"The Divorce thing" as you put it, is still in the hands of the Queen, It was thought there were bars in place by the Church of England, but this proved not to be the case. (we have had divorced Royals in the past Henry VIII comes to mind)

Prince Charles Also wants to remove the Catholick bar. and change the title "defender of the Faith" Given by the Pope. to "defender of the Faiths."
Subtle but important.

 

[Smoke]

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.

On the bright side, if the Queen lives as long as her mother Charles won't become king until he's 79 years old.

 

[Smoke]

Kings and queens can be asked to Abdicate... so their term is not fixed.
Edward Vlll was sent packing even before he was enthroned...

That was key, though. For those who believe in traditional Christianity, it's doubtful whether an anointed monarch can abdicate. The anointed sovereign is the sovereign till he dies or becomes a monk.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Thew difference between Thatcher and Bush is that Thatcher was never our head of state! She always was answerable to a higher power.

But wait - didn't you just say earlier that the monarch was a figurehead with no real power?

Of course democracy is the only practicable way of running a modern country - however I do not see that as incompatible with Monarchy. I see the queen as a "check and balance". It should be remembered that she does have real power, but does not exercise it. Any law requires her approval (she's never withheld) any government requires her to invest them (again she's never withheld) and she can at any time disolve parliament (she has done that before - to universal approval).

The Canadian Governor-General can do all these things while still being appointed for a fixed term, and without putting his or her entire family on the public payroll.

The other argument cited earlier in the thread that she is a diplomatic ace in the hole has some weight, can either of you name me the current German Head of State? (no googling!)

I assume it's Angela Merkel, but let me just check... hmm. Looks like I was wrong.

On a side note, though, there was a minor kerfuffle in Canada last year when it came out in the news that the Prime Minister's web site called him the head of state and the Governor-General's web site said that she was. Both were quickly corrected, but apparently, having a monarch does not eliminate confusion on this issue.

 

[Pithyoneliner]

(German President: Christian Wulff) So one argument you can't rebuff is that having the monarchy is good for our international prestige! Everyone on the planet <pretty much> knows who's our head of state, where as even an erudite fella such as yourself can't name the (elected) head of state of the world's third biggest economy!

And look at the kerfuffle when Diana <the harlot> died... even the French mourned her.

Re the 'real power' well you've got me there - it's kind of tough she doesn't have power in that she governs, but she does have power to stop others governing - if you see what I mean!

 

[Smoke]

The Permission to marry, is in the hands of the Queen alone for all heirs. If she says no they can not legally marry

That's true to a ridiculous extent.

The Royal Marriages Act covers all the descendants of George II, except for the issue of princesses who marry into foreign families, so it potentially applies to thousands of people. Charles Liddell-Grainger, a great-great-great-grandson of Queen Victoria who is 340th in the line of succession, has twice sought and received the Queen's permission to marry, though it's hard to imagine any serious reason of state why anybody should care whom he marries.

 

[Panda]

That's true to a ridiculous extent.

The Royal Marriages Act covers all the descendants of George II, except for the issue of princesses who marry into foreign families, so it potentially applies to thousands of people. Charles Liddell-Grainger, a great-great-great-grandson of Queen Victoria who is 340th in the line of succession, has twice sought and received the Queen's permission to marry, though it's hard to imagine any serious reason of state why anybody should care whom he marries.

The UK has lots of stupid laws like that but why change them if they don't make a difference? For these sort of people the Queen will always say yes. If she said no them I am sure something would be done about it but until then it is probably just to much hassle to change it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

(German President: Christian Wulff) So one argument you can't rebuff is that having the monarchy is good for our international prestige! Everyone on the planet <pretty much> knows who's our head of state, where as even an erudite fella such as yourself can't name the (elected) head of state of the world's third biggest economy!

I'm not sure how you can come to this conclusion from all that. My opinion of Germany hasn't improved by knowing who its president is. IMO, the main recipients of the prestige of monarchy are the monarchs themselves.

And look at the kerfuffle when Diana <the harlot> died... even the French mourned her.

If the legitimacy of the British monarchy was based on public outpouring of emotion on a parent's death, then the king of England would be Julian Lennon.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The UK has lots of stupid laws like that but why change them if they don't make a difference? For these sort of people the Queen will always say yes. If she said no them I am sure something would be done about it but until then it is probably just to much hassle to change it.

How do you know that it makes no difference?

It could very well be that because the law is in place, people who are subject to it self-censor themselves and don't present the Queen with requests if they think she won't grant them.

 

[Kathryn]

Ah, well, other countries' kings and queens afford endless entertainment to us Yanks. As long as I'm not asked to subsidize their lifestyles, TALLY HO!

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Ah, well, other countries' kings and queens afford endless entertainment to us Yanks. As long as I'm not asked to subsidize their lifestyles, TALLY HO!

It only cost each of us a few pence a year .... for the lot of them.

You could not even take out a "Royal" DVD for that.

What do you thnk your President "costs" each of you...

And what fun do you get from it?

 

[Kathryn]

At least he won a majority vote - in theory anyway.

My point is - we have some CHOICE in who's on the public penny. The whole idea that someone could actually be entitled to a royal title and all the trappings by birth alone is just so outdated and crazy to me!

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

At least he won a majority vote - in theory anyway.

My point is - we have some CHOICE in who's on the public penny. The whole idea that someone could actually be entitled to a royal title and all the trappings by birth alone is just so outdated and crazy to me!

I am not sure which is more legitimate. we have each chosen the system we have and we could change it at any time.
However.. Political top jobs are bought... with out raising and spending vast sums of money no one could become president. In my view becoming head of state through the power of money is no better than through inheritance.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am not sure which is more legitimate. we have each chosen the system we have and we could change it at any time.
However.. Political top jobs are bought... with out raising and spending vast sums of money no one could become president. In my view becoming head of state through the power of money is no better than through inheritance.

Yes... the political system that brought us the "Cash for Honours" scandal is immune from the corrupting effects of money.