Constitutional monarchy or republic?

by witchfinder Fri May 25, 2012 10:17 am

This topic or subject is actualy about the head of state of the United KIngdom and 15 other independent sovereign nations including Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

If this particular thread was about the head of state of say France or the United States, then instead of been slotted into "General Discussion", it would have been more appropriate to put the topic into "Politics", but of course our head of state is above politics and represents no political party, and in my view thats what makes the constitutional monarchy a superior system.

In 1981 this question was put to me: "are you a true and loyal supporter of the British Crown and constitution", and my reply was "yes" I am, and in doing so I actualy made an oath of loyalty not to any politician, but to The Crown, the people and the nation.

The Crown and the monarchy are not democratic in the sense that no one ever elects them, but then again what system, or which sytem of government is truly fair and democratic ?, in the United States 45% of serving soldiers, airforce staff and sailors voted Republican in 2008, yet they have to swear alliegence to President Obama, in many unstable nations this situation is a recipe for civil war.

Today ( 25th May 2012 ) the latest opinion poll has been published in the UK on the subject of the monarchy, the findings have been released just prior to nationwide celebrations for the Diamond Jubilee celebrations of Queen Elizabeth II.

The first thing to point out about this opinion poll is that the monarchy enjoys solid support amongst Labour voters and supporters, the Queen and the institution of the monarchy has never been so popular.
Support is strong in Scotland, Wales, all areas of England and in every age group and social class, but the findings are not good reading for Charlie, most people feel the line of succession should jump a generation and go to William.

Should TRUE Labour supporters be embaressed about been a supporter of the Queen and the monarchy ?, I say absolutely not, it is clearly obvious that to go down the path of republicanism would lose both support and votes, just as it did to the SNP in Scotland.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/may/24/queen-diamond-jubilee-record-support

And so as my next door neighbour who is chairman of the local Conservative club puts out his flags for the celebrations, so shall I, and as a Labour supporter and voter we are both equal in one nation under one Crown.

by oftenwrong Fri May 25, 2012 10:35 am

Democracy is a device by which the greedy justify their acquisition of wealth and control. It's a nicer name than Dictatorship, the alternative.

by **Ivan** Sat May 26, 2012 1:23 am

If this particular thread was about the head of state of say France or the United States, then instead of been slotted into "General Discussion", it would have been more appropriate to put the topic into "Politics", but of course our head of state is above politics and represents no political party, and in my view thats what makes the constitutional monarchy a superior system.

What form our Head of State takes is a political issue and that’s why this thread has been moved to this board.

The monarchy is not above party politics, it’s another arm of the Tory Party. Someone from Buckingham Palace successfully lobbied for Cameron to be given his first job with the Tory Party. Charles Windsor displayed his open hostility to Labour for abolishing foxhunting, and as both he and his brother Andrew are shady businessmen, they’re very much cut in the Tory mould. For last year’s royal wedding, two former Tory Prime Ministers were invited and two ex-Labour Prime Ministers weren’t. Despots from all around the world who happen to be called ‘king’ were invited; just like Thatcher (who made a personal friend of the butcher Pinochet), the British royals (with strong links to both the bin Laden family and the right-wing American Bush family) aren’t too bothered about the company they keep.

A hereditary monarchy is undemocratic, however you dress it up. I find the idea that someone should be considered important and lavished with great wealth, simply because they were born into a particular family, abhorrent. As an institution it’s just a waste of money and irrelevant. This country desperately needs a safeguard on the corruption and carpetbagging of crooks like Cameron and his Murdoch-worshipping cronies. We need an elected Head of State who could have said to Cameron: “You have no mandate for destroying the NHS. In fact it’s the very opposite of what you told the voters. I won’t sign the bill, either drop it or put it to the voters in a general election.” But no, Liz Windsor simply signed it into law.

In my opinion, the best form of Head of State currently in operation is represented by the presidents of Eire and Germany. Both roles are largely ceremonial but at least they're elected. We’ve had the same Head of State for 60 years and we’ve never been asked our opinion. The sycophantic propaganda pumped out by the BBC and various newspapers suggests that enough people have been brainwashed into thinking that this relic of feudalism is a good system, but that’s still no excuse for not putting the issue to the electorate. Frankly, anyone who is prepared to accept a hereditary monarchy doesn’t believe in real democracy.

by ROB Sat May 26, 2012 3:53 am

Two pertinent points.

1. If one checks out the definition of republic, a representative democracy system of government, one finds that the UK is a de facto representative democracy, a de facto republic, and has been a de facto republic for at least the better part of two centuries.

2. If Barack Obama (or his wife, or either of his children) spits on the sidewalk in violation of Cleveland City ordinance 24a Sec. 5 Para. 3, the video will go viral in about ten minutes. Same same for Baby Bush and family before Obama; the Bush girls, college students at the University of Texas, Party Down Central, for goodness sake, were all over the net for daring to (gasp!) sneak in a bar a order drinks!

In the UK, all that paparazzi attention is focused upon an old lady and her progeny. The idiots-with-cameras fell all over themselves covering a car accident in France. As my Dad said, “several people in the world were in car crashes today.” These pseudo-journalists are unfortunately with us for the foreseeable future. Might as well give them some unimportant Germans-turned-Brits to chase after while Prime Ministers and Chancellors and their cabinets run the governments. Let the old lady and her dysfunctional family take the heat that presidents and their families take over here.

Also, on a personal note, Michelle the Gorgeous would not have been possible without a monarch that needed a Governor General in her cross pond “dominion.”

Perhaps the co-owners of the de facto republic de nom (check my Latin) “constitutional monarchy” called the UK should put the continued existence of the monarchy to a vote of We the People. Seems the “Westminster” thing to do.

by witchfinder Sat May 26, 2012 10:25 am

Sometimes I realy do feel that Ivan acts like a dictator - I am out of here - GOODBYE

by **Ivan** Sat May 26, 2012 11:38 am

witchfinder. ‘Constitutions’, ‘republics’ and ‘heads of state’ are political concepts, and so I moved your thread to the appropriate board, where it’s more likely to gain attention than simply being classified as ‘general discussion’. If that offended you, then I’m really sorry. However, my previous posting on this thread represents my views and I don’t apologise for those.

If you think I’m a dictator, I suggest you visit a few other forums. I know of one where the admin just tells you to clear off if you complain about anything, another where the ‘owner’ threatens to shut it down when she gets a strop, and another where you get kicked out if the admin doesn’t like your views or if you dare to question anything a moderator says. Far from being a dictator, I’ve devolved decision-making to a number of people – including yourself – while I concentrate on recruitment, tidying up the boards and making them user friendly, as well as answering the post. As you’re well aware, far from this being a dictatorship, at least three moderators must agree before any member is banned, even for just a few days, and I take no part in that.

I hope you’ll reconsider when you’ve calmed down. All members should be grateful for the fact that you took the initiative, found this site and set it up for us. Then you asked me to become the administrator, and as soon as the membership grew, so did the staff. You've supported the forum as a moderator, even though I know you're very busy with your work in the real world.

If you have issues with me, it would have been better if you’d raised them in a PM or in the staff room, but I don’t particularly mind if other members become aware of this. A forum is nothing without its members, and if it transpires that others are unhappy with what I do, I won’t do a Jeremy Hunt - I'll resign, leave the forum and get my life back.

by Mel Sat May 26, 2012 3:48 pm

Gentlemen gentlemen, please, this subject is purely a matter of opinions.

Witchfinder, I have much respect for you and your views and it matters not what my view is on this subject. However surely everybody is entitled to their opinion even those from overseas and Ivan has his, which surely must be respected as yours my friend.
I really see NOT where this puts Ivan into the category of a "dictator", for he is entitled to move a post to where he considers it to be appropriate, after all he is the Administrator.

Now I am sure none of us wish to lose your excellent in put here Witchy and that I know also goes for Ivan. Let's put the heat down to the weather and not the debate. Please do not be hasty with your "goodbye" we need you here to help fight the cause, the enemy and not ourselves.

Kind Regards,

Mel.

by Shirina Sat May 26, 2012 6:04 pm

GOODBYE

by oftenwrong Sat May 26, 2012 6:08 pm

More evidence, if such were needed, of the very delicate balance required in any discussion of the British Monarchy. The Queen does not (unlike some other "Royalty") claim divine origin and enjoys a remarkable degree of respect on a personal level. She will still be as popular among the British people when her reign comes to an end, as it inevitably must. The same could not be said of Big Ears, and that's when the trouble will really start.

by Blamhappy Sat May 26, 2012 11:31 pm

You're not a dictator in the slightest, Ivan, so I think that post was a bit odd. Don't take offence to it. I think Witchfinder was being a tad sensitive.

by oftenwrong Sat May 26, 2012 11:54 pm

Most of us are familiar with those excrutiatingly UN-funny notices some people like to pin up at their workplace, such as You don't have to be mad to work here, but it helps. However I do remember seeing one that often got a smile:

OFFICE RULES

1. The Boss is always right

2. In any other circumstance, Rule 1 shall apply.

by Shirina Sun May 27, 2012 3:58 am

Or this one:

Constitutional monarchy or republic? CD4

by Shirina Sun May 27, 2012 6:21 am

Aww c'mon, Witchfinder ... get your butt back here and stop clowning around!

I'll give you a kitten!

Constitutional monarchy or republic? Gallerykitten18

Constitutional monarchy or republic? Gallerykitten18

by tlttf Sun May 27, 2012 11:59 am

Never mind witchy, regardless of which bracket Herr Ivan places your post it would seem the majority of Britain disagree with him.

Support for monarchy 'highest for more than a decade'
Support for the royal family is at its highest for more than a decade as the Queen prepares to celebrate her Diamond Jubilee, a poll indicates.
Support for the royal family is at its highest for more than a decade as the Queen prepares to celebrate her Diamond Jubilee, a poll indicates.
Support for the royal family is at its highest for more than a decade as the Queen prepares to celebrate her Diamond Jubilee, a poll indicates. Photo: PA

7:32AM BST 25 May 2012

Sixty-nine per cent of Britons think the country would be worse off without the monarchy compared to 22 per cent who would like to see it abolished, according to an ICM poll.

The 47 percentage point margin is the widest since the same questions were first put to Britons by the research company in 1997.

by **Ivan** Sun May 27, 2012 2:40 pm

Does anyone else find it ironic that those who support an unelected head of state like to use opinion polls to justify the denial of democracy which it involves?
Rolling Eyes

by oftenwrong Sun May 27, 2012 5:37 pm

Democracy has saddled us with a rapacious Tory-led coalition that wants everyone to work for peanuts to support the avarice of our natural leaders, Ivan.

by ROB Sun May 27, 2012 6:18 pm

oftenwrong wrote:
Democracy has saddled us with a rapacious Tory-led coalition that wants everyone to work for peanuts to support the avarice of our natural leaders, Ivan.

Not so. Your allowance of coalition governments has saddled you with a minority government not supported by a majority of We the People of the United Kingdom. Barack Obama and George Bush each received a majority of the votes that count (Electoral College), as have all US Presidents since I’ve been alive. We cannot have an administration (a “government”) that is a cobbled-together mishmash of minority parties.

by **Phil Hornby** Sun May 27, 2012 8:45 pm

" Do I look cool in these shades - and do they successfully hide the fact that, in reality, I am a bit of a prat...? " Very Happy

by trevorw2539 Sun May 27, 2012 10:16 pm

Ivan quote. We need an elected Head of State who could have said to Cameron: “You have no mandate for destroying the NHS. In fact it’s the very opposite of what you told the voters. I won’t sign the bill, either drop it or put it to the voters in a general election.” But no, Liz Windsor simply signed it into law.

The Queen has no right to veto a law passed in Parliament.

And what makes you think that a President would use his powers to veto as above. There's no guarantee that he would believe that the Tory policy is the wrong one. Your opinion is your own on this. I happen to agree with you, many don't. Should he have the power to interfere with the will of the people. And, like it or not, this is the situation under our current Parliamentary system. A Coalition Government. If you want majority rule, then change the system or you will always have this problem.

Your disrespect for an elderly woman unable to answer back is speaks volumes. Call people what you like when they can defend themselves.
This Queen has worked hard for the State over 60 years. At least twice she has ignored threats to her life, and fulfilled overseas engagements for the State.

RoC quote. Not so. Your allowance of coalition governments has saddled you with a minority government not supported by a majority of We the People of the United Kingdom.

Exactly.

by **astradt1** Sun May 27, 2012 10:49 pm

Here's a question for all the monarchists.....

Who would you perfer to take over from the Queen....

Prince Charles or Prince William?

by oftenwrong Sun May 27, 2012 11:23 pm

It's a bit silly to purport to speak for people who are not entirely free to speak for themselves, but the impression I gain from what we know so far of Diana's firstborn is that he would happily dismantle the entire edifice of Saxe-Coburg-Windsor.

by trevorw2539 Mon May 28, 2012 8:58 am

astradt1 wrote:Here's a question for all the monarchists.....

Who would you perfer to take over from the Queen....

Prince Charles or Prince William?

If the Monarchy is to continue - William.

by oftenwrong Mon May 28, 2012 9:37 am

Regrettably, we don't get to vote for our choice of Monarch, and the Law of Succession is crystal-clear, as it has been for centuries.

That's why British history is full of stories of Princes who either never made it to middle age, or deprived their Daddy of that privilege. Palace Revolution, anyone?

by tlttf Mon May 28, 2012 1:49 pm

Phil Hornby wrote:

" Do I look cool in these shades - and do they successfully hide the fact that, in reality, I am a bit of a prat...? "

No Phil you look pretty cool, shame you removed the dog collar though. :affraid:

by **Ivan** Mon May 28, 2012 2:54 pm

I listened to Will Self on ‘A Point Of View’ on BBC Radio 4 yesterday morning, and this is some of what he had to say:-

"A real, living woman, who, in the absence of a constitutional role beyond being a fleshly stamp for legislation, is reduced to a tedious go-round of functions that are symbolic only of this: that while our society may pay lip service to equality of opportunity, our fundamental values remain those of inherited wealth and privilege; and that while we may slap on a 'call-me-Dave' democratising topcoat, beneath this lies a thick distemper of deference. Yes, deference is the key - and with each bent knee, each ma'am and sir and Your Majesty, we reaffirm that this is the way things are meant to be.

Supporters of the status quo are always keen to emphasise the role of the Queen - and other members of the Royal Family - as public servants, and establish their hand-shaking and curtain-swishing is a vital function. However, this is manifestly untrue. The octogenarian Queen, accompanied by her nonagenarian consort, surrounded by her respectful family, and attended to by her deferential servants is an idol of our own wish fulfilment to which we make obeisance by raising a glass. After all, most of us face old age in a so-called care home, being tended to by migrant workers on minimum wage."

For the rest of this splendid article:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18205999

by blueturando Mon May 28, 2012 3:06 pm

and with each bent knee, each ma'am and sir and Your Majesty, we reaffirm that this is the way things are meant to be.

Yes that's correct it is meant to be

After all, most of us face old age in a so-called care home, being tended to by migrant workers on minimum wage."

And without a Royal family this changes does it?

by **Ivan** Mon May 28, 2012 4:19 pm

Democracy has saddled us with a rapacious Tory-led coalition that wants everyone to work for peanuts to support the avarice of our natural leaders

OW – did you say democracy? Do you mean the 36.1% of the 65% who voted for the Tories – that is, 23.47% of the electorate? Even those voters thought there would be no top-down reorganisation of the NHS, no increase in VAT or National Insurance, no cuts to Sure Start or the EMA or to benefits for the disabled. And even when the Tories couldn’t win a majority for the first time in 20 years and needed to team up with a bunch of unprincipled scavangers, they haven’t stuck to the coalition agreement.

We need a head of state who can protect us from this abuse of democracy. We need someone to be able to say “you’ve no mandate for that, in fact it’s the opposite of what you promised, you must put it to the voters before you can do it”. Is that so much to ask? The Windsors are in no position to do that since they have no democratic legitimacy (which requires elections, not opinion polls). In other words, the monarchy is quite useless for anything other than shaking hands (gloved, of course!) and cutting ribbons. It also sends out a very nasty reminder that, first and foremost, people are considered important because of inheritance and wealth rather than what they achieve by their abilities.

by tlttf Mon May 28, 2012 5:04 pm

Good points Ivan, personally I'd rather have a head of state that holds no real power (that's why we voted in the first place) over whichever government is voted in. By her cutting ribbons and entertaining other Countries leaders, I'm quite sure that Britain's interests are promoted more than if she voted one way or the other.

by oftenwrong Mon May 28, 2012 5:44 pm

tlttf wrote:Good points Ivan, personally I'd rather have a head of state that holds no real power (that's why we voted in the first place) over whichever government is voted in. By her cutting ribbons and entertaining other Countries leaders, I'm quite sure that Britain's interests are promoted more than if she voted one way or the other.

Paradoxically, what we have is considerably cheaper to run than the Presidential construct enjoyed in Republican Nations. The tours, presentations, hospitality, palaces and ribbon-cutting cost the French MUCH more.

by sickchip Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:48 am

If the very idea of monarchy diminishes us, the living reality is much more humiliating and damaging to our country

This is from a brilliant article in the guardian by Polly Toynbee. I don't always agree with her, but she hits the nail on the head here....on several points.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/31/queen-diamond-jublilee-why-celebrate?commentpage=last#end-of-comments

by ROB Fri Jun 01, 2012 8:43 am

oftenwrong wrote:
Paradoxically, what we have is considerably cheaper to run than the Presidential construct enjoyed in Republican Nations. The tours, presentations, hospitality, palaces and ribbon-cutting cost the French MUCH more.

You might check out the aggregate costs of (1) the 2012 US Republican Party Presidential Primary campaigns, and (2) the upcoming 2012 US General Election Presidential campaign.

by sickchip Sat Jun 02, 2012 9:40 am

Watched about 30mins of some Royal tosh on BBC last night - Prince Charles on about his mum and reminiscing. I had to switch off as it was making me nauseous.

by sickchip Mon Jun 04, 2012 11:19 am

It's so disappointing to see so many British people showing such disloyalty to this nation by supporting this celebration of the queen.

I think they should be forced to make a choice - Are they loyal to this country, or to the stain on it that is the monarchy? If they choose the monarchy they are clearly traitors to Britain and it's people.

by oftenwrong Mon Jun 04, 2012 5:44 pm

Never mind, sickchip. Tesco have made thousands out of selling bunting and Union-Jack cushions.

It's an ill wind that blows no good

by ROB Mon Jun 04, 2012 6:38 pm

sickchip wrote:
It's so disappointing to see so many British people showing such disloyalty to this nation by supporting this celebration of the queen.

I think they should be forced to make a choice - Are they loyal to this country, or to the stain on it that is the monarchy? If they choose the monarchy they are clearly traitors to Britain and it's people.

Question from an outsider: Why would those two loyalties be mutually exclusive? Serious question.

by **Phil Hornby** Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:12 pm

If it's a President or the Queen, give me the latter every time.

Can you just imagine what we could end up with - for example: President John Major.

Now that's what real nausea is made of...!

by Shirina Mon Jun 04, 2012 11:10 pm

I never saw the appeal of a monarchy - or any entrenched system that involves birthrights. I look at any of the Royals and wonder, "What did they do to deserve a life of privilege?" If these people hadn't simply won the jackpot by being lucky enough to be born into the Royal Family, William and Charles might be flipping burgers or changing oil pans. I can't help but think ... just who ARE these people, and why should I feel any veneration for them?

I don't have any animosity toward the Windsors, either, but birthrights don't inspire me. At least with a presidency, any child can aspire to hold that office ... unlike being a Royal, which is all about an accident of nature.

by **astradt1** Mon Jun 04, 2012 11:34 pm

All this jubilee stuff is just hype.......Mostly for the much older generation or the very young.....

On my 10 minute walk from work I have passed one street where they had a party and just another 7 house with bunting outside which out of the possible 200 houses I pass would seem to indicate that most people are not interested in all this Royal guff.....

Why is it that when names are put forward for President of the UK, it is always some previous politician why could it not be a business man or woman?..

If we had a presidency William or Harry could always stand should they wish to....

Roc asked:-

Question from an outsider: Why would those two loyalties be mutually exclusive? Serious question.

I would suggest that he already knows the answer....

Are all Americans Loyal to the incumbent US President AND the United States of America...or are they just Loyal to United States of America (the Country) no matter who is president?

by ROB Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:20 am

astradt1 wrote:
Roc asked:-

Question from an outsider: Why would those two loyalties be mutually exclusive? Serious question.
I would suggest that he already knows the answer....

I do not.

astradt1 wrote:
Are all Americans Loyal to the incumbent US President AND the United States of America...or are they just Loyal to United States of America (the Country) no matter who is president?

Both.

In November 1980, James Earl Carter was defeated by Ronald Reagan. I listened to the election returns in my car that night and cried. Among presidents who have served during my cognizant lifetime, President James Earl Carter is number 1, followed by, in no particular order (listed chronologically), Presidents John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Lyndon Baines Johnson, and Barack Hussein Obama. Had Sirhan Sirhan not stolen my democracy from We the People in June 1968, Robert Francis Kennedy would be on this list.

Shortly after his inauguration in 1981, President Ronald Reagan was shot by a fool named Hinckley in an assassination attempt caught on video (look it up on YouTube if you so desire). I watched it minutes after it happened. Had I been there, Hinckley’s sorry ass might not have made it to lockup in one piece. How DARE that sorry piece of s**t harm MY President!

In November 1984, I voted against Ronald Reagan for the second time. Once again, Reagan won, and was re-inaugurated 20 January 1985, and once again, I stood ready to take down and take out any sorry sucker that DARED attempt to harm my president.

I may no like the man (or woman); I stand ready today to take down and take out anyone who dares attempt to harm my president or any of my former presidents. Each of these five men, James Earl Carter, George Herbert Walker Bush, William Jefferson Clinton, George Walker Bush, and Barack Hussein Obama Jr., were elected to the office of President of the United States by We the People of the United States. As long as I draw breath, my loyalty to my country includes my loyalty to her servants.

by **Ivan** Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:23 am

Phil. It doesn’t have to be John Major, you shouldn’t reduce everything to the lowest common denominator! Sad

There are basically two types of head of state in democratic republics: political ones, such as the presidents of France and the USA, and non-political ones, as in Ireland and Germany. The difference is that in Ireland and Germany, while the role is still largely ceremonial, the people of those countries are treated like adults and allowed to have a vote on who fills the position. And incidentally, our monarchy is actually one hundred times more expensive to maintain than the Irish presidency.

A monarchy doesn’t increase tourism, in fact it might hinder it. Paris has more visitors than any other European city, and tourists aren’t deterred from going to Versailles by the knowledge that there’s no possibility of catching a glimpse of Louis XIV. If our monarchy was abolished and all the benefit scroungers were evicted from their luxury homes, tourists would be able to visit all parts of all the palaces.

My other objection is the message that monarchy sends out - that a somewhat dull and uninspiring family whose members, purely by accident of birth, drop into a pampered life of wealth and privilege, are treated as ‘special’ regardless of their merits. I can never forget the intercepted phone call (pre-Murdoch, I think) where Charles was telling his mistress (now also considered ‘royal’) that he would like to be reincarnated as a tampon. Could you ever respect such a piece of scum as him?

If it wasn’t for the undeserved respect and power handed out to people just because they inherit vast wealth, we might not today be stuck with jumped-up public schoolboys like Cameron and Osborne, two severely flawed characters who’ve been promoted way above their abilities. And let’s not forget that it was someone from Buckingham Palace who asked the Tories to give a job to Cameron (who is Mrs Windsor’s fifth cousin, twice removed) in the first place.

by Sponsored content