Constitutional monarchy or republic?

First topic message reminder :

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.

".... a system wherein the best of the bloodline is selected as crown prince/princess regardless of birth order or gender."

How should marks be awarded in order to make that selection?

How close to the Falklands did the HMS Invisible get before the ceasefire was called?

The definitive history of "The Falklands Conflict" is here:





The 1982 Falklands War and Its Aftermath
Sir Lawrence Freedman

Rock wrote:-
Andrew scores higher than that embarrassment to your entire Commonwealth that now holds the title “crown prince.”

That’s hardly much of a recommendation. Neither of them is fit to be head of state, but then how can we expect that quality of anyone who lands in a position through accident of birth? You're so lucky, you are allowed to choose your head of state, as you've just done this week.

Your support for Andrew Windsor sounds like part of a race to the bottom. Presumably if you think that serving in the British forces means that somebody can be excused later excesses, you also recommend Ian Smith, the last white leader of what is now Zimbabwe? Smith served in the Southern Rhodesian Air Force and British Royal Air Force during the Second World War, but he never allowed non-white people into the political parties which he led. He was also the Prime Minister of a government which used biological and chemical weapons against its black citizens.
http://www.africamaat.com/IMG/pdf/Bacterial_and_Chemical_War_in_Zimbabwe.pdf

(Before anyone takes us further off the subject – yes, Mugabe turned out to be even worse, but that’s still not an argument for Smith.)

Queen Elizabeth is not of course the first female British monarch, and there have also been under-age inheritors. As Royalty was established and then maintained at the point of a sword, Plan "B" was to appoint a King's or Queen's Champion to answer any challenge or insult.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen%27s_Champion

The full ceremony, in all its glory, was last performed in 1821 when Sir Henry Dymoke acted as Champion at the coronation of George IV. Since Richard II, in 1377, there has been a Dymoke officiating at the coronations of 25 Kings and Queens of England. The current Honourable Queens Champion, Colonel John Marmion Dymoke MBE, was present in his office at the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II in 1953. His eldest son, heir to the title, is a Chartered Accountant.

Rock. I assumed you knew my views on hereditary monarchy. It smacks of feudalism, it demands deferment and has no place whatsoever in a true democracy, where any member of the country can aspire to become head of state.

Please don't talk about "old heartbeats", knowing what you know....lol

RockOnBrother wrote:
" ....something modeled after a West African system of chiefs wherein the current chief’s successor was the man deemed most worthy by the nation.

(Old saying, "Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.")

Extrapolating forward to Western Nations adopting a West African musical tradition would probably mean the death of Pop Music as we know it, because the vast majority in our society is based upon human mating customs. There are almost no popular songs whose lyrics and/or title do not refer specifically or obliquely to LOVE.

What we call "World Music" however will probably be based on extolling a Nation's history and the exploits of its Gods or heroes. Not much attention to overactive hormones there.

Where there's a Wills , there's a way...

(msn)

" I'm so glad you're feeling better, darling- but I did warn you to avoid the Corgi Jalfrezi..."

Meanwhile, not far away, at HMS Belfast ....

"One is a Grandfather."

I've made my mind up - republic, please - sick of paying for this useless shower

Fair enough, but don't imagine that a Presidency would be any cheaper. Have a look across the Channel at The Elysee Palace, the gorgeously-uniformed ceremonial guard, the fleet of limousines, the gilded halls etc., etc., which are a close approximation to Buckingham Palace.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

Is this just about money? Or are there some principles involved here? That anyone in a so-called democracy should be able to aspire to become head of state? That what you achieve on your own merits should count for more than accident of birth? That maybe voters should be given the opportunity to change their head of state every few years?

I hear you, Ivan.
Republics do have their problems (as what in life doesn't?) but it's certainly more possible to work towards an egalitarian ideal if there isn't a whole gang of people born to wealth, privilege and power.
While we're at it I'm going to wish for free universal education and health care - let's get everyone sharing the same benefits - maybe we'll all end up healthier and better educated.
Hope Father Christmas is listening

"Is this just about money?"

Some of the contributors to this thread seem to have that aspect in their thoughts.

Hollywood photo artist Danny Evans has fun "reversing" the appearance of celebrities, so as to render them as rather like most of us:






http://celebrity.uk.msn.com/features/celeb-make-unders-the-stars-if-they-werent-famous

That's quite a disturbing image, really

Disturbing indeed. It's painful to acknowledge how readily we accept "Celebrity" at its face value, when often it's little more than Good PR allied to the arts of cosmetics and tailoring.

In my mis-spent youth it was fashionable to have posters of well-known people sitting on the toilet, for debunking purposes.

But the dream machines roll on, and why not?

Sure as hell looks like the couple next door...

Oh, so you're in SW1W 0AE too, Phil. Give us a wave.

Not after you just walked by and didn't give me the change I pleaded for so politely...

Only because you couldn't split a tenner.

Slightly suspicious of that picture of George V on it, to be honest....

It's your fault you smudged it.

In my mis-spent youth it was fashionable to have posters of well-known people sitting on the toilet, for debunking purposes.

I had one of Frank Zappa - in the toilet (but I think he'd endorsed that one)

Tory orchestration of THE FUNERAL is making the Churchill planting look a bit casual.

If Cameron and his cohorts prove so exuberant on the day as to upstage The Queen and her entourage, they may live to regret it.

Caroline Lucas MP: "This is not a democracy"


Source: YouTube

He is something

When the royal baby is born will any politician dare to be a modern Keir Hardie?
 
Extracts from an article by Tom London:-
 
According to opinion polls, there has been for decades a fairly constant 20% of the population who would like to replace the monarchy with an elected head of state, but no mainstream politician speaks for those millions of Britons. Some politicians may be closet republicans but stay quiet as they are fearful that they would pay too high a price if they ever challenged the prevailing consensus on royalty.

That suffocates debate and leads to an attitude of unthinking deference and self-censorship which smacks of attitudes to leaders in North Korea. Recently the Queen received a 5% pay rise and it was announced that £1million of public money had been spent to renovate William and Kate’s accommodation yet, even at this time of austerity and acute hardship, no mainstream politician breathed a word of criticism.

Back in 1894, when the future Edward VIII was born, Keir Hardie spoke in the Commons:

"From his childhood onwards this boy will be surrounded by sycophants and flatterers by the score – and will be taught to believe himself as of a superior creation. A line will be drawn between him and the people whom he is to be called upon some day to reign over. …and the end of it all will be that the country will be called upon to pay the bill."

Hardie spoke a century after the French Revolution, with its novel idea that all men are born equal. No institution stands so completely in opposition to that noble idea as does monarchy. The central principle of monarchy is that some people are superior to others as a result merely of their birth or marriage.
 
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2013/07/when-the-royal-baby-is-born-will-any-politician-dare-to-be-a-modern-keir-hardie/

Charlie's not been getting a good Press recently since he started dabbling in Property Investment.

Prince Charles accused of 'dodging around for tax purposes'
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk-news/2013/jul/15/prince-charles-tax-duchy-cornwall?CMP

The Duchy of Cornwall was created to provide The Black Prince with some pocket-money.

Plus ça change

A message from Natalie Bennett, the leader of the Green Party:-
 
"I congratulate the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on the birth of their son, and also the estimated 1,982 other parents in the UK who today also celebrated the birth of a child.

I hope all of the children have a healthy, fulfilling, financially secure life.

I hope that by the time this child comes of age, with the right to vote at age 16, that the hereditary principle will have disappeared from all aspects of the constitution. The new baby might then have the same civil rights and fiscal obligations as all other citizens.

I would wish the baby the same chance to become a democratically elected head of state as any other individual."
 
http://brightgreenscotland.org/index.php/2013/07/green-leader-natalie-bennett-gently-trolls-the-royal-baby/

Natalie Bennett sounds like my kind of person

boatlady. I like Natalie Bennett, who followed me on Twitter, so of course I followed back (@natalieben). The Green Party is a republican party with many good ideas – but outside of Brighton, it’s unlikely to beat the Tories and thereby help to remove the scum from office.
 
The first principle of a hereditary monarchy is that the rest of us must never get above our station in life. According to Charles Windsor, it takes “natural ability” (not accident of birth?) to be head of state. Sounds as if the pompous dipstick has ruled himself out of the job then.
 
http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/prince-s-blast-at-people-who-get-above-their-station-1-562530