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.

Savour the possibilities, Phil ....

President Thatcher

President Blair

President (Boris) Johnson or

President Farage ...

Roll the names around your tongue, and then decide ....

We could have enjoyed the honour of President Thatcher not so long ago. 

With that prospect, give me Mrs Windsor anytime...      

I think this is an example of a false dilemma, but I’d need Shirina to confirm it. That’s where two alternative scenarios are presented as the only possibilities, even though more possibilities exist.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/pdf/LogicalFallaciesInfographic_A3.pdf
 
It’s quite possible to draw up rules preventing anyone who has been active in politics running for the office of head of state. And if the worst comes to the worst and duffers do get elected, at least we would be able to chuck them out after a few years. No such safeguard exists for when we have that gormless twit and friend of Savile known as Charles Windsor as head of state in the near future.
 
Mrs Windsor may have used more tact than her obnoxious son and kept her trap shut for most of her reign, but what do we really know about her? Much of her life is kept secret, and we can't tell whether or not she interferes in the business of government. Her son certainly does. Thatcher once said “anyone who imagines the weekly meetings with the monarch are a mere formality, or confined to social niceties, is quite wrong”. Make what you will of that.  

"What you don't know, doesn't hurt you."

Discuss.

Britain's royal family is the most expensive in Europe

Republic.org estimates the total annual cost of the monarchy is £299.4 million, about nine times the official figure published by the royal household which, since 1993, has published an annual finance report, claiming to show the total cost of the monarchy to the British taxpayer. However, this official figure is a fraction of the monarchy’s total cost, excluding a range of hidden costs that together come to hundreds of millions of pounds.

The waste and extravagance of the monarchy is a symptom of the main problem: the palace is totally unaccountable and is able to operate with a far greater degree of secrecy than any other part of the state. It also clearly has considerably lobbying clout within government, which probably explains why the government hasn't cracked down on royal spending.

The monarchy has never been funded like other public bodies, which are usually set an annual budget based on what they actually need to spend. Until 2013, the costs of the monarchy – that's Mrs Windsor in her role as head of state and the other working royals – were funded by a civil list payment and a number of separate grants covering travel, property maintenance, communications and other expenses. All these costs have now been rolled into a single annual payment called the sovereign support grant. That was £36.1 million for 2013/2014. However, the sovereign support grant is just one part of the total cost of the monarchy. The security bill is picked up by the Metropolitan Police, while the costs of visits are met by local councils.

Meanwhile, income from the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall – despite belonging to the nation - goes directly to Mrs Windsor and Charles Windsor respectively, depriving the treasury of tens of millions of pounds every year. When all this hidden expenditure is included, the real cost of the monarchy to British taxpayers is likely to be over £299 million annually, equivalent to the cost of 14,000 nurses, 13,000 police officers and 14,000 teachers.

Adapted from:-
http://republic.org.uk/what-we-want/royal-finances

Is Charlie going to have to pay IHT on the Queen's Estate when he inherits?

"We are not amused"

Old Ma Windsor tests positive for morphine, according to the BBC news ticker:-

Horses for Courses.

and it gets worse ......

Though there is the odd compensation ....

The monarchy is one of Britain's most secretive public bodies; it isn't covered by freedom of information laws. We know the royals use their secrecy for their own personal advantage, whether that's asking for money from a state poverty fund to heat Buckingham Palace or pushing their own political agenda. ‘Republic’ believes that secrecy is key to their survival - popular support for the monarchy would rapidly decline if voters knew what was going on behind closed doors.  

‘The Guardian’ has been fighting since 2006 for the disclosure of letters sent to ministers by Charles Windsor. In 2012, the then attorney general Dominic Grieve stopped the release of letters on the grounds that they could cause constitutional problems by casting doubt on Charles Windsor’s political neutrality. In March 2014, three senior judges ruled that Grieve had acted unlawfully.

In June 2014, some former ministers revealed that they had been actively lobbied by Charles Windsor to change government policy. For example, David Blunkett says that when he was education secretary he was lobbied for more grammar schools: "I would explain that our policy was not to expand grammar schools, and he didn't like that. He was very keen that we should go back to a different era where youngsters had what he would have seen as the opportunity to escape from their background, whereas I wanted to change their background." If Mr Windsor wants to go back to “a different era”, it makes you wonder if he likes the UKIP dinosaurs.

‘Republic’ has written: "Dominic Grieve's argument was that it is better to pretend Charles Windsor is impartial than to prove he is not. He’s required to stay out of politics; if he is lobbying politicians then the public have a right to know. Royals have the complete freedom to lobby the government in secret and on whatever issue they choose. This has nothing to do with their royal duties and everything to do with the Windsor family protecting their own interests and pursuing their own agendas."

We know that in his capacity as the Duke of Cornwall, Charles Windsor cannot be prosecuted for breaches of planning laws. Those include building without permission or breaking the terms of planning consents, which would normally attract fines of up to £50,000.

The Freedom of Information Act makes no mention of the monarchy in its list of public authorities, so the royal household has no obligations under these rules. The list of exemptions under the act does specify that communications between a public authority and the royals are exempt from disclosure. In some cases if it can be proven there is a public interest in disclosure this exemption can be overruled. In the case of senior royals there is no public interest test, the ban on disclosure is absolute. And this is the 21st century, not the Middle Ages….  

http://republic.org.uk/what-we-do/current-campaigns/campaign-against-royal-secrecy

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/queen-tried-to-use-state-poverty-fund-to-heat-buckingham-palace-2088179.html

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/29/prince-charles-lobbied-grammar-schools

I'd spend a lot more time debating the Monarchy Lark if I thought for one moment that any of us plebs would benefit financially from their removal.

I wonder what actually does go on behind closed doors at the palace?
and which political party they do support? any guesses folks?

I suspect the Monarchy are solidly Tory - but they may be rethinking their position after getting one of their idiot relatives appointed as Prime Minister

I suspect you are right boatlady, but I doubt if they will change their position very much at all.

they may be rethinking their position after getting one of their idiot relatives appointed as Prime Minister

And another one as the chancellor of the exchequer who often pulls strange faces during PMQs on a Wednesday. (I think he's a fourth cousin to Mrs Windsor, Cameron is a fifth).

https://pbs.twimg.com/tweet_video/B3h5XauCAAArHeK.mp4

In other news:-

http://nypost.com/2013/07/14/coke-house-cocaine-use-common-in-uks-parliament-report/

Some people wonder why the inquiry into historic child sex abuse is taking so long, and whether there is a cover-up taking place to shield mainly Tory politicians, at least one of whom is rumoured to have served in the current government. Or maybe it's not just politicians who are being protected:-

http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5419/buckingham-palace-drawn-into-scandal-over-paedophile-ring

It rather looks as if our current ruling class are not fit for purpose.

Showed my mum that little video clip and she thought he looked stoned.

We need parliamentarians who will put the important job of running the country at the top of their list, rather than using it as a little part-time earner to back up their primary career - or a no-hassle occupation to get them out of the house, which is the way a lot of these trust fund types seem to regard it

Just keep it in the family eh ? like I said who really does make the decisions?

A phrase which has captured the public imagination recently is the one that runs, "Meet the new Boss - same as the old boss!"

Remove the Monarchy/or Presidency/or Dictatorship and something very similar will emerge in its place.

Plus ca change.

Does not really matter who is in charge of the country does it OW? YOU really do not know who makes the decisions behind the scenes do you.

Royal Family granted new right of secrecy

From an article by Robert Verkaik:-

The royal family is to be granted absolute protection from public scrutiny in a controversial legal reform designed to draw a veil of secrecy over the affairs of the Queen, Prince Charles and Prince William. Letters, emails and documents relating to the monarch, her heir and the second in line to the throne will no longer be disclosed even if they are in the public interest.

Sweeping changes to the Freedom of Information Act will reverse advances which had briefly shone a light on the royal finances – including an attempt by the Queen to use a state poverty fund to heat Buckingham Palace – and which had threatened to force the disclosure of the Prince of Wales's prolific correspondence with ministers.

Lobbying and correspondence from junior staff working for the royal household and Prince Charles will now be held back from disclosure. Buckingham Palace confirmed that it had consulted with the coalition government over the change in the law. The government buried the plan for "added protection" for the royal family in the small print of plans called "opening up public bodies to public scrutiny".

Maurice Frankel, head of the Campaign for Freedom of Information, said he believed that Charles was the driving force behind the new law: "The heir to the throne has written letters to government departments in an attempt to influence policy. He clearly does not want these to get into the public domain."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/royal-family-granted-new-right-of-secrecy-2179148.html

"Transparency, sunlight, fresh air, is the best disinfectant." (David Cameron, 2009)



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6YllxJIgAEaC1N.jpg


'Sex slave case': Prince Andrew may regret friendship with financier who had a very dark secret

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/sex-slave-case-prince-andrew-may-regret-friendship-with-financier-who-had-a-very-dark-secret-9955061.html

Read that this morning Ivan, he's been a naughty boy as he not.

Tell the truth and shame the devil

Matthew 5:33-37

Definitely OW.

The Royal Family is exempt from Freedom of Information requests and can veto BBC programmes. Why do we put up with this?

Extracts from an article by Yasmin Alibhai Brown:-

"The Magna Carta is now 800 years old. There will be events marking this much mythologised moment throughout 2015. It may encourage us all to contemplate and renew our faith in liberty, freedoms, fundamental human rights and democracy, which came much later. But how is that possible when the family at the top of the social structure undermines every one of the ideals and principles that our nation proclaims at home and abroad?

Freedom of speech and expression is held up as a shining British value. But the Queen and her brood can and do stop the media and authors from pursuing legitimate investigations and asking tough questions. The BBC has been persuaded from broadcasting two programmes fronted by Steve Hewlett, a much respected multi-media man. If we, the people, had been allowed to watch the programmes, we might have seen how the Palace used scheming spin doctors to erase Diana from national memory and replace her with Camilla, and how Prince Charles’s actions go way beyond his constitutional role. Imagine what the reaction would be if, say, Tony Blair stopped the BBC from broadcasting a critical programme on his activities. Britons would be outraged.

The Queen, the Duke, her children, and grandchildren are not covered by the Freedom of Information Act. We may not know how much money they have and earn, certainly not how much they pay in tax. The barons of the Magna Carta knew more about royal finances than we are allowed to know today."

For the whole article:-
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-royal-family-are-exempt-from-freedom-of-information-requests-and-can-veto-bbc-programmes-why-do-we-put-up-with-this-9956702.html

It is actually disgusting what they did to get camilla into favouritism in place of diana all through the media, and of course all behind the scenes. I personally cannot stand any of them.

Charles Windsor just loves Saudi Arabia, he can't stay away from the place. He is a friend of the Bin Laden family, and was even entertaining some of its members in London just a few weeks after 9/11. Last year he was sick enough to accept a present of some swords from a country where public beheadings take place at the rate of more than one a week.

Here he is with the late King Abdullah, whose punishment for adultery was stoning to death:-


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B8HRnp3CIAAIbVj.png

He was in the newspapers with the bastard only the other day Ivan,
makes you want to puke at times, sincerely hope that he does not take over from the queen.

punishment for adultery was stoning to death

but only for women, I believe - don't think I've ever heard of a male adulterer being stoned - so Charles is OK

The question still remains though boatlady, who killed Diana for him?

Convenient though her death was, I'm not convinced that anyone killed her. Car accidents don't guarantee a fatality, and if the Windsors had been crazy enough to risk the future of their dynasty, wouldn't they have used a bomb and blamed it on the IRA?

Still, that's all for another thread.....
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t738-princess-diana-the-evidence-by-jon-king-and-john-beveridge

I find myself rather neutral on the question of the British Monarchy. When I was born we had a King, who upped and died so his daughter took over as Queen. I hadn't needed to do a thing.

Britain has various curiosities that amuse the foreigner, such as warm beer and lots of weather, morris dancers, fish-and-chips, beefeaters, the Boat Race, Henley, Wimbledon and Wembley, Shakespeare's heritage and crumbling theatres. Not to mention a tradition of confidence in the knowledge that British is Best regardless of any unreliable evidence to the contrary.

Her Maj has consistently presented a dependable centre around which to rally, and when she moves on as she must, bat-eared Charlie will take over and render the whole edifice pointless anyway, so what are people fretting about?

I guess, to me it's just irritating that an unremarkable and largely talentless crew can get such a rich living just by existing.

I'm also a bit repulsed by 'bat-eared Charlie' and his bland assumption that his opinions have any more worth than any others - not to mention how pally the whole bunch are with robbers and murderers the world over.

I daily meet individuals with more character, intelligence and talent who are doomed to a daily struggle for mere subsistence

The Queen would have to wait over eight years for a council house

From an article by Ashley Cowburn:-

Under a Green government, Elizabeth Windsor – and the rest of the royals – would be served an eviction notice from Buckingham Palace and offered a council house in return. But with an eight-year average and 4,500 applications on the current waiting list in the City of Westminster, it won’t be until the Greens’ second term in government when the Queen is placed in social housing.

The argument to get rid of the monarchy because of inherited privilege has failed to whip up significant republican enthusiasm across the country. The Greens, instead, should hold off for the more realistic and nail-biting scenario: the self-implosion of the monarchy under the reign of Charles III and Queen Camilla. With a man yielding the obnoxious belief that he has the innate right to make “heartfelt interventions” in politics and “reshape the monarch’s role” (according to his allies), it won’t be long before our treasured institution crumbles.

Charles has already stirred up controversy with his outspoken interventions on issues such as education and the genetic modification of crops. And ‘The Guardian’ has been at the centre of a nine-year legal battle with Whitehall over 27 letters between Charles and government ministers. According to the newspaper, the government has already conceded that if the "black spider memos" are ever made public then there's a chance Charles's future role as king could be "seriously damaged".

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/2015/01/queen-would-have-wait-over-eight-years-council-house

Actually, from what I know of their circumstances, I don't think the Queen would even qualify to be placed on the Housing Needs Register in my home town - I have known elderly people with quite severe health problems to be turned away as not having enough in the way of priority need - and as for l the hangers-on - sons and their wives etc - no chance

It seems better to have someone like the Queen, who keeps out of politics and takes no sides, than a President half the people hate - or maybe I've just got used to her.   What I dread is that awful boring Carlo, whom, to my rage, foreigners assume has something to do with my Country, though he is as foreign to it as it possible to be.   That is why I always use 'Cymru' rather than Wails,Wayuls, Whales or whatever. to avoid that grotesque equation!   What a ghastly bore the man is!

Penderyn. Call him Charles Windsor, forget that he's the Prince of ….. (I won’t risk upsetting you.)  

Judging from your comments about that gormless git and his mother, it would seem that it’s not the institution of monarchy you support but rather Liz as an individual. A president doesn’t have to be a Thatcher or a Blair; the Irish have managed to have some good, non-partisan heads of state, such as Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese. We could make it a rule that anyone who has ever held a political office, or been a member of a political party, is ineligible to stand for head of state (along with Jeremy Clarkson and Katie Hopkins, of course!). And then if we get a dud (which Charles Windsor will almost certainly be), at least we could kick them out after a few years.

I think I side with Penderyn here, he is just a gormless twat the P.O,W, and boy the piccy in todays paper shows it.

Ivan wrote:Penderyn. A president doesn’t have to be a Thatcher or a Blair; the Irish have managed to have some good, non-partisan heads of state, such as Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese.

I remember President DeValera and having Irish customs officials searching my luggage for books - not about sex but Irish Republicanism!   No system is perfect!

Harry Windsor is leaving the army. What could he do next to occupy his time?  


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CAU5wkfW4AArxic.jpg


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CAU5w_7W4AEzCbW.jpg


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CAU5xqpXIAA2lAi.jpg

"Age is not a particularly interesting subject. Anyone can get old. All you have to do is live long enough", said Groucho Marx. On the day when the obsequious BBC is preoccupied with celebrating 63 years and 7 months of benefit scrounging by one of the world's richest women, it might be worth thinking, with some trepidation, of the monster who will follow her one of these days:-

After a four-day visit to Saudi Arabia, Charles Windsor
Secures an arms deal for British Aerospace.
It’s worth $8 billion for 70 Typhoon fighter aircraft.
Charles then leaves with a smirk on his face.

But his warplanes will be used in Bahrain and the Yemen
To strafe and to suppress secessionists.
Their bodies will be left to rot in desert sand
Thanks to the royal environmentalist.

He celebrates the sale by joining a sword dance in Riyadh
Which his PA describes as “a cultural nicety”,
But Saudi swords aren’t used for combat in the region,
They’re used for executions of astounding brutality.


http://stopwar.org.uk/images/news2015/saudi_prince_charles_sword_dance_460.jpg

The prince poses for photographs waving a Saudi sword
Which is drawn just as it’d be for a beheading
And, pandering to his hosts, he reminds King Abdullah
How he once gave him such a sword for his wedding.

There's much more of it here:-
http://stopwar.org.uk/news/heathcote-williams/prince-charles-arms-dealer-by-royal-appointment-to-middle-east-tyrants