Topic: The Monarchy*

[thejbs]

Another week, another Royal scandal. Prince “cash for honours” Charles received 3 separate suitcases of €1m cash from a Qatari PM. I’m sure the Princes trust will show audited receipts…

Prince Charles 'accepted a suitcase with 1m euros', report claims https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61941113

Surely it’s time the UK binned the royals?

[No666]

We're supposed to take it on trust that nothing untoward happened to the money. Also, that Charles hasn't lobbied for the Sheikh's interests in the UK. That's before we come to Qatar's record on human rights. Charles is outraged by Rwanda (rightly) but turns a blind eye to migrant deaths in Qatar?

[Sangria]

Another week, another Royal scandal. Prince “cash for honours” Charles received 3 separate suitcases of €1m cash from a Qatari PM. I’m sure the Princes trust will show audited receipts…

Prince Charles 'accepted a suitcase with 1m euros', report claims https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61941113

Surely it’s time the UK binned the royals?

Can't we wait until the Tories are gone before going after the royals? It's not a vote winner, and I'd like to minimise the amount of vote losing until the Tories are gone.

[Lusty]

Trouble with abolishing the monarchy is you need to replace it with something. I'm no fan of the monarchy as an institution or as a collection of individuals, but if we abolished them tomorrow then you're giving the worst PM in my lifetime the opportunity to write a new constitution, and that idea fills me with dread.

If you were to give me a blank slate right now to reform this country's constitution, I'd be looking at things like PR, devo max, house of lords reform, an english parliament sitting outside of London etc. All of that is achievable and will definitely improve things. Abolishing the monarchy is probably not achievable, and has every chance of leaving us in a Tory led dictatorship, so I don't think it's a worthwhile fight from a pragmatic point of view.

[Sangria]

Given what's happened, it's probably a shot across the bows from the Tory media, warning the royals what they can expect if they speak out against the government again.

I wouldn't bother with anything that doesn't significantly and substantially improve the country until 1) the Tories are removed from power, and 2) the media are reformed so as not to near-guarantee the kind of politics we've had in the past decade. That is what hurts the country the most, by a massive margin.

[thejbs]

Trouble with abolishing the monarchy is you need to replace it with something. I'm no fan of the monarchy as an institution or as a collection of individuals, but if we abolished them tomorrow then you're giving the worst PM in my lifetime the opportunity to write a new constitution, and that idea fills me with dread.

If you were to give me a blank slate right now to reform this country's constitution, I'd be looking at things like PR, devo max, house of lords reform, an english parliament sitting outside of London etc. All of that is achievable and will definitely improve things. Abolishing the monarchy is probably not achievable, and has every chance of leaving us in a Tory led dictatorship, so I don't think it's a worthwhile fight from a pragmatic point of view.

I dunno, Ireland has a pretty good model of how a republic can look with a ceremonial president.

[Mister Flip Flop]

The royal family is shielding and accepting of a paedophile, no level they swoop to surprises me.

[Sangria]

I dunno, Ireland has a pretty good model of how a republic can look with a ceremonial president.

They're voted for by Irish voters though. If our elected offices were voted for by Irish voters, we'd be better off than we are.

[Lusty]

I dunno, Ireland has a pretty good model of how a republic can look with a ceremonial president.

Ireland didn't exactly turn into a liberal democracy overnight to be fair, it took them a few decades to shake of the Catholic church.

You can play that game all day though. Go and search for any list of the most liberal countries and the top 10 will be monarchies (e.g. Canada, NZ, some of the Scandinavian countries). Then go and search for a list of the least liberal countries and they'll all have 'republic of' in their names.

I'm not saying that correlation equals causation here, just that pointing at other countries and saying 'it worked for them' is pointless. None of them are currently being governed by the Tories.

[No666]

Klopp for president!

[Sangria]

Ireland didn't exactly turn into a liberal democracy overnight to be fair, it took them a few decades to shake of the Catholic church.

You can play that game all day though. Go and search for any list of the most liberal countries and the top 10 will be monarchies (e.g. Canada, NZ, some of the Scandinavian countries). Then go and search for a list of the least liberal countries and they'll all have 'republic of' in their names.

I'm not saying that correlation equals causation here, just that pointing at other countries and saying 'it worked for them' is pointless. None of them are currently being governed by the Tories.

You look at all these countries with elected presidents, and think we could be like that. Then you remember that British voters will be voting for them.

[Circa1892]

Bring back the Lord Protectorate

[Kenny's Jacket]

Then go and search for a list of the least liberal countries and they'll all have 'republic of' in their names.
.

Like the Republic of Saudi Arabia?

Sorry couldnt resist that open goal

[Lusty]

You look at all these countries with elected presidents, and think we could be like that. Then you remember that British voters will be voting for them.

Yeah this is basically it. There's a set of conditions I think that would need to be met in this country first before I think abolishing the monarchy would be worth pursuing. If we did it now we'd end up living in the Republic of Johnsonia.

[Lusty]

Like the Republic of Saudi Arabia?

Sorry couldnt resist that open goal

Yeah it's not a perfect method. But you'll see a lot more Republics than Kingdoms in the list, trust me 

[RedSince86]

3 million euros in total, not sure why they couldn't just wire the money to the "charity".

But from reports after that scandalous FIFA vote, of people walking into the Hotel emptyhanded where the Qataris were staying and then walking out with briefcases, nothing new with Qatar.

[So… Howard Philips]

Bring back the Lord Protectorate

And the Major-Generals.

Can’t beat a good military man running the railways.

[spen71]

Get rid of the lot of them.  Parasites!

[jillcwhomever]

I have no love for the royals but nor do I want to become a republic either. 

[Sangria]

I have no love for the royals but nor do I want to become a republic either. 

Not before we have a proper enforceable constitution. Tories out. Media reformed. Constitution. Then we can start discussing the royals.

[Wild Romany Boy]

I'm all for getting rid of the monarchy, but not before I have rewatched The Wire.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Get them chucked in the bin.

We should all be ruled by lettuces and there should be a national collendar day where we celebrate the best way to carry our leaders upon our shoulders.

GSOL

[Elmo!]

We should all be ruled by lettuces

Nice to meet a fellow Romainer.

[TepidT2O]

Nice to meet a fellow Romainer.

[Jiminy Cricket]

Nice to meet a fellow Romainer.

Oh, well done, Elmo.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Nice to meet a fellow Romainer.

Lettuce Spray

[John C]

Nice to meet a fellow Romainer.

It would have been even better if you'd have put a cheese joke in there.


Pity Nick isn't really funny.

[KurtVerbose]

Do you still have to walk backwards when leaving the Queen?

[Crosby Nick]

It would have been even better if you'd have put a cheese joke in there.


Pity Nick isn't really funny.

It’s funny cos it’s true.

[Elmo!]

It’s funny cos it’s true.

Don't be so harsh on yourself Nick, you come out with the odd little gem here and there.

[killer-heels]

Do you still have to walk backwards when leaving the Queen?

Only Prince Philip knew.

[thaddeus]

The monarchy are pointless and I think even the economic arguments for keeping them are getting strained.  Paris doesn't seem to struggle for tourists and Versailles is always rammed despite being stripped of anything valuable in 1789.

The Queen has done a stellar job of trying to keep the royal family vanilla but also visible enough that a lot of people aren't bothered either way.  The BBC are also incredibly pro-monarchy.  The next generation aren't going to garner sympathy quite so easily for many reasons.

As others have said, the main argument for keeping the monarchy is "better the devil you know".  It's not a particularly inspiring argument!

You look at all these countries with elected presidents, and think we could be like that. Then you remember that British voters will be voting for them.

As an Englishman I feel the need to point out that the biggest problem with the electorate is the English.

Nationalism in Scotland and Wales has been bagged by centre-left parties but in England the Tories cornered it whilst Labour were sleeping and have since largely subsumed UKIP and BNP.  I think fragmenting even further is the last thing we need now but having four independent nations might finally let us move beyond those discussions.  As is stands it's very hard for the Tories to lose control as May and Johnson have repeatedly shown despite their best efforts at incompetence.

[So… Howard Philips]

Acting as a Devil’s Advocate the overthrow and execution of the following monarchs didn’t lead to to the land of milk and honey.

Charles I replaced by Cromwell.
Louis XVI ultimately replaced by the Emperor Napoleon who appointed family members to monarchies.
Romanoffs ultimately replaced by Stalin.

Devil and the deep blue sea spring to mind.

[lobsterboy]

You look at all these countries with elected presidents, and think we could be like that. Then you remember that British voters will be voting for them.

Its not British voters that are the problem, its the English. They keep voting Tory.

[Slick_Beef]

I don't think it'll survive long term but they are still far too popular to see Britain move to a republic. It'll be next time the genetic roll of the dice gives us an Prince Andrew / Edward VIII or the like as heir that they'll really be in trouble  (Charles is unpopular but I suspect won't live for long enough for a republican cause to get enough support)

Acting as a Devil’s Advocate the overthrow and execution of the following monarchs didn’t lead to to the land of milk and honey.

Charles I replaced by Cromwell.
Louis XVI ultimately replaced by the Emperor Napoleon who appointed family members to monarchies.
Romanoffs ultimately replaced by Stalin.

Devil and the deep blue sea spring to mind.

IMO in all three of those cases the main problem was that all were violent revolutions where the "winners" didn't have a mature model to base the post-monarchy government on and had to make it up as they went along. If the UK had a peaceful abolition done responsibly there are already numerous examples of what it should look like. I do agree with what someone already mentioned, that a big challenge to overcome would be for the system being set up to reinforce the status quo rather than starting with a blank slate.

[So… Howard Philips]

I don't think it'll survive long term but they are still far too popular to see Britain move to a republic. It'll be next time the genetic roll of the dice gives us an Prince Andrew / Edward VIII or the like as heir that they'll really be in trouble  (Charles is unpopular but I suspect won't live for long enough for a republican cause to get enough support)

IMO in all three of those cases the main problem was that all were violent revolutions where the "winners" didn't have a mature model to base the post-monarchy government on and had to make it up as they went along. If the UK had a peaceful abolition done responsibly there are already numerous examples of what it should look like. I do agree with what someone already mentioned, that a big challenge to overcome would be for the system being set up to reinforce the status quo rather than starting with a blank slate.

Disagree with the highlighted point.

Cromwell was guided by his Puritan views.
Napoleon a child of the enlightment.
Stalin guided by communism.

Whether or not we consider those views to be ‘mature’ is immaterial. In their own time they were viewed as the way forward.

[kennedy81]

They're voted for by Irish voters though. If our elected offices were voted for by Irish voters, we'd be better off than we are.

But the Irish president has even less power than the royal family. His role is largely ceremonial. All sorts of head-the-balls run for president here.

[Slick_Beef]

Disagree with the highlighted point.

Cromwell was guided by his Puritan views.
Napoleon a child of the enlightment.
Stalin guided by communism.

Whether or not we consider those views to be ‘mature’ is immaterial. In their own time they were viewed as the way forward.

But those are philosophies and don't really offer a framework for republican government in a practical sense. We have those models now, but Cromwell didn't - and so ended up as de facto monarch despite his efforts, the French republic was still vulnerable and immature so it was easy for Napoleon to usurp it, as it was for Stalin with the new idea of the vanguard party.

[kavah]

The latest revelations about lobbying to change proposed laws (like preventing his tenants from right to buy). In the Guardian today. The line that the Royal Conssent was a formality never to be withheld was and is a complete lie.

[So… Howard Philips]

But those are philosophies and don't really offer a framework for republican government in a practical sense. We have those models now, but Cromwell didn't - and so ended up as de facto monarch despite his efforts, the French republic was still vulnerable and immature so it was easy for Napoleon to usurp it, as it was for Stalin with the new idea of the vanguard party.

America is a republic with a framework and still voted in Donald Trump.