| The queue to visit the Queen's coffin 22:22 - Sep 16 with 36233 views | Logman |
I'm completely in awe of this. No event in the history of my life has been marked to that extent. Nowhere near. I have sheer admiration for the people who are making the pilgrimage and I am completely humbled just looking at the queue on my television, yet alone joining it. A shame that more time could not be given to make it more easily accessible but obviously there are logistics and rituals to be observed. I hope every football supporter in the land gives the minute's silence and national anthem the full respect they deserve tomorrow. |  | | |  |
| The queue to visit the Queen's coffin on 13:42 - Sep 18 with 2398 views | traininvain |
| The queue to visit the Queen's coffin on 12:52 - Sep 18 by PunteR |
I cant say i have strong opinions on either a monarchy or republic regime but when you look at the behaviour of people when they get in power or a lofty perch aside from the Royals i do wonder where pro republicans get their confidence for a republic regime being any better for a nation ?. But then i guess its the same as people putting faith in a labour government or Tory . All as good/ bad as each other as far as i can see.
If the UK went down the republic route we'd end up with all the same problems, economic disasters, underfunded NHS, high tax..etc. etc. and instability. At the very least the monarchy gives a bit of stability , a focal point.
Well it did anyway.
Modern society as it is with 24 hour news, social media, algorithms etc. will soon polarise us. |
‘but when you look at the behaviour of people when they get in power or a lofty perch aside from the Royals’
I see we’re conveniently ignoring Prince Andrew’s close links to Epstein and the allegations of sexual assault against a minor and King Charles accepting bags of cash from Qatari’s linked to Saudi Arabia and payments from the Bin Laden family.
As for the tourism argument, most people come to see the palaces and castles. They’re not expecting to meet the Queen/King for tea. I doubt they would stop coming if we got rid of the monarchy or reduced its size. |  | | |
| The queue to visit the Queen's coffin on 13:47 - Sep 18 with 2346 views | PinnerPaul |
| The queue to visit the Queen's coffin on 09:38 - Sep 17 by Antti_Heinola |
Fair play to anyone who stands in a queue that long to see anything.
I suspect republicans are very well aware we are in the minority, but we are entitled to our view. It’s possible to be both respectful about a death and also believe the monarchy to be a dangerous, outdated, profoundly damaging institution that only reinforces the terrible class system this country continues to promote and endure. 25 years ago the feeling was very much leaning the other way, the Queen was sorely out of step, as was the entire RF, when Diana died, but reputations can be rebuilt. Hopefully healthy debate will continue over this - preferably after the funeral - but as you say, can’t see it changing any time soon (although earlier this year i think only 33% of young people approved of the monarchy - there will be a bounce now, but Charles hasn’t got the affection people had for Elizabeth). |
Dangerous????? [Post edited 18 Sep 2022 13:47]
| | | |
| The queue to visit the Queen's coffin on 13:52 - Sep 18 with 2323 views | Sonofpugwash |
| The queue to visit the Queen's coffin on 13:47 - Sep 18 by PinnerPaul |
Dangerous????? [Post edited 18 Sep 2022 13:47]
|
Yes! Let's get rid of these undemocratic,unelected institutions and embrace the representative edicts of the WHO,WEF and various "philanthropic" billionaires. [Post edited 18 Sep 2022 13:54]
|  |
| |
| The queue to visit the Queen's coffin on 13:54 - Sep 18 with 2338 views | Antti_Heinola |
| The queue to visit the Queen's coffin on 13:47 - Sep 18 by PinnerPaul |
Dangerous????? [Post edited 18 Sep 2022 13:47]
|
Yep.
Not physically obviously, but in terms of how it affects society, absolutely I think it's dangerous. I suppose the only thing is that the damage has been done over centuries, whereas dangerous hints at something in the future. Prob wrong choice of word! |  |
| |
| The queue to visit the Queen's coffin on 14:06 - Sep 18 with 2279 views | PinnerPaul |
| The queue to visit the Queen's coffin on 13:54 - Sep 18 by Antti_Heinola |
Yep.
Not physically obviously, but in terms of how it affects society, absolutely I think it's dangerous. I suppose the only thing is that the damage has been done over centuries, whereas dangerous hints at something in the future. Prob wrong choice of word! |
OK, I'm up for a bit of sensible debate.
Yes I think dangerous is the wrong choice, can't think, in relatively modern times, how the monarchy has put the country in 'danger' - so lets agree to cross that out!
Damage?
I'm equally puzzled about - care to expand?
As I imply above, not looking for a row, but, you can be usually trusted to debate and not 'shout'!
Thanks | | | |
| The queue to visit the Queen's coffin on 14:38 - Sep 18 with 2218 views | ngbqpr |
| The queue to visit the Queen's coffin on 12:52 - Sep 18 by PunteR |
I cant say i have strong opinions on either a monarchy or republic regime but when you look at the behaviour of people when they get in power or a lofty perch aside from the Royals i do wonder where pro republicans get their confidence for a republic regime being any better for a nation ?. But then i guess its the same as people putting faith in a labour government or Tory . All as good/ bad as each other as far as i can see.
If the UK went down the republic route we'd end up with all the same problems, economic disasters, underfunded NHS, high tax..etc. etc. and instability. At the very least the monarchy gives a bit of stability , a focal point.
Well it did anyway.
Modern society as it is with 24 hour news, social media, algorithms etc. will soon polarise us. |
The biggest issue for me (among many, but it's not the time or the place for some of these debates just now imho) is the hereditary thing.
For several centuries back in the mists of time, families full of loaded toffs used to fight over land, wealth, and the right to lord it over their 'subjects'. At some point, when we finally broke free as a nation from those shackles, the Windsors were left at the top of the pile.
Personally, I will never be able to accept such hereditary rights to power, wealth & influence in this day & age. |  |
| |
| The queue to visit the Queen's coffin on 14:45 - Sep 18 with 2206 views | Antti_Heinola |
| The queue to visit the Queen's coffin on 14:06 - Sep 18 by PinnerPaul |
OK, I'm up for a bit of sensible debate.
Yes I think dangerous is the wrong choice, can't think, in relatively modern times, how the monarchy has put the country in 'danger' - so lets agree to cross that out!
Damage?
I'm equally puzzled about - care to expand?
As I imply above, not looking for a row, but, you can be usually trusted to debate and not 'shout'!
Thanks |
Think I put it all in my original post. I think it's really damaging to have a system where one family by accident of birth is placed above all others, it represents an idea that some people are automatically 'better' than others. It perpetuates our class-based society, which is deeply unfair and weighted towards the wealthy, who can pay for the right schools, know the right people, and continue to rule us by constantly pitting the middle classes and working classes aganst each other - which is dangerous, because this is what keeps the same people in power and the same people grubbing around feeding off scraps. Now the Royals don't do that, they don't have any real power of course, but they are undoubtedly a powerful symbol of the enormous inequality our country endures. Their very concept is a sympton of the sickness of our society. How can we possibly create a fair, meritocratic system, when we have these people at the top, fortunate to have been born into the right family and *no matter what they do, how they behave, how poorly they might perform at school, what 'mistakes' they might make* they cannot and will not be removed from their place of absolute privilege?
I think that is profoundly damaging to society, and the notion of royals is a dangerous one for what it means to society as a whole. I don't mean dangerous as in we might get bombed because of them! Of course we won't. To the rest of the world they're a fun fairy tale that remind people of when they used to read stories about princesses and noble knights.
It is also extraordinarily dangerous and damaging to society when the Queen is able to simply use her wealth, of which every single one of us contributes, to make a civil suit go away. That is a dangerous message that if you have enough money the same consequences do not apply to you as they would to you or I: now, of course, this would happen whether the Royal Family existed or not (wealthy buying their way out of irritating issues like possible child abuse), but as a Royal Family they are put on that pedestal. They're asked to be perfect, but demonstrably and understandably they cannot be. You can't have that both ways in my opinion.
Even looking at a 'small' thing like land ownership, gives you this:
'Half of England is owned by less than 1% of its population, according to new data shared with the Guardian that seeks to penetrate the secrecy that has traditionally surrounded land ownership.
The findings, described as “astonishingly unequal”, suggest that about 25,000 landowners — typically members of the aristocracy and corporations — have control of half of the country...
Guy Shrubsole, author of the book in which the figures are revealed, Who Owns England?, argues that the findings show a picture that has not changed for centuries. “Most people remain unaware of quite how much land is owned by so few,” he writes, adding: “A few thousand dukes, baronets and country squires own far more land than all of middle England put together.”
“Land ownership in England is astonishingly unequal, heavily concentrated in the hands of a tiny elite.”'
That to me, is damaging to the country. It's dangerous because inequality means inevitable poverty. The Royals are part of all of this, sit atop that tree. | |
| |
| The queue to visit the Queen's coffin on 15:02 - Sep 18 with 2150 views | PinnerPaul |
| The queue to visit the Queen's coffin on 14:45 - Sep 18 by Antti_Heinola |
Think I put it all in my original post. I think it's really damaging to have a system where one family by accident of birth is placed above all others, it represents an idea that some people are automatically 'better' than others. It perpetuates our class-based society, which is deeply unfair and weighted towards the wealthy, who can pay for the right schools, know the right people, and continue to rule us by constantly pitting the middle classes and working classes aganst each other - which is dangerous, because this is what keeps the same people in power and the same people grubbing around feeding off scraps. Now the Royals don't do that, they don't have any real power of course, but they are undoubtedly a powerful symbol of the enormous inequality our country endures. Their very concept is a sympton of the sickness of our society. How can we possibly create a fair, meritocratic system, when we have these people at the top, fortunate to have been born into the right family and *no matter what they do, how they behave, how poorly they might perform at school, what 'mistakes' they might make* they cannot and will not be removed from their place of absolute privilege?
I think that is profoundly damaging to society, and the notion of royals is a dangerous one for what it means to society as a whole. I don't mean dangerous as in we might get bombed because of them! Of course we won't. To the rest of the world they're a fun fairy tale that remind people of when they used to read stories about princesses and noble knights.
It is also extraordinarily dangerous and damaging to society when the Queen is able to simply use her wealth, of which every single one of us contributes, to make a civil suit go away. That is a dangerous message that if you have enough money the same consequences do not apply to you as they would to you or I: now, of course, this would happen whether the Royal Family existed or not (wealthy buying their way out of irritating issues like possible child abuse), but as a Royal Family they are put on that pedestal. They're asked to be perfect, but demonstrably and understandably they cannot be. You can't have that both ways in my opinion.
Even looking at a 'small' thing like land ownership, gives you this:
'Half of England is owned by less than 1% of its population, according to new data shared with the Guardian that seeks to penetrate the secrecy that has traditionally surrounded land ownership.
The findings, described as “astonishingly unequal”, suggest that about 25,000 landowners — typically members of the aristocracy and corporations — have control of half of the country...
Guy Shrubsole, author of the book in which the figures are revealed, Who Owns England?, argues that the findings show a picture that has not changed for centuries. “Most people remain unaware of quite how much land is owned by so few,” he writes, adding: “A few thousand dukes, baronets and country squires own far more land than all of middle England put together.”
“Land ownership in England is astonishingly unequal, heavily concentrated in the hands of a tiny elite.”'
That to me, is damaging to the country. It's dangerous because inequality means inevitable poverty. The Royals are part of all of this, sit atop that tree. |
Fair enough - well argued.
Plenty to debate in there - as others have mentioned, not sure how changing to a presidential system would change all the 'wrongs' you mention.
Don't agree with a lot of that, but thanks for the reasoning, that was what I was curious about - not my greatest field of expertise or interest really, so won't go into it point by point.
Forgive the humour on this thread, wrong place probably, but I'm off to discuss handball, VAR and the offside law elsewhere now! | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| The queue to visit the Queen's coffin on 15:09 - Sep 18 with 2143 views | PunteR |
| The queue to visit the Queen's coffin on 14:45 - Sep 18 by Antti_Heinola |
Think I put it all in my original post. I think it's really damaging to have a system where one family by accident of birth is placed above all others, it represents an idea that some people are automatically 'better' than others. It perpetuates our class-based society, which is deeply unfair and weighted towards the wealthy, who can pay for the right schools, know the right people, and continue to rule us by constantly pitting the middle classes and working classes aganst each other - which is dangerous, because this is what keeps the same people in power and the same people grubbing around feeding off scraps. Now the Royals don't do that, they don't have any real power of course, but they are undoubtedly a powerful symbol of the enormous inequality our country endures. Their very concept is a sympton of the sickness of our society. How can we possibly create a fair, meritocratic system, when we have these people at the top, fortunate to have been born into the right family and *no matter what they do, how they behave, how poorly they might perform at school, what 'mistakes' they might make* they cannot and will not be removed from their place of absolute privilege?
I think that is profoundly damaging to society, and the notion of royals is a dangerous one for what it means to society as a whole. I don't mean dangerous as in we might get bombed because of them! Of course we won't. To the rest of the world they're a fun fairy tale that remind people of when they used to read stories about princesses and noble knights.
It is also extraordinarily dangerous and damaging to society when the Queen is able to simply use her wealth, of which every single one of us contributes, to make a civil suit go away. That is a dangerous message that if you have enough money the same consequences do not apply to you as they would to you or I: now, of course, this would happen whether the Royal Family existed or not (wealthy buying their way out of irritating issues like possible child abuse), but as a Royal Family they are put on that pedestal. They're asked to be perfect, but demonstrably and understandably they cannot be. You can't have that both ways in my opinion.
Even looking at a 'small' thing like land ownership, gives you this:
'Half of England is owned by less than 1% of its population, according to new data shared with the Guardian that seeks to penetrate the secrecy that has traditionally surrounded land ownership.
The findings, described as “astonishingly unequal”, suggest that about 25,000 landowners — typically members of the aristocracy and corporations — have control of half of the country...
Guy Shrubsole, author of the book in which the figures are revealed, Who Owns England?, argues that the findings show a picture that has not changed for centuries. “Most people remain unaware of quite how much land is owned by so few,” he writes, adding: “A few thousand dukes, baronets and country squires own far more land than all of middle England put together.”
“Land ownership in England is astonishingly unequal, heavily concentrated in the hands of a tiny elite.”'
That to me, is damaging to the country. It's dangerous because inequality means inevitable poverty. The Royals are part of all of this, sit atop that tree. |
Poverty will exist with or without the monarchy.
Hierarchy is a natural human inclination.
Whether in some amazon jungle or in a modern city.
I get NGB's point about the family line and its really unchallenged now which hundreds of years ago would have been but I don't see how elected people will make any difference.
I'm all for equality and nobody should be more important than anyone else. We're all equal. However , I do think we all have our roles to play in life and we all have to do them to the best of our ability. |  |
| Occasional providers of half decent House music. |
| |
| The queue to visit the Queen's coffin on 15:13 - Sep 18 with 2135 views | PunteR |
| The queue to visit the Queen's coffin on 13:42 - Sep 18 by traininvain |
‘but when you look at the behaviour of people when they get in power or a lofty perch aside from the Royals’
I see we’re conveniently ignoring Prince Andrew’s close links to Epstein and the allegations of sexual assault against a minor and King Charles accepting bags of cash from Qatari’s linked to Saudi Arabia and payments from the Bin Laden family.
As for the tourism argument, most people come to see the palaces and castles. They’re not expecting to meet the Queen/King for tea. I doubt they would stop coming if we got rid of the monarchy or reduced its size. |
I'm not ignoring the Loch Ness Noncer.
Don't think for one minute I'm defending him. [Post edited 18 Sep 2022 15:35]
| |
| Occasional providers of half decent House music. |
| |
| The queue to visit the Queen's coffin on 15:16 - Sep 18 with 2127 views | PunteR |
| The queue to visit the Queen's coffin on 13:42 - Sep 18 by traininvain |
‘but when you look at the behaviour of people when they get in power or a lofty perch aside from the Royals’
I see we’re conveniently ignoring Prince Andrew’s close links to Epstein and the allegations of sexual assault against a minor and King Charles accepting bags of cash from Qatari’s linked to Saudi Arabia and payments from the Bin Laden family.
As for the tourism argument, most people come to see the palaces and castles. They’re not expecting to meet the Queen/King for tea. I doubt they would stop coming if we got rid of the monarchy or reduced its size. |
DP [Post edited 18 Sep 2022 15:18]
| |
| Occasional providers of half decent House music. |
| |
| The queue to visit the Queen's coffin on 16:44 - Sep 18 with 1976 views | SheffieldHoop |
| The queue to visit the Queen's coffin on 14:45 - Sep 18 by Antti_Heinola |
Think I put it all in my original post. I think it's really damaging to have a system where one family by accident of birth is placed above all others, it represents an idea that some people are automatically 'better' than others. It perpetuates our class-based society, which is deeply unfair and weighted towards the wealthy, who can pay for the right schools, know the right people, and continue to rule us by constantly pitting the middle classes and working classes aganst each other - which is dangerous, because this is what keeps the same people in power and the same people grubbing around feeding off scraps. Now the Royals don't do that, they don't have any real power of course, but they are undoubtedly a powerful symbol of the enormous inequality our country endures. Their very concept is a sympton of the sickness of our society. How can we possibly create a fair, meritocratic system, when we have these people at the top, fortunate to have been born into the right family and *no matter what they do, how they behave, how poorly they might perform at school, what 'mistakes' they might make* they cannot and will not be removed from their place of absolute privilege?
I think that is profoundly damaging to society, and the notion of royals is a dangerous one for what it means to society as a whole. I don't mean dangerous as in we might get bombed because of them! Of course we won't. To the rest of the world they're a fun fairy tale that remind people of when they used to read stories about princesses and noble knights.
It is also extraordinarily dangerous and damaging to society when the Queen is able to simply use her wealth, of which every single one of us contributes, to make a civil suit go away. That is a dangerous message that if you have enough money the same consequences do not apply to you as they would to you or I: now, of course, this would happen whether the Royal Family existed or not (wealthy buying their way out of irritating issues like possible child abuse), but as a Royal Family they are put on that pedestal. They're asked to be perfect, but demonstrably and understandably they cannot be. You can't have that both ways in my opinion.
Even looking at a 'small' thing like land ownership, gives you this:
'Half of England is owned by less than 1% of its population, according to new data shared with the Guardian that seeks to penetrate the secrecy that has traditionally surrounded land ownership.
The findings, described as “astonishingly unequal”, suggest that about 25,000 landowners — typically members of the aristocracy and corporations — have control of half of the country...
Guy Shrubsole, author of the book in which the figures are revealed, Who Owns England?, argues that the findings show a picture that has not changed for centuries. “Most people remain unaware of quite how much land is owned by so few,” he writes, adding: “A few thousand dukes, baronets and country squires own far more land than all of middle England put together.”
“Land ownership in England is astonishingly unequal, heavily concentrated in the hands of a tiny elite.”'
That to me, is damaging to the country. It's dangerous because inequality means inevitable poverty. The Royals are part of all of this, sit atop that tree. |
If this fair, meritocratic system is so easily achieved, by simply getting rid of the constitutional monarchy, why hasn't anywhere in the world ever achieved it?
Do you honestly think Barbados is any fairer, more equal, today than it was this time 5 years ago? Do you honestly think that corruption is less common as a result of becoming a republic?
France is probably the world's most famous republic. Do you think Paris has a bigger or smaller problem with inequality than London?
Republics being more equal than constitutional monarchy has been proven to be false. So I presume you have an alternative method to republicanism? [Post edited 18 Sep 2022 16:59]
|  |
| "Someone despises me. That's their problem." Marcus Aurelius |
| |
| The queue to visit the Queen's coffin on 16:49 - Sep 18 with 1986 views | Boston |
| The queue to visit the Queen's coffin on 12:31 - Sep 18 by ParkRoyalR |
Paris has more visitors / tourists than London without a monarchy so would discount the tourism argument, likewise charity seeing as Charles is accepting £3m in cash in a bag from the Bin Laden family,
Believe there is a role for a diluted monarchy in the way Charles + William have been moving but tourism + charity aren't justifications for current size of land-holding + tax arrangements. |
You would be wrong sir, London is the most popular tourist city in Europe, Paris is a fairly close second. But, surely we visit Cities because they are different, each having its own history, architecture and traditions? | |
| |
| The queue to visit the Queen's coffin on 17:29 - Sep 18 with 1897 views | QPR_John |
| The queue to visit the Queen's coffin on 14:45 - Sep 18 by Antti_Heinola |
Think I put it all in my original post. I think it's really damaging to have a system where one family by accident of birth is placed above all others, it represents an idea that some people are automatically 'better' than others. It perpetuates our class-based society, which is deeply unfair and weighted towards the wealthy, who can pay for the right schools, know the right people, and continue to rule us by constantly pitting the middle classes and working classes aganst each other - which is dangerous, because this is what keeps the same people in power and the same people grubbing around feeding off scraps. Now the Royals don't do that, they don't have any real power of course, but they are undoubtedly a powerful symbol of the enormous inequality our country endures. Their very concept is a sympton of the sickness of our society. How can we possibly create a fair, meritocratic system, when we have these people at the top, fortunate to have been born into the right family and *no matter what they do, how they behave, how poorly they might perform at school, what 'mistakes' they might make* they cannot and will not be removed from their place of absolute privilege?
I think that is profoundly damaging to society, and the notion of royals is a dangerous one for what it means to society as a whole. I don't mean dangerous as in we might get bombed because of them! Of course we won't. To the rest of the world they're a fun fairy tale that remind people of when they used to read stories about princesses and noble knights.
It is also extraordinarily dangerous and damaging to society when the Queen is able to simply use her wealth, of which every single one of us contributes, to make a civil suit go away. That is a dangerous message that if you have enough money the same consequences do not apply to you as they would to you or I: now, of course, this would happen whether the Royal Family existed or not (wealthy buying their way out of irritating issues like possible child abuse), but as a Royal Family they are put on that pedestal. They're asked to be perfect, but demonstrably and understandably they cannot be. You can't have that both ways in my opinion.
Even looking at a 'small' thing like land ownership, gives you this:
'Half of England is owned by less than 1% of its population, according to new data shared with the Guardian that seeks to penetrate the secrecy that has traditionally surrounded land ownership.
The findings, described as “astonishingly unequal”, suggest that about 25,000 landowners — typically members of the aristocracy and corporations — have control of half of the country...
Guy Shrubsole, author of the book in which the figures are revealed, Who Owns England?, argues that the findings show a picture that has not changed for centuries. “Most people remain unaware of quite how much land is owned by so few,” he writes, adding: “A few thousand dukes, baronets and country squires own far more land than all of middle England put together.”
“Land ownership in England is astonishingly unequal, heavily concentrated in the hands of a tiny elite.”'
That to me, is damaging to the country. It's dangerous because inequality means inevitable poverty. The Royals are part of all of this, sit atop that tree. |
I fail to see how the things you mention would change in a republic. What I would like is for republicans to considere what would change.
The countries name for a start a republic cannot be a kingdom. Maybe we could go for The Peoples Democratic Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
How would the referendum be structured. I’m sure that after the arguments after the Brexit referendum it would required the 4 nations to separately vote for a republic I’m sure Nicola Sturgeon would agree.
Would a HoS be nominated or voted for. The former would be pointless so let’s ignore that.
Would an elected HoS have political powers. Again if not how many would turn out to vote so let’s ignore that.
How great would those powers be. Cannot see a Prime Minister allowing a referendum that might effectively demote them. So we would end up with a HoS with advisory powers at best which is in reality what we have now.
So in effect nothing changes except we vote for a HoS every set number of years rather than have a HoS that is hereditary.
But I suppose these points are minuscule compared with getting rid of the monarchy. [Post edited 18 Sep 2022 17:29]
| | | |
| The queue to visit the Queen's coffin on 17:41 - Sep 18 with 1849 views | Boston |
As someone who is fourteen million, three hundred and sixty three thousand and forty fifth in line to the throne, I find this talk of republicanism deeply disturbing. [Post edited 18 Sep 2022 17:46]
| |
| |
| The queue to visit the Queen's coffin on 17:48 - Sep 18 with 1837 views | ngbqpr |
| The queue to visit the Queen's coffin on 17:29 - Sep 18 by QPR_John |
I fail to see how the things you mention would change in a republic. What I would like is for republicans to considere what would change.
The countries name for a start a republic cannot be a kingdom. Maybe we could go for The Peoples Democratic Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
How would the referendum be structured. I’m sure that after the arguments after the Brexit referendum it would required the 4 nations to separately vote for a republic I’m sure Nicola Sturgeon would agree.
Would a HoS be nominated or voted for. The former would be pointless so let’s ignore that.
Would an elected HoS have political powers. Again if not how many would turn out to vote so let’s ignore that.
How great would those powers be. Cannot see a Prime Minister allowing a referendum that might effectively demote them. So we would end up with a HoS with advisory powers at best which is in reality what we have now.
So in effect nothing changes except we vote for a HoS every set number of years rather than have a HoS that is hereditary.
But I suppose these points are minuscule compared with getting rid of the monarchy. [Post edited 18 Sep 2022 17:29]
|
Your second last line is the crux for me.
However you slice it, an HoS that is elected is preferable to a hereditary one imho. | |
| |
| The queue to visit the Queen's coffin on 17:54 - Sep 18 with 1816 views | SimonJames |
I lean more towards having a monarchy rather than a republic.
And when you look at the dross we've had as Prime Ministers throughout most of the last seventy years, I think the Queen has been a much better option as head of state.
I doubt anyone else would have handled the role with such quiet dignity. |  |
| 100% of people who drink water will die. |
| |
| The queue to visit the Queen's coffin on 17:56 - Sep 18 with 1815 views | QPR_John |
| The queue to visit the Queen's coffin on 17:48 - Sep 18 by ngbqpr |
Your second last line is the crux for me.
However you slice it, an HoS that is elected is preferable to a hereditary one imho. |
That’s fair enough. [Post edited 18 Sep 2022 17:57]
| | | |
| The queue to visit the Queen's coffin on 18:30 - Sep 18 with 1749 views | distortR |
| The queue to visit the Queen's coffin on 16:44 - Sep 18 by SheffieldHoop |
If this fair, meritocratic system is so easily achieved, by simply getting rid of the constitutional monarchy, why hasn't anywhere in the world ever achieved it?
Do you honestly think Barbados is any fairer, more equal, today than it was this time 5 years ago? Do you honestly think that corruption is less common as a result of becoming a republic?
France is probably the world's most famous republic. Do you think Paris has a bigger or smaller problem with inequality than London?
Republics being more equal than constitutional monarchy has been proven to be false. So I presume you have an alternative method to republicanism? [Post edited 18 Sep 2022 16:59]
|
Good debate, everyone.
I was for a republic for a long time, but,looking around the world,I think a constitutional monarchy, albeit stripped down somewhat,is probably the best we can do now.
I look at America's presidential system,and all that entails in regard to divisive elections and how the richest wins,and I look at President Putin, it's not really that great, is it?
If we went to a presidential system,I'm pretty sure it would be a power grab. It's not going to be Billy Bragg or Joe Strummer (RIP) as president, It's going to be blair or johnson.
I think we have learnt from history, which is why we have a ceremonial monarchy. However, if a demagogue was to rise to the top of our parliamentary system, could the monarchy actually act as a stay on their power? Possibly. In a way,I quite like having a head of state that didn't actively seek power, while at the same time believing that bowing to someone because of an accident of birth is madness, and I wouldn't do it.
So, the monarchy is stable, proven and we don't have a political animal as head of state.
I'm all for the defenestration of andrew, though. | | | |
| The queue to visit the Queen's coffin on 19:56 - Sep 18 with 1610 views | Sonofpugwash |
It was always said that the British people would be more likely to rally round a monarch than a President.The American model is different because that's all they've ever known.In fact that was the first question put to the Founding Fathers after their French mercenaries kicked our (34,000) German mercenaries out of the Americas...."Shall we have a King?" The answer being a very narrow No.
Anyway.After things finish on Monday the solids are going to royally hit the recirculating air device.
In the words of Bachman Turner "B B B Baby,you ain't seen nothing yet" [Post edited 18 Sep 2022 19:59]
| |
| |
| The queue to visit the Queen's coffin on 19:59 - Sep 18 with 1608 views | BrianMcCarthy |
Whatever any of our beliefs this is a cracking thread. I've enjoyed reading it over the last few days. |  |
| |
| The queue to visit the Queen's coffin on 20:34 - Sep 18 with 1558 views | Ranger_Things |
|  | | |
| The queue to visit the Queen's coffin on 20:54 - Sep 18 with 1504 views | Watford_Ranger |
| The queue to visit the Queen's coffin on 19:59 - Sep 18 by BrianMcCarthy |
Whatever any of our beliefs this is a cracking thread. I've enjoyed reading it over the last few days. |
Yeah agree. As much as it’s not for me, all this pomp and ceremony has been quite a nice distraction from the country falling apart. | | | |
| The queue to visit the Queen's coffin on 21:00 - Sep 18 with 1485 views | GloryHunter |
| The queue to visit the Queen's coffin on 12:44 - Sep 17 by traininvain |
I’m genuinely curious to understand why people feel that Charles will be a good king?
From what I know of him (admittedly not a lot) and what I’ve seen over the past week, I think he comes across as lacking in empathy with the average person and easily irritable.
Maybe I’m missing something that others see in him. |
Charles didn't know what clingfilm was, apparently. |  | | |
| The queue to visit the Queen's coffin on 21:04 - Sep 18 with 1469 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| The queue to visit the Queen's coffin on 20:54 - Sep 18 by Watford_Ranger |
Yeah agree. As much as it’s not for me, all this pomp and ceremony has been quite a nice distraction from the country falling apart. |
Sorry, Watford, I meant specifically the debate about various types of Governments.
Being honest, Im not a Monarchist so haven't watched or read any of the coverage. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
