Abolishing the British Monarchy

[Hary89]

It is to my understanding that there are those in the UK who advocate the abolishment of the monarchy. Will abolishing the monarchy be a good or bad thing for Britain? As an American, I believe the monarchy is a good thing.

The late Queen, who was head of the CoE, acknowledged Christ and glorified him when given a platform.

A non-political head of state makes the monarch less likely to involve themselves in politics. In America, the president is the head of government and a monarch in their own right. Their spouses and immediate family have influence with regards to public perception. The president answers to no one. Thus the Jan. 2021 insurrection. Commonwealth prime ministers answer to the monarch or their representatives.

What do you think?

 

[Aryeh Jay]

They did it once before and reestablished the monarchy.

 

[godisagardener]

A non-political head of state makes the monarch less likely to involve themselves in politics. In America, the president is the head of government and a monarch in their own right. Their spouses and immediate family have influence with regards to public perception. The president answers to no one. Thus the Jan. 2021 insurrection. Commonwealth prime ministers answer to the monarch or their representatives.

What do you think?

I think you cannot truly state that "The president answers to no one." Thus the existence of the executive, legislative and judiciary. There are many things the president cannot do.

 

[Hary89]

I think you cannot truly state that "The president answers to no one." Thus the existence of the executive, legislative and judiciary. There are many things the president cannot do.

The system of checks and balances doesn't work in practice. Presidential scandals are commonplace. Presidents aren't held to account when doing wrong.
ex. Nixon resigns and gets pardoned by Ford.
ex. The Jan. 2021 insurrection.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It is to my understanding that there are those in the UK who advocate the abolishment of the monarchy.

They are known as republicans.

Will abolishing the monarchy be a good or bad thing for Britain?

It's always a good thing.

As an American, I believe the monarchy is a good thing.

Do you understand America? That seems a really odd thing for an American to want.

The late Queen, who was head of the CoE, acknowledged Christ and glorified him when given a platform.

She was personally religious, so what?

A non-political head of state makes the monarch less likely to involve themselves in politics.

That sentence was almost coherent. The best way to keep monarchs out of politics is to not have one.

In America, the president is the head of government and a monarch in their own right.

The US President is *NOT* a monarch.

Their spouses and immediate family have influence with regards to public perception.

So?

The president answers to no one.

You could really use a refresher on Constitutional theory.

Thus the Jan. 2021 insurrection.

THe lack of monarch is *NOT* why there was an insurrection at the US Capitol on Jan. 6 2021. (It was a non-reelected president trying to stay in power illegally.)

Commonwealth prime ministers answer to the monarch or their representatives.

Answer might be a *bit* strong.

What do you think?

Monarchy is an abomination.

 

[MyOwnSockPuppet]

It is to my understanding that there are those in the UK who advocate the abolishment of the monarchy. Will abolishing the monarchy be a good or bad thing for Britain? As an American, I believe the monarchy is a good thing.

The late Queen, who was head of the CoE, acknowledged Christ and glorified him when given a platform.

A non-political head of state makes the monarch less likely to involve themselves in politics. In America, the president is the head of government and a monarch in their own right. Their spouses and immediate family have influence with regards to public perception. The president answers to no one. Thus the Jan. 2021 insurrection. Commonwealth prime ministers answer to the monarch or their representatives.

What do you think?

And replace the role with what? Another *redacted* politician? A former/current actor/TV "personality"?

One of the major unwritten rules in the UK is that the monarch expresses no opinion that can be seen as political (given that Elizabeth II had a grand total of 179 Prime Ministers across 32 separate countries it would be naïve in the extreme to think she didn't have more, and better informed, opinions than almost anyone else), who acts as a figurehead who has symbolic and emergency powers only..

 

[rturner76]

It is to my understanding that there are those in the UK who advocate the abolishment of the monarchy. Will abolishing the monarchy be a good or bad thing for Britain? As an American, I believe the monarchy is a good thing.

The late Queen, who was head of the CoE, acknowledged Christ and glorified him when given a platform.

A non-political head of state makes the monarch less likely to involve themselves in politics. In America, the president is the head of government and a monarch in their own right. Their spouses and immediate family have influence with regards to public perception. The president answers to no one. Thus the Jan. 2021 insurrection. Commonwealth prime ministers answer to the monarch or their representatives.

What do you think?

I thought the President did answer to Congress. I mean the President can't make laws and pass them on his own. He/he need the House and Congress to vote on any law proposed to be passed.

Aside from that, I don't see anything wrong with a Constitutional Monarchy. They still have the laws of the people including the Magna Carta etc, A King or Prince has no real practical power so parliament and the Prime Minister rule over national law. Monarchy is about the history and the blessing of God on the head of state. The Monarch these days is more of a religious figure (Church of England) and I think that position should be respected.

 

[Hans Blaster]

And replace the role with what? Another *redacted* politician? A former/current actor/TV "personality"?

One of the major unwritten rules in the UK is that the monarch expresses no opinion that can be seen as political (given that Elizabeth II had a grand total of 179 Prime Ministers across 32 separate countries it would be naïve in the extreme to think she didn't have more, and better informed, opinions than almost anyone else), who acts as a figurehead who has symbolic and emergency powers only..

Why would you need to replace one useless person with anyone?

 

[MyOwnSockPuppet]

Why would you need to replace one useless person with anyone?

The obvious one is you need someone to wield the ceremonial rubber stamp that turns a parliamentary bill that's been through all the committees and votes into an act of parliament.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The obvious one is you need someone to wield the ceremonial rubber stamp that turns a parliamentary bill that's been through all the committees and votes into an act of parliament.

There is a difference between certifying that something has been done (a clerk-like role) and assenting. It's my understanding that what your queen does is to "assent" to a bill and at least theoretically can disapprove. (The President of the US has the same power to disapprove and uses it, as do state governors). That is different than some functionary applying the Great Seal and having the bill published in the book of laws. If you don't want to have any other person than the parliament to have a say if a law is a law, then you don't need one.

 

[rturner76]

And replace the role with what? Another *redacted* politician? A former/current actor/TV "personality"?

One of the major unwritten rules in the UK is that the monarch expresses no opinion that can be seen as political (given that Elizabeth II had a grand total of 179 Prime Ministers across 32 separate countries it would be naïve in the extreme to think she didn't have more, and better informed, opinions than almost anyone else), who acts as a figurehead who has symbolic and emergency powers only..

God save the queen (now king). Elizabeth II. She was a class act and a model of a Monarch.

 

[Strong in Him]

God save the queen (now king). Elizabeth II. She was a class act and a model of a Monarch.

And the UK's longest serving monarch.
I think it will be some time before anyone else is able to reign for 70 years.

 

[rturner76]

And the UK's longest serving monarch.
I think it will be some time before anyone else is able to reign for 70 years.

She was surely a class act who obeyed the rules of monarchy all of her life. She really did her duty

 

[Whyayeman]

As a republican I am all for abolition.

The issue is more than just replacing the King with a commoner. Many people have a warped view of our monarchy, seeing it as picturesque and, well, kind of cute; the reality is that monarchy is just the apex of a deeply entrenched system of privilege. There are still feudal lords sitting by right in one of our chambers of Parliament, the House of Lords (names on request).

The entire House of Lords (which has a role in legislation similar to the Senate) is by appointment. Nominally all seats are in the gift of the King, though in practice it is the Prime Minister who does it. The King is a rubber stamp in this.

It is hardly democratic.

 

[Lost4words]

There have always been people here in the UK who wanted/want to abolish the monarchy. It will never happen. Its roots are too deep.

 

[Whyayeman]

There have always been people here in the UK who wanted/want to abolish the monarchy. It will never happen. Its roots are too deep.

I agree that the monarchy has deep roots in tradition. The second Elizabethan era consolidated the House of Windsor's hold on the Crown.

And yet - the Monarchy is arguably less popular now than at any time since the WWII. We tend to think of a continuous line of Kings and Queens but that is far from being true. Since the Glorious Revolution (a Protestant triumph) when the Stuart dynasty ended with (Queen Anne) the line ha=of succession has been repeatedly broken. She left no heirs; George I spoke no English and hardly spent any time in his Kingdom - he detested the place.

William IV and Victoria were dredged up; there was no very powerful claim to their accessions. George V only succeeded because the heir died; George VI because his big brother shuffled off with the Nazis (a traitor to his country).

Deep roots? Dandelions have deep roots.

 

[mindlight]

It is to my understanding that there are those in the UK who advocate the abolishment of the monarchy. Will abolishing the monarchy be a good or bad thing for Britain? As an American, I believe the monarchy is a good thing.

The late Queen, who was head of the CoE, acknowledged Christ and glorified him when given a platform.

A non-political head of state makes the monarch less likely to involve themselves in politics. In America, the president is the head of government and a monarch in their own right. Their spouses and immediate family have influence with regards to public perception. The president answers to no one. Thus the Jan. 2021 insurrection. Commonwealth prime ministers answer to the monarch or their representatives.

What do you think?

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

The monarchy is deeply embedded in the psychology of the British people. As the recent successful trip of Charles III to Germany demonstrates the monarchy works far more effectively to promote the image of Britain than does a presidency. Also, I would argue that the monarchy is held to a higher degree of accountability than comparable high offices due to the media scrutiny and restrictions on its powers. Also, it generates a vast amount of cash for Britain from tourism and contributes to the kicking above-our-weight impact of soft diplomacy around the world. It unites church, state, and family in a unique and powerful way which provided a powerful global Christian testament in the case of the death of the Queen. Many of those opposed to are ignorant of its benefits or hold to some unworkable ideology.

 

[Whyayeman]

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

The monarchy is deeply embedded in the psychology of the British people. As the recent successful trip of Charles III to Germany demonstrates the monarchy works far more effectively to promote the image of Britain than does a presidency. Also, I would argue that the monarchy is held to a higher degree of accountability than comparable high offices due to the media scrutiny and restrictions on its powers. Also, it generates a vast amount of cash for Britain from tourism and contributes to the kicking above-our-weight impact of soft diplomacy around the world. It unites church, state, and family in a unique and powerful way which provided a powerful global Christian testament in the case of the death of the Queen. Many of those opposed to are ignorant of its benefits or hold to some unworkable ideology.

First, the Monarchy is, if not broken, in a pretty bad way as a family. It is one of the more dysfunctional families in British public life. Currently there are feuds going on conducted largely through the British media. The scandal of the King's brother's association with a prominent paedophile and child trafficker does not help. The late queen could not have been proud of her record as a mother with three out of her four children divorcing. So much for family!

I agree that the Royal Family is deeply embedded in the national psyche and that many people abroad are as fascinated (I would say infantilised) by the spectacle of royalty.

However, I cannot see this 'higher degree of accountability'. They cannot be voted out of office. They have no functions beyond the symbolic acts of opening Parliament and scribbling their names on Bills they have no role in formulating. Monarchs are simply puppets with the government of the day pulling the strings. They are not accountable if they have no agency.

There is little in the way of Christian leadership in the public squabbles, private venality and luxury of the current Royal Family.

I am slightly bemused at the dismissal of republicans as ignorant and unworldly.

 

[mindlight]

First, the Monarchy is, if not broken, in a pretty bad way as a family. It is one of the more dysfunctional families in British public life. Currently there are feuds going on conducted largely through the British media. The scandal of the King's brother's association with a prominent paedophile and child trafficker does not help. The late queen could not have been proud of her record as a mother with three out of her four children divorcing. So much for family!

I agree that the Royal Family is deeply embedded in the national psyche and that many people abroad are as fascinated (I would say infantilised) by the spectacle of royalty.

However, I cannot see this 'higher degree of accountability'. They cannot be voted out of office. They have no functions beyond the symbolic acts of opening Parliament and scribbling their names on Bills they have no role in formulating. Monarchs are simply puppets with the government of the day pulling the strings. They are not accountable if they have no agency.

There is little in the way of Christian leadership in the public squabbles, private venality and luxury of the current Royal Family.

I am slightly bemused at the dismissal of republicans as ignorant and unworldly.

British divorce rates are among the highest in the world and the monarchy just mirrors the country on that though the younger generation seems to be doing better than their elders among the royals and than their peers in the general population.

Andrew was a bit of a perv and had a taste for 17-year-olds. Historically as monarchs and indeed leaders go his record is rather tame but that does not excuse him either. I would suggest Henry VIII was worse and actually killed off brides he was finished with also.

The royals do not share the sterility of many and have all managed to reproduce. I am not sure how you or I would cope with the temptations that come with the opportunities they have enjoyed, so it is easy to judge people whose shoes we have not walked in.

I cannot think of any family that has been exposed to as much pressure and scrutiny as the british royal family including that of any American president.

If you are blind to God then I am hardly surprised to hear that you cannot see the evidence of Christian activities in the royal family in their charities, ceremonies, church attendance, public proclamations, etc.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Also, I would argue that the monarchy is held to a higher degree of accountability than comparable high offices due to the media scrutiny and restrictions on its powers.

This genuinely made me giggle. Bravo.