Abolishing the British Monarchy

[Strong in Him]

First, the Monarchy is, if not broken, in a pretty bad way as a family.

I don't believe it's broken at all.
There were huge public gatherings, and parties, at each of Elizabeth's jubilees - especially the later ones. There was a huge outpouring of affection, and mourning, at the deaths of the Queen Mother, Diana, Prince Philip and the queen herself. There will doubtless be similar gatherings, and shows of loyalty, at the King's coronation next month.

It is one of the more dysfunctional families in British public life.

Is it?
How many pop, film and sports stars get divorced/have affairs? How many ordinary families have children with several different fathers?
Yes, of the Queen's 4 children, 3 got divorced. But 2 of them have remarried with the new partners being accepted by the family.

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.

Why are you blaming the queen for her children's divorces?
If you had children who got divorced/took drugs/became criminals or anything else - would that be your fault? Of course not.

I agree that the Royal Family is deeply embedded in the national psyche

They've played a major part in our history, yes.

However, I cannot see this 'higher degree of accountability'. They cannot be voted out of office.

Unless Parliament united and voted to abolish the monarchy.
Though that would be tricky as, when they become MPs, they take an oath of allegiance to the monarch.

They have no functions beyond the symbolic acts of opening Parliament and scribbling their names on Bills they have no role in formulating.

Well there's all the official overseas trips, for a start. The queen was head of the commonwealth, and our armed forces. She received foreign dignitaries, who were invited to the various royal weddings. The royals are patrons of many, many charities.
The Prime Minister is the Monarch's first minister. They meet weekly, and Royal Assent is needed to pass a bill. It's true that this is largely a formality these days, but it has been declined in the past.

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

The queen was a Christian, went to church and spoke, and wrote, about her faith.

 

[Goonie]

Im a small r republican, as in i cannot help thinking of whst president Farage, would be like

 

[Strong in Him]

Im a small r republican, as in i cannot help thinking of whst president Farage, would be like

 

[Whyayeman]

I would suggest Henry VIII was worse and actually killed off brides he was finished with also.

Not being as bad as Henry VIII is a pretty poor recommendation.

All that charity work from one of the personally richest men in the world! Charity is not restricted to Christians, remember. They are there to preserve Protestantism, a minority religion in an increasing secular Britain. There is not even any leadership role; the prime minister chooses bishops from a short list, presented to him by the Archbishop of Canterbury. The list comprises two names and the first name is always chosen. The King has no say in even that, though he is nominally Head of the Church of England.

However, if there was a religious aspect to their presence that could be part of the job description of anyone.

 

[MyOwnSockPuppet]

Im a small r republican, as in i cannot help thinking of whst president Farage, would be like

Brain bleach to aisle 3 please...

 

[Vanellus]

The Queen (and now the King) was governor, not head of the CofE. This mistake of Henry VIII was corrected by the earlier Elizabeth I.

They are really expensive taking very large sums of public money to fund a highly extravagant lifestyle. A non monarchical head of state doesn't have to be so expensive, or too political e.g. Ireland. Buckingham Palace could be made into a museum and art gallery similar to the Louvre or the Hermitage.

And royalty has some pretty dark deeds, both past and present. Check out what the restored Charles II did to the body of Oliver Cromwell!

 

[Arcangl86]

The Queen (and now the King) was governor, not head of the CofE. This mistake of Henry VIII was corrected by the earlier Elizabeth I.

They are really expensive taking very large sums of public money to fund a highly extravagant lifestyle. A non monarchical head of state doesn't have to be so expensive, or too political e.g. Ireland. Buckingham Palace could be made into a museum and art gallery similar to the Louvre or the Hermitage.

And royalty has some pretty dark deeds, both past and present. Check out what the restored Charles II did to the body of Oliver Cromwell!

My understanding though is that the government actually receives a large amount of money from the Crown Estate, which more then makes up for the amount of money spent on maintaining the sovereign.

 

[Whyayeman]

My understanding though is that the government actually receives a large amount of money from the Crown Estate, which more then makes up for the amount of money spent on maintaining the sovereign.

The Crown Estates, worth about £17 billion, are exempt from tax. The monarch receives 25% of the revenues and the state takes the rest. How much that is is not published.

The late Queen's private estate was valued at £370 million. It was disposed of in her will which,are normally public documents but has not been published. The King receives a sovereign grant of £86.3 million each year to pay the royal household's expenses.

This makes interesting reading:

The sovereign’s wealth: UK royal family’s finances – explained

The holdings of the crown estate, Duchy of Lancaster and Duchy of Cornwall, together worth £17bn

www.theguardian.com

 

[Whyayeman]

The Queen (and now the King) was governor, not head of the CofE. This mistake of Henry VIII was corrected by the earlier Elizabeth I.

I think this is a distinction without a difference. In practice The Monarch has nothing to do with the running of the Church of England, no contribution to doctrinal matters or appointments of clergy. The C of E is run by bishops and they are chosen in an arcane way: the Church Authority (one of the two Archbishops) offers two names to the Prime Minister of the day. By venerable custom the Prime Minister chooses the name at the top of the list, sends it to the Palace and the Monarch graciously accepts it. The bishop is appointed.

The Monarch is just a very expensive and elaborate rubber stamp. We pay £86.3 million each year for this nonsense.

 

[Vanellus]

I think this is a distinction without a difference. In practice The Monarch has nothing to do with the running of the Church of England, no contribution to doctrinal matters or appointments of clergy. The C of E is run by bishops and they are chosen in an arcane way: the Church Authority (one of the two Archbishops) offers two names to the Prime Minister of the day. By venerable custom the Prime Minister chooses the name at the top of the list, sends it to the Palace and the Monarch graciously accepts it. The bishop is appointed.

The Monarch is just a very expensive and elaborate rubber stamp. We pay £86.3 million each year for this nonsense.

The point is that Jesus is called the head of the church in the NT e.g. Col 1:18

 

[Vanellus]

My understanding though is that the government actually receives a large amount of money from the Crown Estate, which more then makes up for the amount of money spent on maintaining the sovereign.

The crown estate isn't the private property of the monarch so it's not quite right to view this as Charles being generous.

Crown Estate

 

[Whyayeman]

The point is that Jesus is called the head of the church in the NT e.g. Col 1:18

I have no issue with that. My point is that the Monarch has no role in the Church of England.

As this thread is about the abolition of the Monarchy in the UK - not the role of the King in church affairs - I repeat the argument that the Monarch has no role in the affairs of state. The Prime Minister derives this title as the Monarch's choice but is in fact chosen by democratically elected Members of Parliament from among themselves. The Prime Minister functions as President. The whole of the rest of the government of the day is appointed by the PM. The Monarch is a rubber stamp in this too, and does what the PM 'advises'.

Kings and Queens open things, cut ribbons, shake hands and such. Anybody could do it - or nobody - and the result would be the same.

 

[Vanellus]

Actually the royal family has more influence than you might think. Whether they should have that influence is another thing!

Revealed: Queen lobbied for change in law to hide her private wealth

 

[Whyayeman]

Actually the royal family has more influence than you might think. Whether they should have that influence is another thing!

Revealed: Queen lobbied for change in law to hide her private wealth

Yes, she did! But we know it anyway, because this was an example of ultimate failure of the Queen's influence. Notice that it was purely self-seeking and nothing to do with the good governance of the realm or the for the benefit of her subjects.

 

[Aaron112]

Presidential scandals are commonplace.

Scandals in Britain have been commonplace for centuries - it is not at all a very good country, and it has had more control over the world/ peoples/ that most other countries, not with good results.

 

[Aaron112]

Notice that it was purely self-seeking and nothing to do with the good governance of the realm or the for the benefit of her subjects.

Likewise most governments on earth.

 

[Strong in Him]

Yes, she did! But we know it anyway, because this was an example of ultimate failure of the Queen's influence. Notice that it was purely self-seeking and nothing to do with the good governance of the realm or the for the benefit of her subjects.

You must be joking!
At her Coronation, she pledged to serve her people - and she did, for 70+ years.
Whatever her own private wishes, or desires, may have been, she remained as Monarch - representing the UK on tours, giving speeches, being seen and boosting the Commonwealth and international relations. The crowds at her silver/golden/diamond and platinum jubilee celebrations, testify how loved she was.

If it had been all about her, she could have abdicated years ago. Even if she'd spent the last 20 years with her family, nobody could have begrudged her that.

 

[Whyayeman]

You must be joking!
At her Coronation, she pledged to serve her people - and she did, for 70+ years.
Whatever her own private wishes, or desires, may have been, she remained as Monarch - representing the UK on tours, giving speeches, being seen and boosting the Commonwealth and international relations. The crowds at her silver/golden/diamond and platinum jubilee celebrations, testify how loved she was.

If it had been all about her, she could have abdicated years ago. Even if she'd spent the last 20 years with her family, nobody could have begrudged her that.

Yes, that is what she promised. And she stayed on the Throne for all that time.

But why did she want to hide her private wealth?

Revealed: Queen lobbied for change in law to hide her private wealth

Monarch dispatched private solicitor to secure exemption from transparency law

www.theguardian.com

 

[Strong in Him]

Yes, that is what she promised. And she stayed on the Throne for all that time.

But why did she want to hide her private wealth?

Revealed: Queen lobbied for change in law to hide her private wealth

Monarch dispatched private solicitor to secure exemption from transparency law

www.theguardian.com

I don't know.
But that did not make her a bad, or self-centred, queen.

 

[Whyayeman]

I don't know.
But that did not make her a bad, or self-centred, queen.

Yes, she did! But we know it anyway, because this was an example of ultimate failure of the Queen's influence. Notice that it was purely self-seeking and nothing to do with the good governance of the realm or the for the benefit of her subjects.

I have drawn attention to my words above in response to this:

Actually the royal family has more influence than you might think.

I do not think the late Queen had much - if any - influence on events. Or the current King for that matter. I have no particular opinion about her character, though I think it is odd that she tried to get the law changed to hide her private wealth.