Abolishing the British Monarchy

[Strong in Him]

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

I do not think the late Queen had much - if any - influence on events.

All acts of Parliament require Royal assent before they can become law.
It might be seen as the Monarch rubber stamping something, but they do have the right to refuse, or delay, a bill. It has almost never happened (last occasion, 1707, apparently), but it could.

 

[mindlight]

All acts of Parliament require Royal assent before they can become law.
It might be seen as the Monarch rubber stamping something, but they do have the right to refuse, or delay, a bill. It has almost never happened (last occasion, 1707, apparently), but it could.

Royal Assent is one of those things where if the power was ever used it may well be removed. It remains a good thing for the monarchy as an institution to have this power because it gives one more possible check on legislation that might be truly harmful to the nation and which a majority of people oppose in our representative democracy.

The Queen a devout Christian assented to abortion laws and gay marriage laws which may well have contradicted her private convictions but in both cases, there was a mandate for this from the people however misguided that was.

Personally, I would be happy if the queen's accounts were not revealed to the public. Those who oppose this are basically looking for ammunition to overthrow the monarchy and I see no benefit in pandering to republicans. It is a harmless privilege for a head of state that help cement the stability of a key institution with very little likelihood of significant abuse given a free press and continued private scrutiny of those accounts by reputable bodies.

 

[Whyayeman]

Royal Assent is one of those things where if the power was ever used it may well be removed. It remains a good thing for the monarchy as an institution to have this power because it gives one more possible check on legislation that might be truly harmful to the nation and which a majority of people oppose in our representative democracy.

It is only a check in theory. A power that cannot be used is not really a power at all. If the Monarch ever used such a power there would be a constitutional crisis which would only serve to further constrain the monarchy.

The Queen a devout Christian assented to abortion laws and gay marriage laws which may well have contradicted her private convictions but in both cases, there was a mandate for this from the people however misguided that was.

In this she acted constitutionally. this just confirms the impotence of the monarchy.

Personally, I would be happy if the queen's accounts were not revealed to the public. Those who oppose this are basically looking for ammunition to overthrow the monarchy and I see no benefit in pandering to republicans.

Spot on! That is why these accounts are kept secret. It is a good indication that if the British public knew them they would be less enthusiastic for the monarchy.

It is a harmless privilege for a head of state that help cement the stability of a key institution with very little likelihood of significant abuse given a free press and continued private scrutiny of those accounts by reputable bodies.

As an abolitionist I disagree. I do not think that the monarchy is a key institution. It is merely a useless and anachronistic adjunct to government. It serves no real purpose.

Who are those reputable bodies? Who appoints the members? Why are the accounts kept secret? Why did the Queen use her position to interfere?

If the King now decided to take no further part in public life and devoted himself to tending his garden it would make no difference to anything.

 

[rturner76]

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.

I think it was Queen Elizabeth II's steadfastness during WWII, staying mostly in London during the bombings and remaining visible at Buckingham palace that cemented Great Britan's love for her. Never a scandle and never being caught being or doing anything but what a Monarch stands for. Of course he was a human but the way she never fed the tabloids gossip or questionable behavior made her almost superhuman or you could say the best of the best in terms of wealth and behavior in public. Never an eyelash out of place even the Congo or the most primitive commonwealth.

 

[Strong in Him]

I think it was Queen Elizabeth II's steadfastness during WWII, staying mostly in London during the bombings and remaining visible at Buckingham palace that cemented Great Britan's love for her.

That was Queen Elizabeth, the Queen mother.
Elizabeth was only 13 when WWII started. I understand she and Margaret were evacuated to Windsor castle (outside London.)

Never a scandle and never being caught being or doing anything but what a Monarch stands for. Of course he was a human but the way she never fed the tabloids gossip or questionable behavior made her almost superhuman or you could say the best of the best in terms of wealth and behavior in public. Never an eyelash out of place even the Congo or the most primitive commonwealth.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Doesn't the monarchy generate lots of tourists dollars?

 

[Strong in Him]

Doesn't the monarchy generate lots of tourists dollars?

Yes.

 

[Whyayeman]

Doesn't the monarchy generate lots of tourists dollars?

I dare say. So does Shakespeare, our beautiful country houses, the National Trust, the Premier League, the National Parks, the Scottish Highlands and lots of stuff.

Ii doubt if many people come to catch a glimpse. The monarchs are not exactly on public show. Most Brits have never seen them.

 

[JoeyVimsanteThePoet]

I think that King Charles III has not been as controversial as some suspected he would be. He has not talked much about politics.

 

[Whyayeman]

I think that King Charles III has not been as controversial as some suspected he would be. He has not talked much about politics.

Well, he is making some peripheral changes to the behaviour expected by the Monarch, breaking with the late Queen's tradition. I don't think many people expected him to be controversial. He read the speech he was given, written by the prime minister at the beginning of the new session of Parliament..

The speech was controversial, but they were not the King's words.

 

[Bob Crowley]

The King in theory has the power to "dissolve" the British Parliament, but it would have to be very, very clear that the government was not acting in accordance with the wishes of the people.

In Australia the Queen's representative is the Governor General. Normally that's as much of a rubber stamp regime as the monarchy, but in 1974 the Governor General Sir John Kerr sacked the Whitlam Government.

It left a sour taste for a lot of people for a long time, particularly the Australian Labor Party whose government had been removed.

I personally think Australia should be a republic, but as far as the British people are concerned, I think it's up to them. The monarchy is part of the warp and weave of their history, and it would take a long time to build up a similar tradition if it was replaced with something else.

And there would be no assurance that the new system would be any better.

It reminds me of a quote by Admiral Andrew Cunningham that " 'It takes the Navy three years to build a ship but three hundred years to build a tradition" when he was justifying the losses the navy sustained evacuating the British army from Crete in 1941.

 

[Whyayeman]

The King in theory has the power to "dissolve" the British Parliament, but it would have to be very, very clear that the government was not acting in accordance with the wishes of the people.

In Australia the Queen's representative is the Governor General. Normally that's as much of a rubber stamp regime as the monarchy, but in 1974 the Governor General Sir John Kerr sacked the Whitlam Government.

It left a sour taste for a lot of people for a long time, particularly the Australian Labor Party whose government had been removed.

I personally think Australia should be a republic, but as far as the British people are concerned, I think it's up to them. The monarchy is part of the warp and weave of their history, and it would take a long time to build up a similar tradition if it was replaced with something else.

And there would be no assurance that the new system would be any better.

It reminds me of a quote by Admiral Andrew Cunningham that " 'It takes the Navy three years to build a ship but three hundred years to build a tradition" when he was justifying the losses the navy sustained evacuating the British army from Crete in 1941.

I remember about that. It was heavily reported here (UK).

The King's theoretical power is just that. The Monarch must do what the Prime Minister says or face a crisis which would imperil the constitution. When the King appears on ceremonial occasions these days he always encounters republicans holding placards; 'Not in My name'. The organisation behind them has grown significantly recently.

‘The monarchy looks vulnerable’: will Britain’s republicans bring down the king?

Every day, we learn more about the royals’ colonial legacy and financial privileges – and it has given a huge boost to the republican movement

www.theguardian.com

 

[keith99]

I dare say. So does Shakespeare, our beautiful country houses, the National Trust, the Premier League, the National Parks, the Scottish Highlands and lots of stuff.

Ii doubt if many people come to catch a glimpse. The monarchs are not exactly on public show. Most Brits have never seen them.

I have, through 6 inches of bullet proof 'glass'. Also with military spaced about every 10 feet along both sides of the street. All armed with fixed bayonets! More guns on public display than I have seen in a lifetime here in the gun crazy States!

Being a Prop, I cared a lot more about the pitches in the shadow of Windsor castle than the castle itself.

 

[Whyayeman]

People can get much closer than that. My partner actually met the late queen at the palace. Thousands meet royalty every year. But that is not most people.

(I think the 6" glass might be an exaggeration. Until fairly recently the late Queen rode on horseback for the Changing of the Guard ceremony.)

 

[keith99]

People can get much closer than that. My partner actually met the late queen at the palace. Thousands meet royalty every year. But that is not most people.

(I think the 6" glass might be an exaggeration. Until fairly recently the late Queen rode on horseback for the Changing of the Guard ceremony.)

No exaggeration. It was rather striking since she was in a horse drawn carriage! The ancient and the new. It was in the 70s and it also was a 2 mile plus procession from a subway stop to one of the palaces. The Queen met an ambassador at the station. I would not be surprised to find out that there was significant unrest in the country the ambassador was from.

Side note. I know several people who know people who have more than met the Queen. I would not have noticed except for the Sir in front of the name of several Rugby players and coaches.

 

[Bob Crowley]

The IRA were quite active in 1972 and I suspect the security would have been partly on their account.

They assassinated Lord Mountbatten with a bomb on board his boat in 1979. Three others died in the blast and the survivors were seriously injured.

 

[Ceallaigh]

I dare say. So does Shakespeare, our beautiful country houses, the National Trust, the Premier League, the National Parks, the Scottish Highlands and lots of stuff.

Ii doubt if many people come to catch a glimpse. The monarchs are not exactly on public show. Most Brits have never seen them.

I figured the tourist attraction was everything connected to the monarchy. The king's guards and all the royal stuff.

 

[Whyayeman]

I figured the tourist attraction was everything connected to the monarchy. The king's guards and all the royal stuff.

There is a lot more to see in London than the Changing of the Guard. And tourists don't stay in London.

The 'Royal stuff', I suppose you mean those rare occasions when Royal personages appear in public; driving down the Mall in an open carriage or opening Parliament. For these events the bulk of the spectators are British.

Why not visit the UK for the scenery, the theatres, the museums and art galleries? You won't be bothering with the Royals.

 

[Ceallaigh]

There is a lot more to see in London than the Changing of the Guard. And tourists don't stay in London.

The 'Royal stuff', I suppose you mean those rare occasions when Royal personages appear in public; driving down the Mall in an open carriage or opening Parliament. For these events the bulk of the spectators are British.

Why not visit the UK for the scenery, the theatres, the museums and art galleries? You won't be bothering with the Royals.

Lots of other places have scenery, theatres, museums and galleries.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Lots of other places have scenery, theatres, museums and galleries.

I've been in a few royal castles and they all had one thing in common -- no royals in the country at all. Former royal residences have more extensive tours than current ones.