The UK should become a Republic

OP
R

roubaixtuesday

Veteran
I hear you. What I find strange is that the argument seems to become about the moral fibre or lack thereof, of the Saxe-Coburg family, which I think misses the point: if you find that the elected or appointed head of state is racist, then even if they refuse to resign, they can be removed from office, or in some cases will leave when their term comes to an end. Then they can be replaced with someone completely different.

With a hereditary monarchy, not only is this not possible, you can't even hope things will change when the next in line inherits the job, because the institution is so big and unwieldy it can't really reform.
Precisely.

As I said originally "An institution above democratic control or proper scrutiny"
 

Edwardoka

Bloviating Windbag
I hear you. What I find strange is that the argument seems to become about the moral fibre or lack thereof, of the Saxe-Coburg family, which I think misses the point: if you find that the elected or appointed head of state is racist, then even if they refuse to resign, they can be removed from office, or in some cases will leave when their term comes to an end. Then they can be replaced with someone completely different.

With a hereditary monarchy, not only is this not possible, you can't even hope things will change when the next in line inherits the job, because the institution is so big and unwieldy it can't really reform.
Sadly, the most effective form of government - despotic monarchy - is also the most fickle. If a civilisation finds itself led by an able, wise genius as the sole ruler during a time of relative stability, no other forms of government come close.

Unfortunately, the children of able, wise geniuses tend more often than not to be pampered wastrels, fit only for defenestration, and even if one of them is capable, their siblings historically tended to have rather different opinions about who would make the better ruler.

Although I will say that with the post-Cromwell (the scoundrel) formalisation of the royals and their role in governance it's rather too easy to handwave problematic royals out of relevance without torches and pitchforks being involved.

I'm pretty sure these days aul' Liz is somewhere to the right of Benito, but she's smart enough to keep her yap shut.
Her son is known to have... opinions, how capable he will be of keeping them to himself remains to be seen. Keep your pitchforks and torches at the ready, my silos are full of tar and the hens have been freshly plucked.

Beneficent wishes upon all,
Serene Doge Edgar I "The Holy" Pugglesworth
 

ebikeerwidnes

Über Member
The main thing I have about the idea of a republic is the idea of having more people jockeying for election

The last thing we need is more people shouting about things they think 'the people' want to hear

and then you have to work out what the new president can do and what their responsibilities and authority is - and what happens if the PM is Labour and the President is Tory??
we don;t want a situation like the USA have at times - where nothing can be done because everything gets blocked

I know other countries have done it and it works out OK - but we do now have a good records of implementing system like this very well!
 
The main thing I have about the idea of a republic is the idea of having more people jockeying for election

The last thing we need is more people shouting about things they think 'the people' want to hear

and then you have to work out what the new president can do and what their responsibilities and authority is - and what happens if the PM is Labour and the President is Tory??
we don;t want a situation like the USA have at times - where nothing can be done because everything gets blocked

I know other countries have done it and it works out OK - but we do now have a good records of implementing system like this very well!
That's why you don't have to elect the head of state: in fact it's probably better not to, but have them appointed. That way you don't have big campaigns (Our president is very low key and I'd even forgotten his name) but they can still be removed.
 
OP
R

roubaixtuesday

Veteran
and then you have to work out what the new president can do and what their responsibilities and authority is - and what happens if the PM is Labour and the President is Tory??
we don;t want a situation like the USA have at times - where nothing can be done because everything gets blocked
You'll note that my proposal was for a mainly ceremonial role on the Irish model.

I don't entirely agree that systems with better checks and balance between the executive and legislature on the US are inherently more problematic. Indeed, it can be argued that the model saved the US from Trump whereas ours could easily enable such a character.
 

Yellow Fang

Legendary Member
Location
Reading
The current froth highlights the fundamental unBritishness of the Royal Family.

An institution above democratic control or proper scrutiny which allocates privilege, income and influence at birth offends the fundamental values of the British people.

An institution which faces accusations of racism and sexual abuse without accountability to respond is unacceptable.

An institution which condemns individuals to a life of outrageous press intrusion and a predetermined role from childhood will always be invidious to the mental health and well being of its members.

A medieval system of governance which infantilises the country by insisting we, the people cannot be trusted to choose our own leaders but require a paternalistic overseer to guarantee our rights is a farce.

We should adopt an Irish model of a largely ceremonial head of state. I nominate Sandi Toksvig.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Ireland

Discuss.
fark off in all respects.
 

Milkfloat

An Peanut
Location
Midlands
Without looking it up... Henning Wehn?
Johnny Buchardt I believe started it.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46QYGsf9IGs
 

Yellow Fang

Legendary Member
Location
Reading
Thank you for your well argued viewpoint which is wholly convincing as to the value of the Royals. With such logic, who could fail to support the institution?
It was as well argued as your points. The monarchy being against British values, I ask you. That is some presumptuous. I'm British and it's not against my values, a constitutional monarchy amyway. We've had kings and queens in Britain for at least 3000 years. We were a republic for about a dozen years. Records of succession became hazy during periods of protracted invasion and civil war. You could say that was a characteristic of British interregnums. This ain't America. ancient Rome or Athens.
 

Edwardoka

Bloviating Windbag
It was as well argued as your points. The monarchy being against British values, I ask you. That is some presumptuous. I'm British and it's not against my values, a constitutional monarchy amyway. We've had kings and queens in Britain for at least 3000 years. We were a republic for about a dozen years. Records of succession became hazy during periods of protracted invasion and civil war. You could say that was a characteristic of British interregnums. This ain't America. ancient Rome or Athens.
3000 years? :laugh: What history book have you been reading, Feudalism: 101 ways to train your serf, The Tanist's Guide to Succession or Gavelkind is Best Kind?

Yes, I learned all I know about succession laws from Crusader Kings II, wanna fight about it?
Serene Doge Edgar I "The Hammer of Constantine" Pugglesworth
 
OP
R

roubaixtuesday

Veteran
It was as well argued as your points. The monarchy being against British values, I ask you. That is some presumptuous. I'm British and it's not against my values, a constitutional monarchy amyway. We've had kings and queens in Britain for at least 3000 years. We were a republic for about a dozen years. Records of succession became hazy during periods of protracted invasion and civil war. You could say that was a characteristic of British interregnums. This ain't America. ancient Rome or Athens.
There's a fair bit of contradiction right there in that paragraph.

First " it's not against my values". So your values are for undemocratic institutions? Are you sure?

Second: "a constitutional monarchy amyway" immediately followed by, without so much as pausing for breath, "We've had kings and queens in Britain for at least 3000 years." Almost all of whom could in no way be described as "constitutional".

Finally, "This ain't America. ancient Rome or Athens". None of which had, or have the model I proposed.

All in all, I think your first effort was better argued.
 
It was as well argued as your points. The monarchy being against British values, I ask you. That is some presumptuous. I'm British and it's not against my values, a constitutional monarchy amyway. We've had kings and queens in Britain for at least 3000 years. We were a republic for about a dozen years. Records of succession became hazy during periods of protracted invasion and civil war. You could say that was a characteristic of British interregnums. This ain't America. ancient Rome or Athens.
We had slavery and as a normal part of life until 1809, does that make slavery a "British value"? It could certainly be a "characteristic" of Britain if you look at our history.

See also: children cleaning chimneys under forced labour conditions; Cholera, Polio, Measles, smallpox, famine, operations without anaesthetic, Gangrene, rather messy battles with swords (usually at the the behest of said kings and queens) Invading other people's countries, and genocide (ditto).

All of these were "characteristic" of Britain until surprisingly recently but that isn't an argument for keeping them.
 
Last edited:

captain nemo1701

Space cadet. Deck 42 Main Engineering.
Location
Bristol
The current froth highlights the fundamental unBritishness of the Royal Family.

An institution above democratic control or proper scrutiny which allocates privilege, income and influence at birth offends the fundamental values of the British people. Didn't we have a war to get rid of privileged lunatics?

An institution which faces accusations of racism and sexual abuse without accountability to respond is unacceptable. 'Don't stay here too long, you'll go s****y e**d'. Phil in China 1986....engage Operation Cover-Up. That's what the royals & state do - cover it up all the time, laugh it off, bury the issue, move on...tug forelock, doff cap you serfs!!

An institution which condemns individuals to a life of outrageous press intrusion and a predetermined role from childhood will always be invidious to the mental health and well being of its members. Best reason to get rid of them. In my book, its not human to be royal & deified. Some who crave fame sometimes find it's a curse rather than a blessing. The lifestyle is so addictively alluring.....

A medieval system of governance which infantilises the country by insisting we, the people cannot be trusted to choose our own leaders but require a paternalistic overseer to guarantee our rights is a farce. YES.

We should adopt an Irish model of a largely ceremonial head of state. I nominate Sandi Toksvig. YES...she'd be brilliant.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Ireland

Discuss.
My bold too :okay:
 
Top Bottom