I Think Musk Must Be On Something.....
News1 min ago
Why On Earth Would Anyone Want To Replace The Monarchy With A President?
45 Answers
Watching all the tradition, pomp and ceremony on display following the death of the Queen and even more o come when King Charles coronation, why anyone want to ditch all that? It would be madness. There is nothing else like it in the world, something to be very proud of. Its worth every penny and if someone starts talking about how many doctors and nurses for our "beloved" NHS would it pay for I think I will scream.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by dave50. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
it depends what you think a head of state is for. In the USA and France they're political leaders. In Germany they're mostly people you never hear of (currently Steinmeier - I had to look him up). In Britain they're figureheads with no political power.
The notion of an elected President Boris chills my spine. Others would say the same about a President Blair, no doubt. But if they're going to be powerless, it makes no odds whether it's a recently disgraced politician or the descendant of an Anglo-Saxon invader 1500 years ago.
The notion of an elected President Boris chills my spine. Others would say the same about a President Blair, no doubt. But if they're going to be powerless, it makes no odds whether it's a recently disgraced politician or the descendant of an Anglo-Saxon invader 1500 years ago.
i don't know how old you are Dave, but only the very youngest AB-ers will live long enough to potentially see the UK become a republic.
The first problem is the other states who share our monarch as their head of state. Whilst some have already started the transition to republics, others have not, with some even saying there's no plans for a referendum any time soon. Agreement to abolish would be needed with all these states; practically, it would be simpler if they became republics first.
Next problem, no political party with even a marginal chance of getting enough seats to form a government (either on its own or as part of a coalition) has republicanism in its manifesto. Labour haven't debated the matter at its annual conference since 1923, and even the SNP have said a post-independence Scotland would not seek to become a republic. A pro-republican party will have to get itself elected first. things may change in the future but it's pretty unlikely now.
Next problem - having decided to abolish the constitutional monarchy, the administration would need to decide on the form of republic. Should the elected head of state be just ceremonial (as in Ireland), or should the head of state be "the executive" (as in the USA)? How would this be decided - by referendum, or imposed by the governing party?
Having decided all that, the constitution will need to be changed to accommodate. It's said the UK constitution is unwritten, but it's not. It's true none of it is in one place, but there's many rules and regulations written, here and there. It's likely to take years to unpick that.
it may be time to consider republicanism, but we're at least 50 years away from it becoming reality.
The first problem is the other states who share our monarch as their head of state. Whilst some have already started the transition to republics, others have not, with some even saying there's no plans for a referendum any time soon. Agreement to abolish would be needed with all these states; practically, it would be simpler if they became republics first.
Next problem, no political party with even a marginal chance of getting enough seats to form a government (either on its own or as part of a coalition) has republicanism in its manifesto. Labour haven't debated the matter at its annual conference since 1923, and even the SNP have said a post-independence Scotland would not seek to become a republic. A pro-republican party will have to get itself elected first. things may change in the future but it's pretty unlikely now.
Next problem - having decided to abolish the constitutional monarchy, the administration would need to decide on the form of republic. Should the elected head of state be just ceremonial (as in Ireland), or should the head of state be "the executive" (as in the USA)? How would this be decided - by referendum, or imposed by the governing party?
Having decided all that, the constitution will need to be changed to accommodate. It's said the UK constitution is unwritten, but it's not. It's true none of it is in one place, but there's many rules and regulations written, here and there. It's likely to take years to unpick that.
it may be time to consider republicanism, but we're at least 50 years away from it becoming reality.
jno - the monarch is not completely powerless. In the extreme, for example, they could refuse to sign a law which a current government decreed that the current PM could remain PM for life (as Putin did). A most unlikely situation but the mere fact that thee power exists, in theory, is probably enough to stop some power-mad nutter from trying it.
even if the crown is not constitutionally supposed to wield its power i have a very hard time believing that is actually the case in practise… the monarch is highly influential behind closed doors…
then even if they do not wield power there is sheer privilege that comes with it… it’s impossible to “prove” this definitively but I think we all know in our heart of hearts that prince andrew would be in a very very different place now if he was simply a wealthy individual rather than the son of a queen… that is unacceptable.
i do admit there is a splendour and quirkiness about the monarchy which I would miss if it was gone…. but that doesn’t come without nasty consequences unfortunately.
then even if they do not wield power there is sheer privilege that comes with it… it’s impossible to “prove” this definitively but I think we all know in our heart of hearts that prince andrew would be in a very very different place now if he was simply a wealthy individual rather than the son of a queen… that is unacceptable.
i do admit there is a splendour and quirkiness about the monarchy which I would miss if it was gone…. but that doesn’t come without nasty consequences unfortunately.
you can pretty much take your pick of the legends, TTT. Genealogies usually take Charles back to Alfred the Great; anything before that is fairly speculative. Whether the earliest Anglo-Saxons were invaders or traders, whether Hengist and Horsa were two people or one, whether the Jutes even existed, nobody really knows.
people forget or seem to be blind to the new monarchy that the queen brought to the nation it was not like her predecessors and also king charles our king has said that it will be a more streamlined and modern monarchy so people have their pantys in a twist over nothing i think you got to remember these royals are born into slavery their whole lives planned our with protocal and tradition i do feel sorry for them long live the king
bhg, it's hard to determine what powers the monarch has. Boris wanted parliament prorogued so he persuaded the Queen to do it. The supreme court ruled this was unlawful. So it looks as if ultimate power resides in the courts - which is fine by me, but some MPs would like the power to vet judges and cancel ones they disapprove of. So who's really in charge?
Perhaps because a normal person isn't keen on having someone lord it over them simply because of who their parents were, and then be a "subject"of theirs as opposed to a citizen on their nation. Forlock tugging and bowing & scraping should be a past activity of serfs, not a part of a modern world. Of course, though, the role of royalty is utterly unnecessary anyway. We have an elected government, and a revision of procedures should easily allow attendance niceties, presently done by royals, to be done by the first among equals, anyway. So no president is needed. Royalty is merely an anachronism at this point.
Alfred just called himself King of the Anglo-Saxons; his grandson Athelstan was the first rex Anglorum, once he'd conquered Northumbria. None the less, Alfred's own genealogy takes him back to Cerdic, probably the first king of Wessex from 519. That's the bit I called "speculative" but it's not necessarily imaginary: the names do appear in documents.
The Anglo-Saxon chronicle traces his antecedents further back to Odin, but I wouldn't place too much faith in that.
The Anglo-Saxon chronicle traces his antecedents further back to Odin, but I wouldn't place too much faith in that.
dave50, why indeed! I am a staunch supporter of the monarchy and if I thought this country could ever be subject to a president I would not bother to get out of bed again.
We are envied by many around the world who have marveled at our late Queen for 7 decades. If King Charles can streamline the number of Royals to just those who do work for our country I shall be pleased to see it happen.
I am happy to see how the King does with everything going on, it will take some time but he has served his apprenticeship well enough. The Monarch will still sign our new acts and that suits me.
God save the King and this country!
We are envied by many around the world who have marveled at our late Queen for 7 decades. If King Charles can streamline the number of Royals to just those who do work for our country I shall be pleased to see it happen.
I am happy to see how the King does with everything going on, it will take some time but he has served his apprenticeship well enough. The Monarch will still sign our new acts and that suits me.
God save the King and this country!
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.