Are you in favour of the Royal Family?

[enzomari]

DM and I were discussing this last night, she's now in her Eighties and used to really like the Queen (not so much Phillip for some reason) but now really isn't bothered and thinks the RF, as is, should be abolished . I've always been a Republican but I was surprised at DM as she always seemed very pro RF but actually was pro the late Queen.

IMHO it seems so past it's sell by date but I'd be interested to know others opinions.

@Extiainoiapeial They do not exempt themselves. The government of the day could change any law. They choose not to. The monarch does not write the legislation. That’s the elected government.

The people saying a President is too political are comparing apples and oranges. In the US and France they do have political power, but the UK has a different governmental structure and the role of Head of State is a ceremonial one. That's not going to change.

It would be similar to the Irish model, with an elected Head of State who performs ceremonial duties.

Aside from being incredibly outdated, monarchy doesn't exactly produce well rounded and emotionally healthy individuals, does it? I feel sorry for Prince George, whose life was mapped out for him before he was even born. What if he doesn't want to be King, or isn't suited to it? He can't walk away without creating a crisis or placing the burden on his sister.

At least a President has some real world experience and has put themselves forward for the role.

Well.... that's where you're wrong. Maybe 'immunity' is a more comfortable word.

For instance racial, sexual, equality and discrimination laws. Other laws contain carve-outs exempting the Monarch as a private employer from observing workers’ rights, health and safety or pensions laws.

The people saying a President is too political are comparing apples and oranges. In the US and France they do have political power, but the UK has a different governmental structure and the role of Head of State is a ceremonial one. That's not going to change.

An elected president has the legitimacy of democracy.

The monarch most certainly does not. Something they will be reminded of (by force of arms, as history shows) if they try to interfere in the processes of government that have been elected.

As things stand - proved by the fact the Queen was unable to refuse to illegally prorogue parliament - the monarch is a cipher. A rubber stamp. The most expensive way of storing a piece of jewellery in history.

The Romans managed for centuries without a king. In fact it was the fall of the republic that is often cited as when the rot set in. Although I know such history is dangerously elitist these days. As indeed is any knowledge.

The Monarch gets to peek at legislation before parliament gets a chance, and to offer any "suggestions" on how it may be improved.

The Queen was quite interested in making sure Brexit wouldn't mess anything up for the Windsors.

Another staunch republican here too.

Disestablish the Church, remove king as head of state. Let them get up to their shenanigans with their own money.

Yes to disestablishing the church - look at recent news though and look at Peter Ball and Charles - they are hand in glove . Charles as head of the Church of England was a joke
But Willam ??
He is a ‘performative pinhead ‘ ( I think a journalist described him thus - spot on) has no hinterland and has openly stated he is not ‘spiritual’
He took his father’s coronation so unseriously that he couldn’t even memorise one sentence . It was a farce.

But that is all a side show .

Im sick of the Windsors stealing billions from the very people they claim to ‘serve ‘ and being above the law .
People have had enough and repeated paid for ‘polls’ only continue to convince the weak minded that the Windsors are popular

Yes, the polls... they are so shallow... Kate looks lovely in a red coat, Camilla is a stalwart doing more whilst Charles was ill, Anne is a saint, and poor William doing the school run, that's what it's based on 😅

Why do we need a Head of State?

We don’t . But the convention is that there a person to do meet and greet. But I agree it’s not a given . Could the speaker do it ? Or the deputy speaker.

Well that's a political question that can't really be answered in this margin.

I suppose that technically the UK doesn't really need a head of state. However the rest of the world, as in the countries that make up the rest of the world, all seem to have one somewhere. How they are appointed, and what exactly they do varies. So when a foreign head of state visits the UK, who do they get to meet as a peer ?

If we want to examine alternative systems of governing, sortition has it's merits. Certainly delivers incorruptible government (probably why it's not used anywhere).

In some countries the process the UK uses to appoint a speaker (elected by tge legislature) is used to appoint the head of state. (I think ....)

Someone apolitical at a bare minimum I'd say. Despite everything, everyone in the HOC or HOL has political affiliations.

Too much scope for more shenanigans!

Elect the HOS. Present and past incumbent PMs excluded. Ceremonial only. Fixed budget, two terms of four years. Off you toddle now....

Someone apolitical at a bare minimum I'd say. Despite everything, everyone in the HOC or HOL has political affiliations.

I'd suggest they are less important than their financial affiliations ....

Quality? tall as a quality?

Vaccuumpacked said William will make a good ruler because he is tall

I can remember the uproar from the Press when Diana hugged the African child with Aids. This was when Aids terror was peaking. That was a game changer in how charity support and patronage could be used. Similarly with land mines.

Well obviously. When he is in a uniform esp a Guards one he will look even taller. All those tourists flocking in don't want to see a regular person!!!!

What - for measuring long things ?

If that's the best and brightest of the royalists here ...

Kings (or Queens) Consent gives the Monarch the right to approve laws and do we really think that any Govt area would ignore a phone call from the reigning Monarch. PM has regular audience to discuss whatever and has to seek approval to dissolve a Govt and to ' kiss hands' when elected PM

Nothing any politician with conviction (in the original meaning of the word, rather than the contemporary one) couldn't have done. In fact it would have made a much greater impact. Diana had nothing to lose. A politician would have risked opprobrium and an end to their career.

Very easy to be brave in the face of no peril. If only we could all try it sometime.

@Pedallleur The monarch has no role in altering legislation. They simply don’t. They are briefed but they don’t alter anything, it’s unfortunate people believe gossip as opposed to fact. Maybe look at how laws are scrutinized and how the legislstion process works? What evidence is there that bills or draft legislation is altered or could be altered by the monarch? You won’t find any. I think the crown fights its corner but government has the power to amend the laws, not the monarch.

I think they also said he was dignified.... not really, if you believe some of the more salacious rumours that have done the rounds.
(Personally I neither know nor care if they are true or not, IMO it's irrelevant to the situation of whether they go or stay. Others might feel differently)
Edited for grammar.

No I am not in favour of them.

I would prefer to see a system similar to Ireland where there is a ceremonial president with limited powers, elected by the people.

I would also abolish all peerage titles and replace the HoL with an upper house, and change the national honours to Order of British Excellence.

Well I’ve just had a google which says the royal family costs each person in Uk £1.29 per year.
Im happy to pay that as it cheaper than a celebrity magazine. I view them like a soap opera; something we all know and can gossip about.