To think most 84 year olds do not have such a busy weekend

[enimmead]

I am not a supporter of the Monarchy but I am very impressed that an 84 year old has the energy to go to the races, spend a day in the rain going up the Thames and do everything else she has done this last month.

I know my Gran couldn't do that - much happier with her feet up watching Countdown with a pot of tea.

It is only wrong if you think it is wrong and most in this country want to retain the current system.

We might not vote for them but by the very fact that we dont vote against it or have a crediable alternative plan which to are actively trying to bring into being means the majority are quite happy with the staus quo.

Republic tried to disrupt yesterdays pagant with their own anti royal protest. They said it was going to be the biggest and boldest anti-monarchy protest of modern times. Less than 60 people turned up.

Cantspel, I think most in the UK are content with the current system because we have been lucky over the past 60 years with our queen. She has been a fairly good head of state. I do not understand how this qualifies her children for the same job.

I think that public opinion would soon change if and when we get a monarch who is stupid/outspoken/embarassing/arrogant/lazy etc. With an hereditary system, this is only a matter of time. I, for one, would rather gradually and peacfully prepare and implement an elected HoS than wait for the pitchforks to come out and rush it.

As for there not being a credible alternative - plenty of other countries have elected HoS. Not all systems are desireable, not any is 100% perfect, but very good alternatives most certainly exist, as I have outlined in previous posts. Not that I claim to be parrticularly talented or knowledgable in this area, but there are plenty of people who are.

You just cannot have an overtly political person as a constitutional head of state. It can't work and that's not their role. Their role is to represent the country in a fairly bland and polite way. It would have to be as psammead suggests- probably someone from the top layers of the civil service, who, after all, are used to serving successive governments regardless of political orientation, who are used to being diplomatic, who are used to meeting other bigwigs and saying the right things, because ultimately, that's what we need a head of state to do.

Either we change the whole political system, or we have someone who can do the role (and who wants to. I'm not exactly selling it, I know).

I'm actually borderline monarchist, because the alternatives are not that great and would cost more money than the current system (net/net) but I see what psammead is saying that it only takes one badd'un.

Psammead i dont think it is by luck that our head of state is doing a good job.

When her father became king her whole life changed to prepare her for the role she would one day take on. She studied constitutional history ect when other children her age were playing with dolls.

Charles and Willam would equally have been prepared for the role of head of state and will do the job well.

I have been racking my brains to think of one country with a non political head of state that i know anything about or even the name of let alone what they actually do for the country.

Cantspel, and you think it's fair that a small child get no say in that? That from a baby/toddler, William was been prepared for that role? I would not want that for my child. Who would?

Coming back a bit belatedly...

I think Tony Blair because he was an ex Prime Minister, patently looking for another well-paid, high profile, public role for himself. He only managed Envoy to the Middle East, or some such, but if you think he wouldn't have used his smarmy charms and the old boys' network moved heaven and earth to get the President's job, I think you're mistaken.

OneHand, I do not doubt the man's ambition. I do not understand why people assume that an elected HoS would be allowed to be a politician, when they are surely by definition the wrong people for the job.

Psammead most children have no say in their upbring so it is not just the royals who mold their children into what they want them to be as adults.
And the untimate choice is their once they reach adulthood whether they wish to continue in the role they were born into as there is always the next in line waiting.

The royal family has shrunk over the years and the tax payer doesn;t pay for hangers on that are 20th in line to the thone. The civil list only pays for working royals so they dont get a hand out just by virture of being born into the family.

Andy is about the only royal i cant stand. He comes across as a arse but as he is very unlikely to ever get a snife at the thone he is not the deciding factor for me.

I still think that the decision to be head of state should be made by an adult, with adult knowledge, and not be thrust onto a child. Because realistically, once they have been groomed for the role their entire life, the 'choice' is not on a par with someone who has made an informed decision as an adult. And of course, the choice to abdicate is a bit of a shameful one, and one which puts the workload onto your own sibling or cousin.

What I mean is, a job of such importance should be for a adult to consciously opt in to, rather than for a groomed-since-childhood adult to consciously opt out of.

I don't know how hard every woman in Africa has life, but those who I have met would not want the Queen to have to swap places with them.

A lady from Africa lived with us for 2 years. As a child she was tied to a tree while her widowed mother worked in a hospital. Our friend could not talk until she was 6 or 7, she didn't hear speech enough.

She has now completed a degree and is studying for a Masters, so that she can continue to fund her family back home. She worked in a care home to fund her way, we only gave her bed and board.

From what I know of the Queens schedule nth these women work them same amount of time each day. They have different worries and you really can't compare them.

Where would some of our young people be without the Princes Trust and other organisations the Royal family are involved in? These organisations give a helping hand for young people to reach their full potential, not just money but mentoring and support.

The Royal family are far from perfect, but then, so am I

If The People voted for a Head of State it would be Cheryl Cole. Fact. Or possibly Stephen Fry, but he's too gay and would alienate the Mail readers.

And Africa is a continent ffs. Suggesting that every woman on a whole bloody continent has an equal level of hardship to deal with makes you look like a wally.

Oh Stephen Fry would be wonderful

I think for this very reason an elected HoS would be popularly elected from a competant few chosen by an independant committee.

Do you mean Mumsnetters, ^Psammead*?

Formatting fail :(

so you dont want the people to decide who their hos is?

who is to decide who the competant few are? and who is to decide who is independant and should sit on this independant committee?

Oh yes! Now that's an idea

Let's see, who do we like this week?

Stephen Fry
Gina Ford
Jeremy Clarkson
Alan Rickman
Sue Perkins
Jeremy Kyle
The Queen

So it's between Fry, Rickman for his sexy voice, Sue for being fab and The Queen. Oh wait.

Cantspel - there absolutely, necessarily has to be a selection process for various suitable candidates. This process exists in every election, whether it's for the Speaker, your MP, major of london, union reps. For it to be an election you have to have choices! Or else the whole country would be up for election and everyone would gain precisely one vote

As for who would be the independant committee, well, experts. Judges, ambassadors, ex-politicians, civil servants, captains of industry, military heads etc. A balance of political stances, ideally, because it would be hard to find an entire committees worth of non-partisan people.

but who can decide who is independant?

Judges, ambassadors, ex-politicians, civil servants, captains of industry, military heads etc. will all have their own political/social view as it is impossible for any person to truely be netural. And even if you think someone is neutral someone else may disagree. So who decides on the comittee? or do we all get a vote

A balance of political stances really? so that will include the far right and the far left would it or only parties with politically aceptable views.

I would hope that, seeing as they are not selecting a political figure, that such people would put aside their personal political affiliations, such as they may be, and concentrate on who would be good for the country. That's obviously very subjective but I don't think it's an impossibility that a board of experts could come up wirh four or five names between them.

I would not include anyone in the committee who had very strong political bias. No extremists. I think they would have a hard time putting away their prejudices.

sorry but i think you are in cloud cuckooland if you think that this type of person could put aside their personal political feelings. And if you truely wanted a democtatic elected hos you cannot exclude the extremist view as that is not how a free society works.

So we end up with a bunch of people unelected people yet unknown who are going to propose another bunch of people again yet unknown for us the people to vote on to be hos.

That doesn't look very democratic to me nor does it look like a proposal that would actually work.

Independant committees are set up all the time. It is not an insurrmountable and completely new problem. Extremists would not be included, mainly because the post is not one of political representation.

As for your second paragraph, how do you suspect any elections are ever arranged?

The end result though, is an accountable HoS, selected on his or her expertise and elected by the people.

I frankly cannot believe you are complaining about the level of democracy involved in this scenario whilst supporting the monarchy

And of course it would work. How do you think other countries manage to elect a HoS? This is not a new problem, nor is this a new and untried solution.

So Phillip has a bladder infection.

It was really good of him to stand in the cold for 2 - 3 hours without a drink but I don't think that would have helped.

Would it have been so bad if they had sat down with a drink, wrapped up and watched it - or would they have let the side down?

Poor old Phillip.

I don't understand why they stood up for the entire time. I'm half her age and I watched it mostly sitting down, only standing up and looking out the window when the boats came past.