Should the monarchy end with this queen?

[ivykaty44]

YABU Charles will be the next king, we can’t pick and choose and the system should go on

YANBU the monarchy should end and we get to vote on a president in future

Charles has also swapped his cars to electric and sustainable fuel

Care to explain why he needs so many cars in the first place? He obviously missed the "reduce" bit of the reduce reuse recycle message. And you really believe he's driving up to Balmoral on wine and cheese whey?

@AllOfUsAreDead

Have just watched a video of the Queen cutting her cake for the jubilee, anyone else think she's looking thinner than normal? Her clothes are hanging off her a bit which was surprising.

She seemed on the ball though. I think past a certain age the body is less efficient with digesting food, or maybe that's just with dementia? Issue here at the moment with elderly relative losing weight rapidly and already very underweight but they do have severe dementia which the Queen clearly hasn't got.

If Charles was serious about conservation he should consider rewilding his (extensive) lands, that are given over to grouse shooting. Chris Packham has been campaigning for this for years.

Question - being dim, can anyone explain why we need either a Monarch or a President? Couldn't we just have a Prime Minister?

@Dentistsinthefreemarket

Question - being dim, can anyone explain why we need either a Monarch or a President? Couldn't we just have a Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister could in theory be Head of State - it depends what you want from a Head of State, really. If you are still looking for someone to do all the ceremonials, it would probably be too time-consuming alongside the duties of PM. *

• disclaimer - this post should under no circumstances be interpreted as an endorsement of Boris Johnson.

@GeneLovesJezebel

Can I have a ‘skip Charles as king’ option ?

Yes. That would be a republic. I'd vote for it.

@ancientgran true you're right she is still on the ball and doesn't seem to have any issues other than being thinner. Just surprised me.

@GeneLovesJezebel

Can I have a ‘skip Charles as king’ option ?

This is what the RF SHOULD do if they want to thrive not just survive (like our Meghan).

The Prime Minister could in theory be Head of State - it depends what you want from a Head of State, really. If you are still looking for someone to do all the ceremonials, it would probably be too time-consuming alongside the duties of PM

That does make sense - but why do the States only have a President in that case?

@GeneLovesJezebel

Can I have a ‘skip Charles as king’ option ?

I dont think so. Either we have a monarchy "ordained by God" in which case we get what we are given or we get up off our knees and start thinking for ourselves.

@Dentistsinthefreemarket

The Prime Minister could in theory be Head of State - it depends what you want from a Head of State, really. If you are still looking for someone to do all the ceremonials, it would probably be too time-consuming alongside the duties of PM

That does make sense - but why do the States only have a President in that case?

I think this is to stop any one party having too much influence on the country and its laws.

@ancientgran yes your digestion starts to pack up in extreme old age, just like everything else. My GMiL lived to 102 by which point she barely had any sense of taste left and almost everything gave her indigestion- a real pity as she'd always been a real foodie.

An elected head of state is obviously the ideal but it’s very rare that you get a Mary Robinson.

An elected head of state is obviously the ideal but it’s very rare that you get a Mary Robinson.

All the Irish presidents are high calibre. Might be worth trying to analyse what makes this system work so well

The 'skip Charles' people are bizarre. That's not how a hereditary monarchy works. You get whoever is next in line, whether you like them or not.

Exactly. You’re either in favour of the monarchy or not - and if you want to ‘skip’ people you don’t like, you’re not in favour.

I understand the arguments for a republic, but I find the whole ‘end it when the Queen dies’ argument ridiculously simplistic. Apart from the fact that you can’t be that committed to republicanism if you only want it once the nice old lady we have now has passed on: do people REALLY think it would happen overnight? Her Maj dies on Monday, is buried on Wednesday and there’s a Pickfords van outside Buck House on Friday? Look how long Brexit took - and that was only dismantling 45 years’ worth of laws. Imagine how complicated completely overhauling a system that’s been in place for thousands of years will be. That’s before you even consider that the monarch is the head of 14 other states.

Also, you can’t base something that would need this much planning on a ‘When the Queen dies’ basis. The Queen could die in an hour’s time or in ten years. Should we as a country really decide our constitutional structure based on an event that could happen at any time? Not even bother making any plans for the dismantling of the monarchy in the Queen’s lifetime if it’s going to end with her death?

This is why I get so frustrated with people saying ‘Will we really ever see Charles on the throne?’ Of course we will - the minute his mother dies. Whether we’ll see King William is a more interesting question, but Charles unquestionably will be King - even if he doesn’t die as King.

I honestly think a high proportion of those calling themselves monarchists aren't.

It's not the system they like (often they don't seem to even understand it). They like the Queen as head of state. Let's see what happens when they get Charles.

I think that Ireland’s size makes the difference - a population of under 5 million people. England alone has over 55 million people. Even though the job of president would be shaking hands and cutting ribbons we’d still have a lot more arseholes interested in applying for the role.

One insipid family shovelling public funds and shiny baubles into its already overloaded pockets as fast as it can?

Of course it should end.

In the US, the head of state is also the head of the (federal) executive branch of government - so one man can send them to war and also ‘pardon’ a turkey at Thanksgiving in front of the tv cameras and hand out medals to ‘worthy’ citizens.

We have a parliamentary system. Our Prime Minister can’t send us to war just because they think we should - that’s why Tony Blair had to convince parliament that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, so that they’d vote for a war. We have the Queen for medal giving and meeting people in front of tv cameras.

That’s very over simplified but it’s basically how it works.

@MeanderingGently

To answer your question, no, I think the royal family should go on. And I will be delighted when Charles is king, I think he will be very good. He is not afraid to speak his mind when necessary and is very much "for" the planet and ecology etc. William will be good but he is too young and inexperienced in life, and needs to devote his time to his family and learning royal duties for some while yet....his time will come.

William is almost 40! The Queen became Queen at 25. Charles is 70 now, an age when most people have already retired.

they are basically our pr team

Which is brilliant when you remember that they're all either nonces or layabouts!

No

We have a parliamentary system. Our Prime Minister can’t send us to war just because they think we should - that’s why Tony Blair had to convince parliament that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, so that they’d vote for a war. We have the Queen for medal giving and meeting people in front of tv cameras.

You could have a president in that role also. That's how the Irish system works. There is more than one type of presidential system.

I understand the arguments for a republic, but I find the whole ‘end it when the Queen dies’ argument ridiculously simplistic. Apart from the fact that you can’t be that committed to republicanism if you only want it once the nice old lady we have now has passed on: do people REALLY think it would happen overnight?

No. Those committed to a republic have likely always been committed to a republic, as it's a position informed by political issues rather than individual personalities or a 'who is the most popular' contest. Those things are aside from the point.

It's my belief that when the current incumbent does die, it will begin a series of series questions about the future of the UK constitution. Certainly we'll see more countries following in the wake of Jamaica and Barbados. Australia only voted by the skin of their teeth to keep her last time.

There does need to be a long-overdue overhaul of the UK constitution. IMO, this process should start with the House of Lords and the beginning of a separate cycle of elections for two fully accountable houses. There's also something to be said for the American model of limiting the Presidents to serving two terms only. Thatcher and Blair were both proof that longevity of premiership = increasing megalomania.

There are all sorts of benefits to revisioning the UK constitution to a system more fit for the 21st century. Granted - unfortunately - this will not remove elitist corruption, but it's good news that a good deal more of that is seeing sunlight (cf. Andrew). But it certainly begins to convey a far better message. Absolutely nobody is a 'Highness' to others' 'Commoner'.

@MissHoney85

I really like the Queen but I think a large part of why I and many others like her is because she is a woman. She's got the whole "nation's granny" thing going on and the fact that she's a woman makes her position of privilege and (pseudo) power a lot more palatable. When I think of a man being in her position the ridiculousness of the whole thing becomes a lot more evident.

I agree. Having a king is absolutely absurd to me. Especially when most in power are men anyway. She's always felt like she balanced it out a little. "King Charles" fuck that.