A genuine question for royalists.

[Tutorpuzzle]

I am a republican. I believe that absolute power can only end in disaster. Trump appears to want absolute power. Boris Johnson tried it (proroguing of parliament, amongst other things.)
Please can you tell me why you think (ignoring the Windsors self-destructive present tendencies), having a head of state who is in position only by accident of birth is a good thing?

‘Democracy is terrifying’ ; what a terrifying view to hold, you are a dictator’s dream @Artesia

I wouldn't call myself a royalist, but as a historian, if say that there's immense value in immediate transfer of power.

Human societies aren't exactly great at choosing, so there's something in the idea of a gilded cage for those ordained to rule and hold that power backstop.

Transitions of power are usually the most dangerous time to be an ordinary person, and they're not even quick.

I never understand the ‘continuity’ comment.

Monarchies are not functional, they’re symbolic. Continuity lies with elected governments - institutions not individuals.

Europeans republics are equally (if not more) stable as the UK, as well as being democratic. Stability does not lie with an unelected figurehead.

VG, who was by the time the financial offer was made to her, was already very rich in her own right. She could have declined and demanded her day on court. She did not. She took the money, albeit allegedly giving some of it way to good causes.

Oh give over. Am not advocating for North Korean style leadership. But democracy is only
great in theory. In practice it leads to populist, short termist decision making. How can the most difficult issues be tackled if those in charge always have one eye on the next election. See NHS reform. While it's still the least worst option, it's not perfect by any stretch.

I like the separation of the ceremonial from the political, value the soft power, and think it does bring some tourism.

I would prefer the theoretical powers of the monarchy to be formally removed though.

The soft power exerted by KC with the recent Trump visit is promulgated. We do not know how much Queen Elizabeth used it in her long reign. Reasonable to assume it was used.

That’s the best roll back I’ve seen in a while @Artesia 🤣.

Really not. Democracy in theory- great. Democracy in practice- terrifying.

@JamesClyman IMO a constitutional monarchy is the finest system of government ever devised (an opinion the Netherlands, Spain and the Scandinavian countries, among others, seem to share).

Would that we remotely took a leaf out of the countries books you mention and did what their royals do. Those countries have a royal list that numbers of handful of paid for royals and most of them do ordinary jobs, not swan around cutting ribbon, gorging on the public teat.

For me the the whole concept of having Royal family goes against the idea of a meritocracy. If we want to have a society that really is a meritocracy we can't have a Royal Family in my opinion.

I don't think there is a perfect society anywhere in the world but we certainly could do better.

I agree with this. Would also echo other pp’s, I like the continuity of the RF.

I believe there are studies which show constitutional monarchies tend to function well as democracies

Happy to say the current lot, as individuals, are a bit of a let down, but in the end they are humans who grew up thinking they’re special… ultimately it’s not about them as individuals.

Bless. The monarchy didn’t loot the nation, they just inherited a few castles and a lifetime of being publicly admonished by people who think reading one Guardian article makes them constitutional experts.

Enjoy your day

I’m very torn on this and always have been. I like the idea of having a constitutional monarchy because I think its important to have a source of constitutional authority which is independent of politics and which cannot be swayed or manipulated by a particular individual or political group.

But I also think the idea of inherited power and wealth is profoundly undemocratic and serves to reinforce inequalities in our society. The idea that people who have vast wealth through the accident of their birth are help up as aspirational to us unsettles me and I find the whole culture around the Royal Family and the adulation they inspire nauseating. I think they entrench some of the worst aspects of the class system in this country. The whole horrendous English upper class system would be significantly weaker if the monarchy didn’t exist.

I wouldn’t get rid of them now and I have a fair amount of respect for Charles (and his mother). But if we were starting our constitutional system from scratch I wouldn’t create them.

I think that as a not overtly political representative of the British people, yes we need someone other than the pm.

As a non British person, (who theoretically could hate the royals for what their predecessors did to my predecessors) i fully agree with this post. I think people underestimate the tourist attraction these individuals bring. First thing i did on my first visit was go to Buckingham Palace. The family may be privileged but they are working all the time, most of them anyway, and they are 'on' all the time. They have few personal liberties and are constantly under scrutiny. It's an incredibly difficult life, one I would hate. They should be given some respect.

Also Britain is very quick in general to erase it's own history and heritage, mostly because it's pretty awful and shameful, but there is much to be proud of too and I think its a nation in danger of eroding its culture. Its hard to be a proud Brit these days because of racial and historical connotations but people in Britian now need something to unite them and be proud of, they are a self critical race which is good in many ways because they are self aware but it shouldn't be all negative. No one should be raised with a sense of shame. I think to take away the royal family would be the final nail in the coffin of British culture and ultimately would have a negative impact on the average good citizen.

I didn't say that at all. I'm saying though that he would have basically either had to toe the line more or be thrown out. It's because he wasn't in line for the throne that he was basically ignored until all the recent rumours blew up. He might have "done a Harry" and said he wanted nothing to do with the whole thing, but for sure his life would have been much more controlled for him.

The first two sentences of your post, OP describe some confusion. A president head of state has a lot of power. A monarch in our case at least in a democracy does not have political power but does have huge influence. One reason they need to be above reproach - not guaranteed in their family as we have seen recently, but the chances are better in a hereditary monarchy with a high reputation, than they would be with an elected head of state with who-knows-what skeletons in their closet that could bring reputatonal ruin to them and disrepute to public life. At least the inheriting members of a monarchy will have been brought up and trained for the roles, and are more likely to be good symbolic figureheads. Trump - I rest my case.

As a Brit, I like the UK system over ones with political head of state because it is untested in democratic times.

That is, the King can sack Parliament, and at the same time, Parliament can sack the King. But the King can't sack Parliament and take over.

So it is potentially a system in tension in the event of any dangerous scenario. If either side oversteps the mark, there is a panic button that can be pressed.

And this is untested because we do not have a written constitution. Although the late Queen did sack the Australian government once (without knowing apparently), and a few others.

It's untested because we do not actually know the limits of power, because , again, no written constitution. The Brit Armed forces, police, court, civil service etc, pledge allegiance to the King, but it is Parliament who run them, and more importantly, fund them. But at the same time, all is done in the name of the King.

And I think if this was tested to the max, it would result in a total collapse,. It is just too dangerous for either side to push too far.

It is, to me anyway, a pretty solid ultimate check and balance.

Both sides only have legitimacy because of the other.

Trump, like all democratic presidents, can be voted out @GreenCandleWax . He may struggle, but his family won’t be in power in the next century.

I am not a constitutionalist, but, especially at the moment, I believe the system of a hereditary head of state needs debate.

Almost without exception, the comments on this thread have been respectful and interesting (thank you to all posters)and I think this is just the sort of wider discussion we need.

One reason they need to be above reproach - not guaranteed in their family as we have seen recently, but the chances are better in a hereditary monarchy with a high reputation, than they would be with an elected head of state with who-knows-what skeletons in their closet that could bring reputatonal ruin to them and disrepute to public life

How on earth are the chances better?

We need the monarch - that's the bit we actually need. That the bit that has a role in our government.

Wider royal family is not really needed at all - they do "charity" roles and support the monarch but honestly we could easily do away with them. TBF Anna and Edward have refused titles for their kids and Willaim floating idea titles may be only start being used for working royals - so think getting rid of wider family roles is slowly happening anyway.

The logic of Chesterton's Fence says that you should not do away with a law, practice or social custom without first considering why it exists ie is it doing something useful and is the thing replacing it better.

So yes I'd like to know what actually is the altervative - how much it would cost - not look there's a squirrel - or it will be fine.

The reason I mention Brexit clearly not becuase of the referendum - it becuase no-one wanted to say exactly what the outcome was or look at costs and downsides and it has cost us. Though I image if you want to change how the country governed in such a huge way a referendum or a huge vote for a party clearly saying that's their main prupose - would be the way to go as voting public should get to have a say.

But we can clearly do it get rid of the monarch bit- we did once already - Interregnum - where as I mentioned we ended up with a worse system - with even less oversight than before to point we invited Charles II back to be our King.

So I'd like to know what is better and why and why it's worth the upset and cost - have a convincing argument there and most people like me who are well it's okay at the moment there are worse systems might actually get on board with a republic.

we were told last week that Andrew’s honours and titles couldn’t be removed because of the political upheaval.

Also don't know who told you that becuase it doesn't have any poltcial implications at all - and it has sort of been done before - with Letter Patent of 1917 though this does go further and frankly is a very welcome development and I wish if it's true William wanted it done from the off they'd listened to him more.

This might be slightly off topic but why are we waisting money we could be using to help Gaza and to feed starving children on tearing down a perfectly fine part of the White House. People are DYING for reasons that could easily be fixed if Trump actually cared about this country and being president wasn't just some game for him. Poor babies are starving and he's building a ballroom because "Trump says the White House needs a large entertaining space" this just isn't nessary infact its the opposite, its harmful.

Totally agree, @CatHairEveryWhereNow , but my question on this particular thread was why do monarchists agree so wholeheartedly with an hereditary head of state? (Chesterton’s Fence?).
My views are on the table, clearly, but ultimately I believe in respectful debate and not shouting into an echo chamber.
As for realistic alternatives, people do talk a lot about the Irish system of government and that’s certainly something I shall endeavour to find more about, but I think that’s for a different thread.