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?

Our monarchy is the ultimate in soft power - look how keen foreign heads of state are to have a State Visit, complete with carriage ride and stay at Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle. What would be the point of much of our ceremonial, which attracts tourists and money to our country, without the monarch in whose name it is carried out? The eyes of the world were on our country for the coronation and for her late Majesty’s funeral - tell me what here today, gone tomorrow politician would have inspired such a lying in state or funeral? And the coronation was the ultimate display of ceremonial, and watched throughout the world. Then there are things such as the poet laureate, or the Master of the King’s music - yes, you could have a similar position without the monarch, but it would lose something. Then history - people have always been interested in the doings of the royal family, because we can see the story through the centuries, and we can all relate to family life - people are interested, however much republicans may deplore the fact. And our monarchy works - it’s much better to have state banquets at Buckingham Palace, where they have the staff, the kitchens, the flowers from the gardens, the table decorations amassed by different monarchs over hundreds of years - to say nothing of all the charitable work done individually and collectively by the royal family. Every year we have the State opening of Parliament - far better to have Crown jewels that are actually worn, than to have them only for display. The royal family is irreplaceable, but in these days of press intrusion and public demands, it very much depends on the character of whoever is monarch. And whose head would be on our stamps and coins, if not the King’s? Get rid of the monarchy at your peril - there is much to lose and little to gain by doing so.

Trump and Johnson (and Farage too) are some of the best arguments for a monarchy.

The monarchy has limited powers, because if they tried pushing them too far then parliament would act.

A populist leader could push for more powers and gain far more powers and do far more damage - remember Hitler was elected.
The monarchy knows that if they push too far they will become less popular and lose powers.
And Andrew's a good example of that. He's misused his position and lost his title.

Exactly, @ChineseSpymaster , in the context of present events (and all that has emerged over the past few years about the Windsors financial shenanigans) I’m honestly looking to see all sides of the debate.

I’ve yet to read anything that will influence my visceral suspicion of having an inherited head of state. Although in the shorter term, and I doubt I’ll see anything else in my lifetime, a reduction of personnel to the monarch, spouse and heir would be a possible compromise. Which some posters have already mentioned.

Are you aware that UK monarchs absolutely do not have absolute power? In fact they have sod all - in the way of governmental power.

Revenue from Crown estates is all given to government. The cost of their expenses is lower. We get a good deal. Tourism. And the value add of an actual monarchy. A millennia of century and tradition.

With respect, I think you're asking the wrong question.

The question isn't 'Should we have an inherited Head of State?' because it's too easy to list the many reasons why we shouldn't.

The question surely needs to be 'What system is better than the current one, and why?'

That's how I reluctantly conclude that we should keep the current system, because despite its many obvious flaws it still beats the others.IMO.

Absolutely, @Lifecouldbeadreamsweetheart , it’s exactly because I’m very anti an inherited head of state that I asked for reasons why people wanted it, and I didn’t want to hide that.

I think the present incumbents have very much shown themselves not worthy of the trust and privilege accorded them (and have, in fact taken much advantage of it), which is why a reasoned debate is important.

@sesquipedalian The eyes of the world were on our country for the coronation and for her late Majesty’s funeral - tell me what here today, gone tomorrow politician would have inspired such a lying in state or funeral? And the coronation was the ultimate display of ceremonial, and watched throughout the world.

But all of this is taking place against the backdrop of a country that is literally falling apart. The late Queen reigned over the absolute decline of the country, a decline that's been brought about, in the main, by the very strata of society that she sat at the top of. All the gold carriages and pomp are just a modern version of Marie Antoinette and her cake suggestion.

I have not read the thread but in my opinion if you ask a royalist why they want to keep the Windsors their answers will be based on inaccuracies .

People who believe the propaganda they have been fed for a lifetime will say :

• they have no power . Oh but they do look at how the wills are sealed , look at Andrew protected - the police cannot enter their vast estates without permission - they influence 1000s of laws before they are even white papers and exclude themselves from any they dislike . They have plenty of power but it’s hidden
• They bring in money. That old lie has been debunked so many times I’ll not even bother . No evidence whatsoever.
• If someone references Trump or the French president when defending the Windsors you can discount their opinion immediately. They do not understand the difference between a figurehead president and an executive president .
• History . Firstly the history will still be there - in fact we would get a more accurate version if allowed access to hidden files . And the so called direct line that some prize is nonsense - 300 years ago a German duke took the throne - ignoring about 60 people with a better claim . 60! Imagine them lined up
• when really clutching at straws a royalist will try to compare the Windsors with European monarchies . That is also wrong . No European monarchy would dare have a coronation for example . They haven’t for at least 100 years . European monarchies have their finances examined in detail and are transparent - we can also be sure they cost a tiny fraction of what the Windsors take each year . They are also not above the law - look up the queen of Norway’s son . Compare with Andrew being protected .

The Windsors are dead in the water . It will be managed decline and the Windsors filling their boots , dreading the day they get their over due tax bill .

I agree with the OP in that I’m not sure we even need a figurehead president . The UK could be unique in not having one

But good luck OP with sifting through some of the nonsense !

One can agree with all of what you have said, but still want a Monarchy, because all other systems are worse. That's pretty much my position. I want the current shit system because all alternatives are shitter. That's not a good reason to want it, but at the same time it's the best reason that there could be!

Er, yes they bloody are! I am not head of state am I? Regardless of the Act of Settlement…

It's quite simple. Royalists don't believe in democracy, as has been demonstrated time and again on this thread.

They think there is some class of people who are more reliable, respectable, decent or simply more suitable than a figure that ordinary people might select.

There's a reason why the US pro-democracy campaigners marched under the banner of No Kings.

We get to vote for the PM. The King has no power on policy just advises and does his royal duties.

Thank you @Ukisgaslit , you say it much better than I ever, ever could!
And I had no idea, until I read your comment on another thread, that records of Andrew’s jollies as a taxpayer funded ‘trade envoy’ have to be kept secret for decades.

The pro monarchy arguments on this thread are so weak (in my opinion), and the polarization of opinion about the Windsors is getting so widespread, that a managed decline has to be the best option.

Revolutions can happen very quickly and I truly don’t want to see heads on pikes on The Mall!!

I think you need to read up on the UK constitution. We don't get to vote for the Prime Minister.

And why should he advise on anything? Why don't I get to advise? Or you? What makes Charles' advice any valuable than anyone else's? Why does he know better?

Before they go the Windsors need to pay their back taxes !
They owe us

We can only dream…🤣

I’m not a royalist, I’m largely indifferent - I don’t mind them, I like some of them, don’t like others. I don’t mind staying a constitutional monarchy but similarly I wouldn’t be distraught if we were a republic.

Bottom line is they don’t have any actual power. They have “soft power” and influence, and the trappings of power. It’s all theatre. They are very far from absolute monarchs and haven’t been that for the best part of 450 years.

Agree wholeheartedly with this. In addition, the depressing excuse that many use for keeping the current system - well there isn’t anything better!! Seriously that so rubbish and such a cop-out.

Oh gosh. I know we vote for our local MP and the PM is the one who's party has a majority in the house of commons. When I vote at the GE I do think about who the PM will be 75% and my local MP 25%.

He gets to advise because he is the Monarch, the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It's a constitutional convention. The monarch can offer perspective and/or guide but the PM isn't obliged to take the advice. It's institutional memory and experience he's seen decades of governments come and go. The monarchy anchors the political system as well. As they are outside party politics.

Revenue from the crown estates > Tax Payer Money for Royal Expenses

Simple maths

The pro royalty arguments are so weak. We could have cool presidents like Ireland or Uruguay, it doesn't have to be Trump. We came very close to a Nazi sympathiser king on the throne in WW2, that would not have been good for soft power and stability.

It is so weak. They’re a bunch of not very bright, talentless grifters. The country can keep all the pomp and ceremony without them.

Most (not all) are hard working people who have dedicated their lives to public service. Especially our late Queen Elizabeth 👑.

You do you, but why anyone would fangirl over her is beyond my ken. She is so mediocre. And she will never be 'my Queen'. I don't claim Royalty, we didn't vote for them and they don't belong to us. People who kowtow to them are just so cringe.