Do you understand what a constitutional monarchy means?

[ShrikeAttack]

Do you?

I'm not sure many people actually understand what it means in terms of the UK and its political system.

I'm pretty sure why thats why Meghan Markle and Prince Harry are coming unstuck.

It's a social contract. The Royal Family can't really say or do anything. They are an unelected head of state who have to adhere to the rules, as stated.

They have all the pomp and ceremony, but they never had much choice.

They present the country.

What surprises me is that a young American thinks that a 90yr old monarch would modernise much.

I mean, my mum is 80 and doesn't see why she should use a mug rather than a cup and saucer.

If I'd had 70years of following protocol, I'd have changed whatever was both important to me and possible, already.

I know the Royals have no political power however I fail to believe therd is a cabal of men in suits organising every minute of their day and ordering them to go and open this town hall or you will be sent to bed without dinner, Your Highness.

@picklemewalnuts

What surprises me is that a young American thinks that a 90yr old monarch would modernise much.

I mean, my mum is 80 and doesn't see why she should use a mug rather than a cup and saucer.

If I'd had 70years of following protocol, I'd have changed whatever was both important to me and possible, already.

Surely this is the point. Meghan would not or could not know that mugs or fine china were in fact contentious issues. And that's just mugs. Every other thing they do appears to be different to us - famous or not.

@DudeistPriest

I know the Royals have no political power however I fail to believe therd is a cabal of men in suits organising every minute of their day and ordering them to go and open this town hall or you will be sent to bed without dinner, Your Highness.

From Meghan's account, she quite simply wasn't allowed to go out at all.

@ShrikeAttack I can see how it is a good deal for the queen and her family, but what about the rest of us? How is it a good deal for a country that relies on food banks to have a system of royal succession where people are born into such incredible wealth and privilege?

I dont understand why people support this. I don't know anyone in real life who does support the idea of constitutional monarchy, so I'm hoping someone on this thread can enlighten me!

I'd be afraid to wee in the palace in case I did it wrong for some bizarre reason they have. She couldn't have known what it might have been like.

She says at least twice in the interview that she quite literally couldn't really leave. She mentions someone coming around and telling her to lie low and she replied that she had left the house twice in 4 months. She then compares it to lockdown. She also explains that she was not allowed mental health assistance for fear of how it would look.
It sounds like you're very much locked down!

If nothing else, it makes a complete and utter mockery of their supposed support for speaking out about mental health issues. How can they now spout nonsense about speaking out if you're in pain when one of their own has stated, unequivocally that she went to senior members and to HR and to Harry, and was still denied access 'because of how it might appear'.

Well that's an interesting one wandering, I think The Queen has served me much more than I have served her.

Constitutionally The Queen is the Head of state but she has much less volition than you or I. She is a figurehead, a representative, with very little true power. Queen Elizabeth has provided continuity though, it's an odd birthright, much privilege, but no freedom; to be Queen or King in a modern constitutional Monarchy is essentially to be asked to embody a country at the expense of self, not something many people would sign up for, despite the guilding.

It's not a life if glamour, it's a life of duty. With houses and diamonds, but no freedom. I think that's where Mehgan possibly became unstuck. She didn't really understand the fundamental contract, and I think don't think Harry ever did either.

And it's ok if they want to not enter into that contract.

It's not one-way though.

I know the Royals have no political power They have considerable polictical influence which is a form of power, so this statement is incorrect IMO.

She said I went to the institution and I said that I needed to go somewhere to get help … And I was told that I couldn’t, that it wouldn’t be good for the institution.

Now who knows, maybe inpatient help was what she actually needed. But given both Harry and William have talked about seeing therapists, I find it hard to believe she couldn't see one too - all be it it seems not residentially.

@GalesThisMorning if the monarchy was abolished, I doubt anyone using a food bank would be even 10p richer. I'm sure there are some stats somewhere.
The monarchy generates income and effectively advertising for the U.K. It's an industry in its own right creating jobs, marketing, networking, charitable stuff...

I understand resenting it, I understand envying it (though I don't- hard work and no personal freedom, as Meghan discovered). Getting rid of it wouldn't generate any actual wealth to share about though.

Getting rid of it might free a few people however.

They are an odd, antiquated figurehead that serves their own best interests. They are embarrassing. The buildings, the jewels etc are as much advertising as we need.

OK. So we sack the monarchy. What are your alternatives? What would your proposition for gentle segue be? It's historically always been quite brutal and abrupt.

I'm not sure the transition to a Republic has ever been smooth.

In what way do you think the Queen has ‘served’ you, OP? Do you think that a well-remunerated life of dullish ribbon-cutting, dutifully nodding at visiting heads of state, and never saying or doing anything to indicate there’s a person behind the handbag and tiara really counts as more ‘service’ than any other job?

Why does it need a gentle segue? What's wrong with just saying, effectively, thanks but your services are no longer required?

@RickiTarr

Oprah clearly doesn’t have the first clue.

I found that irritating from a journalist, and usually I quite like her stuff, but it was like she hadn’t done her homework.

It's American cultural arrogance. Same thing that caused this whole mess in the first place, as Meghan is exactly the same.

Well for starters I'd be making sure Charlotte and Louise know they'll need to stand on their own one day. As the spares they are the future Harrys. W&K won't do them any favours by not making that clear, which must be incredibly hard as parents - there's no good way to say "your big brother gets all this, and you get some cash but if you want more you'll need to work for a living"

I do think by W&H trying to be a team or by trying to be equal growing up, it probably came as a shock to discover that the institution will by default prioritise W&K.

Louis not Louise

Well, if that's all you think she's done for this country in the last 70 years Silurian I'm not sure what else to say!

And Gales, I'm not sure it's so easy to disentangle, what do you propose as an alternative?

People are always moaning about elected government on here. Republics very often end up with political dynasties too. It really would be plus ça change, and possibly even worse.

@ShrikeAttack what do I propose as an alternative to having a monarchy? Erm... Not having a monarchy! That's it. There isn't a requirement for an alternative.

Why wouldn't that work??

People are always moaning about elected government on here. Republics very often end up with political dynasties too. It really would be plus ça change, and possibly even worse.

Either you think The Queen was put there by God, or you don't.

You can't turn the monarchy into a pragmatic solution, because the whole justification for them is they are special.

Also - solution to what? What prpblem do they solve? What essential function do they perform?

If it is tourism and tourism only then can we certainly don't need that many, and to be honest most tourists are snapping pictures of the palace and associated pomp surrounding it, not the queen. We can keep the palaces for the tourist factor, without accepting the notion that the blood is someone's veins ought to entitle them to a lifetime of power and privilege.

Erm, because countries that don't have a monarchy, have president as head of state, and may also have a prime minister. Also much of our law and societal structure and Parliament, from the Magna Carta onwards is predicted on a constitutional monarchy.

Plus the Queen is the Head of State for quite a few Commonwealth countries.

I'm not sure you understand what a constitutional Monarchy actually means Gales.