What do you want as head of state for the UK

[wordler]

We are a mixed bag of pro and anti-monarchy on here so I've created a little poll to see at a glance were we stand:

https://poll-maker.com/Q72KOF2ZL

I've added a Something Else option as I ran out of what I thought were all the possibilities.

It's anonymous but feel free to expand in the comments.

Could you be more specific about which monarch and what level of abuse you are talking about?

I'm interested in this question and personally would say any monarch and any level of abuse and cover up.
We could start with the current one and the cover up of his brother maybe?

I don't want to be more specific as this is a point of principle.

But we can start with Charlie and his pedo mates?

Your answer makes me think that some level of abuse and coverup with no public say in the matter is acceptable to you.

Well I don’t think abuse and cover ups are okay. But I also don’t believe the public has no say.

Firstly I don’t believe the monarch is so powerful or connected enough in this day and age to cover up anything without the government being fully aware and therefore going along with any barrier to full transparency over any issue.

So the public has the ultimate say in both electing the representatives and government to investigate and manage all issues to do with the head of state.

I can’t be bothered to have a conversation with someone who refers to citizens as serfs. I’m not a serf and have no intention of being one.

After Brexit I’d rather keep the status quo. And the shitshow that Trump is presiding over does not persuade me to a republic.

Firstly I don’t believe the monarch is so powerful or connected enough in this day and age to cover up anything without the government being fully aware and therefore going along with any barrier to full transparency over any issue.

The undemocratic government is the other half of the problem. 22 million people (I think even higher now) have no representation at the elections, let's remember that while telling people we live in a democracy.

What did the government do about Charles' friend the paedophile vicar who drove a young man to suicide? What did they do about Andrew and Epstein? Andrew visiting dodgy leaders in 2007 and it not "coming to light" until 2016? The royals are extremely "connected", just with the wrong kind of people.

What will the government do to prevent similar happening again?

You are a "subject", though. Like it or not.

I refuse to be a subject, so use the word serf to ridicule a ridiculous situation.

Next question: what is wrong with an Irish or German style presidency?

I don’t know tbh. As I’ve said here and elsewhere after Brexit I’m wary of change. Johnson as PM has exacerbated that fear tbh. If it could be done properly and over time then yes I’d consider it. But another referendum like Brexit? No thanks. And our elected leaders have not done much to restore confidence in the great British public.

MP's are not allowed to freely discuss the royal family in parliament.
There are restrictions of basically if you say anything that may be controversial or that may put them in a bad light then you are immediately silenced.
So no, I don't think the public do have a say

Johnson was PM under a Monarchy though. They could do nothing about him. The Late Queen wasnt 'lied to' over the proroguing of parliament. As Jacob Rees Mogg said, she did as she was told.That is all she could do, and all the Monarch can do (To protect the people against rogue governments anyway. They can do plenty to enrich themselves) It was the courts that prevented the proroguing of Parliament after the Monarch rubber stamped it. Maybe an elected President would be able to act as a negotiator, or be able to hold the elected government to account in a way Parliament cant if the ruling party has a huge majority.

This is completely wrong. Its goes totally against democratic principles and the principles of a Constitutional Monarchy. Who holds the Monarchy to account if it is not Parliament? Its certainly not the press, who can be bought off with the promise of a slap up meal at a Palace and some cute pictures of the kids.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/24795815.call-commons-rule-change-allow-mps-freely-discuss-royals/

nobody holds them to account.
That's what riles anti monarchists.

sorry, thought you meant I was wrong to say they can't be discussed.
I see you meant the principle of that is wrong.
There are moves afoot by somebody whose name I forget who is making a concerted effort to change this

I'm also wary of change, more specifically the British public's capacity to bring it about.

Brexit happened arguably as a result of misinformation and a lack of awareness of (or willingness to look at) the UK's real political structure, which is built on conflicting (self) interests and not the will of the people. A "constitutional monarchy" that couldn't even be bothered to write a constitution. Whatever does that mean? Nobody knows what the UK's values or principles are. Brits are told what they are (by some highly immoral people) and must get on with it. That's serf mentality.

As with so many other areas of life, people have to educate themselves and stop living in denial, before any meaningful change can take place.

Ever a phrase to rile me
‘educate yourself or themselves’
visions of remaining calm when my teens used to say as if my 50+ years on earth meant I hadn’t learnt anything.

It’s a constitution built on law and over centuries. I studied constitutional law at law school, admittedly nearly 35 years ago so bit flaky on the details.

Oh, I do agree. The phrase “educate yourself” is so rude and 99% of the time just means that you don’t share their opinion; an opinion which is always, always right.

Yes I read it back and thought it didnt' make sense, but it was too late to change it! Yes the principle of Separation of Powers which is a basic tenet of democracy means all branches of Parliament need to act as checks and balances on each other. We have the head of State who is above scrutiny. Why has this happened? It certainly wasn't the grounds for establishing a Constitutional Monarchy- that they would have no responsibility or accountability at all (even if that responsibility was to behave like decent human beings) just privileges.

Britain doesn’t have a Separation of Powers. Separation of Powers is a feature of the US system but in the U.K. powers are traditionally fused. Checks and balances do not require a separation of powers and the healthiest democracies in the world often do not have one. As the US is currently proving, separate powers don’t guarantee effective checks and balances. In parliamentary democracies the legislative and executive branches are always fused and parliamentary systems generally score better in democracy indices than presidential systems (in which powers can be separated) like the US. All of the top 10 democracies in the Economist democracy index have fused powers.

Until the creation of the Supreme Court in 2009 all three branches of government were fused in the U.K. Our executive branch is drawn from and directly accountable to the legislature and the highest court in the country used to be the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (Law Lords) in the House of Lords. Like all other parliamentary democracies our executive and legislative branches are still fused though.

I agree the Royal family should be properly accountable to Parliament.
Norman Baker wrote his book exposing the Royals when he sat on the Committee that is supposed to oversee the Royals, and even he could not get information about the finances.

"and what do you do" an excellent book which I have tried to give to a few monarchists and they refuse to read it.
Apparently it's nasty, jealous stuff from anti monarchists ( not sure how they know when they haven't read it!)

I'd like to stick as we are but they get zero money handed out to them and have to pay proper taxes - including back pay!

It simply exposes in a matter of fact way some of their financial shenanigans.
The Royal family purposely obscure their financial situation, and as the Guardian exposes have shown, routinely steal valuable things gifted to the nation for themselves.

Yes they do. Not only have they not declared gifts for about 5 years, some state gifts have been absorbed into their private collection. For instance, stamps. Their privately owned collection is worth £100million. They are so so greedy. They never have enough do they?

It's Lord Foulkes who has tried to table questions in parliament but been blocked at every turn. He has been refused permission to table a question proposing a public register of royal interests. Every attempt has been vetoed.

I've had enough of the lot of them. The increase in the SG has incensed me. 48% rise, far less royals working = Greed.

What reason can they possibly give to not make transparent the royal interests/ gifts? It beggars belief.
Well i know why the RF don't want it known but whoever makes the decision surely has to come up with a semi plausible reason or do they just say security? that seems to be the cach all