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.

Oh please. I've also got better things to do than "educate myself" about the UK's crumbling political system but it's absolutely necessary if change is to happen.

My comment was meant in the sense of, we the people need to take responsibility for having better information about the people we vote for or have foisted upon us.

But if you want to start a bunfight about people needing to be right, I'm not playing.

Change requires discussion and these difficult issues need looking at. Those in favour of the monarchy are historically not fond of looking at difficult issues.

Separation of powers is one of the basic tenets of democracy. It is not a US concept. It is a concept developed in 1748 and became part of the French Constitution after the Revolution, which formed the basis of the US Constitution. It should and does to some extent exist in the British system ( More than in the US I would say, as they have politically appointed Judiciary) We should at least be attempting to have it if we are to be a democracy. And that means that the Monarch should be able to be scrutinised by the other branches of government. There is absolutely no reason why the Monarch should not be discussed in Parliament, never mind his relatives who are not Head of State. Its disgraceful.

@Tomatotater I didn’t say the US invented it, I just said it was a feature of the US system, and not the Westminster one. More separation of powers does not mean more democracy. Scrutiny has nothing to do with powers being separated. I agree that parliament should discuss and scrutinise the monarchy. The reality is that parliament could if they wanted to, the monarch has no actual power to stop them.
The monarch is really the least important person in the executive branch of government though. The ability to scrutinise the Prime Minister and Ministers is far more important and the UK’s fused powers provide far more opportunity for that to happen than in a system of separated powers. All available evidence suggests that the fused powers of parliamentary systems result in healthier democracies with better scrutiny of the executive than presidential systems with formal separation of powers.

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.

Can you advise which party/ies have included provision to make such investigations in their manifesto?

Its not the individual members of the Royal Family that are at fault that Parliament, the courts and the press decide not to scrutinise them ( although I bet they wouldn't like it and would pull every trick in the book out of the bag to stop it happening) but the fact that the Monarchy exists that people go to such ridiculous lengths to keep their secrets, from their own courtiers and members of their staff right up to judges and Parliament. They should not be doing this, because their duty is to the people but they do because they are all invested in keeping the Monarchy alive and not doing anything to harm it. Really, if the Monarchy has so many skeletons in the closet that knowing the truth is enough to bring them down, they deserve to be brought down. We have an absolutely ridiculous and damaging culture of deference towards the Monarchy that infiltrates all institutions. The Lord who is trying to remove the convention that the Royal Family cannot be discussed in Parliament will be shut down, one way or another, and there will be absolutely no reason for it. Would they go to such lengths to keep the secrets of a President? I doubt it, and they definitely wouldn't be protecting the Presidents brother and his ex wife.

Yes this really opened my eyes. I'd always been accepting of the monarchy but this book made me realise how shady their finances are.
I don't necessarily want to get rid of them but they either need to be transparent or be self funded.

@Tomatotater

Well said. Every attempt to table questions in Parliament is shut down.

Parliament’s standing orders and Erskine May, the “bible” of procedure, prevent scrutiny at Westminster of the conduct of members of the royal family. Erskine May states: “No question can be put which brings the name of the sovereign or the influence of the crown directly before parliament, or which casts reflections upon the sovereign or the royal family.”

They've got it made haven't they? They are completely untouchable and can do exactly what they want with no redress. Why aren't the general public incensed by this?

Dunno,
my MIL will literally turn away and say she doesn't want to hear it.
Bizarre,
Do you think maybe if you've spent your whole life thinking these people are great and above you then you'd feel a right tit when you found out you'd been "had" so you'd just rather not know?

How funny, because my bestie friend is exactly the same. She will not hear a word against any of them, we never ever talk about them because we are polar opposites on that, it's only if something pops up on the news about them ... she makes a positive comment and I make a face!
And I honestly believe that like your MIL she would just rather not know and carry on idolising them.

DM also the same for years although I'm finally getting through to her at last. The recent revelations of the disgusting skimming associated with the Duchies has particularly helped.

Friends simply aren't interested hence coming here to talk about it. It's the only place I can 🙄

I'm the same! Apart from my DCs, they agree with me but aren't that interested in discussing it!

Id rather have the royal family than cretins like Trump and Musk. Be careful what you wish for

That's always always the excuse. Trump, Johnson, whoever.

Besides which, there isn't a republic happening so it's irrelevant to me. I want transparency and a pruned down royal family where only the king/queen, heir/spouse are the only ones seen and funded.

Honestly this is an argument for the lowest common denominator.

I would rather have David Attenborough that Prince Andrew an alleged rapist of a sex trafficked teenager and allegedly present at an "orgy" of underage girls, as well a friend of Epstein and a good friend of Maxwell.

But for an accident of birth order we'd have had the squalid Andrew parking his lardy arse on the throne less than two years ago. Currently we could also have had Prince of Wales Harold panting in the wings for his turn. As it is the current incumbent is greedy, petulant and weak with more than his share of dubious associations.

An elected Trump (or Johnson - the other one that's regularly cited as a bogeyman) plus his advisors has a shelf-life. We have neither a say in the current set-up nor a means of getting rid of unsuitables.

I’m fairly sure that the moment a Harry or Andrew heir became a reality then we’d have the majority running fast towards a republic.

William is very popular though on his own and in combination with Kate even more so. George is an unknown quantity but I’d be surprised if he turned out to be controversial.