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.

There’s no evidence that even happened.

Well it would be nice to think they were disappeared to France and became farmers or bakers and had a happy anonymous life....

but it's most likely they were disappeared into a big hole somewhere.

Well I think that must be a record in stretching remote facts, to justify a current belief system. The murder of the princes in the tower. That's some serious sideways thinking.

Republican Could use that as their slogan.
what do we want!
An elected Head of State because two boys may (or may not ) have been murdered in the Tower ( possibly by their uncle)!
When do we want it!
600 years ago!

I'm surprised how pro monarchy this is - I'm wondering if putting this on the royal family board may have skewed the results if some people hide the board.

Saville,Mountbatten, Ball and Andrew not enough for you ?

Oh that's right - the only royalist response to the above is 'meh'

I have gone through different stages of liking and disliking the concept of a monarchy.
I previously thought it too archaic, but now see alternatives as a worse option.
As soon as you have an elected Head of State, it cannot fail to be political.
I prefer the option of a gradual decline. When no one bothers to come out for Royal occassions, be it a funeral, coronation or wedding, then we will know the popularity has declined.
Obviously, with a hereditary monarchy, you cannot always guarantee you get someone 'worthy'.

It was a random disputed 'factoid' ripped from my addled brain. OK witch burning James 1 ! The point being they obtained their power by force of arms and maintained their power by that standard. This was aided and abetted by a totally corrupt clergy into the divine right of kings and centuries later having laundered their spoils by tradition and push back from the populace on in various forms they still wish to rule over us, happy and glorious. But this is 2023 and the old tropes are starting to falter. Folks are waking up and thinking why ?

https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/history-and-civilisation/2019/10/royal-obsession-black-magic-started-europes-most-brutal-witch

When I get my time machine - first trip is to see the dinosaurs - not sure about the second !

I think most people are conservative (with a small c!!!) and don’t want rapid, ill-thought-out change.

With a hereditary monarchy, you get who you get. With a President, well, who is to know that it wouldn’t have been Jimmy Savile? He was revered in the 70s lest we forget.

Would you trust the general public to choose wisely? Would this be a wholly apolitical figure? In these polarised times I can’t imagine who would fit the bill.

Agreed. I think the only thing that might push people into action is if the heir is someone the majority really dislike or would hate to see crowned.

So unless George grows up to be a real wrong 'un or something happens to everyone and we have the prospect of King Andrew I can't see the appetite for a full on revolution.

More likely it will be a gentle fade with the role getting smaller and smaller. I think we'll definitely get a King William and a King George and possibly one more before there's an actual chance of a republic.

I probably won't be here for that.

Bumping as mentioned in other thread - some old user names I miss on here!

More than content with the monarchy.

Wow, 87% of 630 (so far) votes went for the status quo - I’m really surprised.

Yeah - that’s not right - if you read through the thread you’ll see that someone tried to sabotage the result by voting multiple times - I’d fixed it and when we were down to one vote one person it was more like 50 votes - was still status quo as the winner.

Looks like either the poll reverted or someone found a way around it.

Just reread the thread - if we go republic you’ve got my vote as the new HoS!

Charles didn't spend his entire life waiting to be king. His mother lived to be a very old lady and he was very busy being the Prince of Wales and having a certain freedom to speak out in those days, which he doesn't have now he's king.

I think most of our monarchs have found a way to deal with it. I don't think too many of the candidates have wanted to join the circus.

You should visit Salem, MA. Just small town folk killing their neighbors for their property.

Or the trials in the McCarthy era in the US. Lord Jeffrey Amherst selling smallpox impregnated blankets to indigenous tribes in the US.
No royals involved.

Thanks OP - an interesting post!

I've voted for constitutional monarchy - but I'd be happy to see things taken down several levels to save money and give the monarch and their family a less pressured life - more akin to the Scandinavians who can apparently cycle around unaccosted! I know the question then arises: where exactly could money be saved and I'd say - give up some of the castles, but NOT the pretty horses! It's a cliche, but this country really does ceremonial stuff better than anyone so we'd be mad to stop all that. And I think many republics - such as France, for eg - are just as hot on the horses, soldiers and marching as we are.

I could write an essay about why (in spite of all the arguments, which I'm familiar with and not unsympathetic to) I like the hereditary monarchy. I was a republican in my youth, partly to wind up my parents, but I've really come to appreciate the stability and continuity the monarchy provides against a backdrop of rapid and frightening change in the world. The RF go through the same rites of passage as the rest of us, and I find it moving to watch their weddings and funerals for this reason. Whether that's ethical or fair on people born into the role through no choice of their own....that does niggle at me. Being a royal in 2024 is very different from a century ago in the age of deference and before social media and an aggressive press. I suppose they can duck out if they really want to.

De Gaulle's idea of someone who embodies the spirit of the nation is great in theory - but finding that person? They'd be one in about 50 million. David Attenborough is absolutely the only person I could think of with all the necessary attributes and you know what they say - people who deserve power don't want it, and those who want it don't deserve it! I can't see anyone like him agreeing to take it on. He'd be too humble and too principled!

Except one. By accident of birth Charles, William, George all came into this world with their adult futures mapped out. Charles spent his entire life waiting to be King. William prioritises his family over duty, all the while knowing he's bringing up a son who can never fulfil whatever dreams he might have if they clash with his "destiny".

This is the one aspect I also worry about. I'm not bothered in the least by the RF being 'richer than me and highly privileged'. So bloody what, is my take on that old chestnut!!

I think William is deliberately focusing on family now as you say because he knows he'll be much busier as he gets older. That's a tough situation. Look at Camilla - starting work on the most demanding role in her life in her mid-70s.

I think the Dutch model is a good one. Queen Beatrix abdicated in favour of her son because she believes that the monarchy needs to be regularly revitalised to be effective. QEII on the other hand strongly believed that her vocation was for life, but I don't think that's sustainable. William, if he is ever king, ought to be able to retire and George too!

CurlewKate · 17/04/2023 22:46
Why do we need a head of state? That's what the prime minister is for.

But the PM is a political entity and therefore divisive.

The idea in this country is that the monarch is above politics. Yes, we can all have a guess at how they'd vote, but they are very careful to keep out of party politics and therefore half the population don't froth at the mouth because they don't represent either of the main parties.

I'd hate a political presidential system.

Surely if we’ve learnt anything from Brexit it should be not to hold referenda on things where one side is a completely undefined
unknown? And not to present complex constitutional questions as a simple binary.

Having a non-executive elected president is a completely different ball game to moving to a true presidential system. The first is a simple swapping of a monarch with limited constitutional power to an elected person with limited constitutional power.

A true presidential system would mean breaking the link between parliamentary elections and the formation of the government. It would require some form of codified and entrenched constitution, as you can’t have parliamentary sovereignty and an executive who is elected separately from the commons and who may not command the confidence of the house.

One of those options is a complete abandonment of the existing British system of parliamentary democracy. The other isn’t. Of course it should be clear which option is on the table.