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.

I know! Plus so many institutions were worse - at least the RF employed openly gay people.
I think people should really find out a bit more about British History.

1965 - Race Relations Act This was the first legislation in the UK to address racial discrimination. Although it was criticised because it only covered discrimination in specified public places, the act laid the foundations for more effective legislation. It also set up the Race Relations Board to consider complaints brought under the act.

Also 1965 - International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. This was the first human rights treaty adopted by the United Nations (UN). The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) defines what constitutes race discrimination and sets out a comprehensive framework for ensuring that civil, political, economic and social rights are enjoyed by all, without distinction of race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin. The convention is the international human rights treaty that sets out a comprehensive framework for ensuring that civil, political, economic and social rights are enjoyed by all, without distinction of race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin. The UK ratified CERD in 1969.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/history-human-rights-britain

However, passing acts and them filtering down to society takes time and doesn't happen overnight - ask women who fought for equal pay. So the RF might not have been the most enlightened in their employment practices in 1968, but then neither was the rest of Britain.

Cupcaskse
Did you know that until 1968, the Queen didn't appoint, 'coloured immigrants or foreigners' to clerical roles? Or that the royal family is exempt from racist and sexist discrimination law?

For this to be any kind of valid criticism of the monarchy per se, rather than of British society in general at that time, you'd have to be sure that no republics around the world had similar discriminatory legislation.

Are you?

SwimmingSnake
His future was mapped from the day he was born. He spent his life in a cage making the best of the situation he was in. Who knows what he might have done with his life had he not been constrained. Then he became King, got cancer, yet in his mid 70s he has to plough on with it!

I agree that concern for the individuals and their lives is an issue, but we know for a fact that Charles has wanted to be king for decades. It's sad, in the circs, that he's become ill because I know (from reading and listening to interviews) that he has wanted this very much.

As I said upthread, I think the humane answer is to follow the Dutch example, and allow monarchs to 'retire' as Queen Beatrix did. I would agree that, if we didn't know of Charles's sincere wish to be king, it would be cruel to expect him and Camilla to start in the roles now. I do feel for her, though!

I wouldn't like any monarch to have to 'plough on' through illness and extreme old age if they didn't want to.

As I said upthread, I think the humane answer is to follow the Dutch example, and allow monarchs to 'retire' as Queen Beatrix did. I would agree that, if we didn't know of Charles's sincere wish to be king, it would be cruel to expect him and Camilla to start in the roles now. I do feel for her, though!

When Charles dies this might take off as a possibility. Abdication was a dirty word to the Queen Mother, and he was very much influenced by her, so I guess he'd no more contemplate that option than the late queen would. William and then George might not feel so strongly about it.

The British public are bonkers, and our politicians are not good people, I'd go back to a full monarchy and abolish democracy at the moment 😁

I think we need 100 years of dictatorship, then everyone appreciates democracy. Then after another 100 years switch back again so no-one gets too comfortable!

Off topic, but a bit of fun!

Here's a link to the ceremony (not sure if it was quite a 'coronation', when Queen Beatrix's son succeeded to the Dutch crown after her abdication. They are singing the Dutch national anthem (which I love!) in Dutch (who'd have though it?) and Charles and Camilla, bless them, are in the congregation but clearly struggling with the words. It brought a smile to my face!

s

Tarantella6 · Today 12:49
The British public are bonkers, and our politicians are not good people, I'd go back to a full monarchy and abolish democracy at the moment 😁

You may have a point!! 😀

Genius idea. I'd be a brilliant dictator.

Tarantella6 · Today 12:49
The British public are bonkers, and our politicians are not good people, I'd go back to a full monarchy and abolish democracy at the moment 😁

Seriously, this has struck me as really important.

It's not the monarchy which is the UK's problem at the moment. It's how to get better quality politicians.

To mangle a Dorothy Parker quote - I've never been a dictator but I know I'd be just darling at it.

Sure. Apart from the times we know about when they have; amended a 1973 law on company transparency in order to hide their wealth, amending the law so they can drive without seatbelts on their private estates, In 1975 the Labour government wanted to change the law so property owners wanting to lease their land for development would have to go through the local council.
However, royal family lawyers lobbied civil servants to change the law, threatening to take their concerns to a senior cabinet minister etc.

It's incredibly naive to think that where legislation is likely to impact them, given it needs their consent, considerable pressure isn't used to amend our laws or that they're not a powerful lobbying force in general.

Did you read any of the eminently well-thought-out posts that preceded yours? Maybe you could learn from them rather than come up with something utterly impractical, as other posters have clearly reasoned?

Any more recent examples than 50 years ago?

@MrsDanversGlidesAgain apparently not! 😂

I cannot find a single fuck to give. It doesn't impact on me.

Cupcaske
Having a system of hereditary power at the top of the countries political, military and religious institutions perpetuates class division and inequality. They can't be held to account and don't belong in a modern democratic society.

And 'socialist/communist' societies such as the Soviet Union or Communist China never had any inequality, elites or class divisions, did they?😂They were a bleedin' paradise!

I wonder, then, why they had to prohibit their citizens from travelling or leaving these countries at all? What was the Berlin Wall for, I wonder, with the watch towers and marksmen ready to shoot anyone mad enough to try and leave this workers' heaven?

Out of interest I googled 'who can lobby to amend legislation before it becomes statute?' and came up with this

https://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/have-your-say-on-laws/input-into-legislation/

So it appears, from a cursory reading, that we the plebs can also lobby Parliament about proposed laws if we feel strongly enough

Bills (proposed new laws) are usually debated by both Houses of Parliament. If you feel strongly about a bill that Parliament is considering, or you think changes should be made to it, you can ask your MP or a member of the House of Lords to raise an issue on your behalf. You can also send information (submit evidence) directly to a public bill committee during its committee stage in the Commons.

Now what the RF might want and not want might carry more weight, I've no idea. But the machinery is there for public opinion to change bills before they become law.

Sure. Apart from the times we know about when they have; amended a 1973 law on company transparency in order to hide their wealth, amending the law so they can drive without seatbelts on their private estates

Constituional experts on here will correct me, but I'm pretty sure you can't amend a statute once it's passed both Houses and has Royal Assent. Do you mean they had draft legislation amended?

@MrsDanversGlidesAgain you're right.
They can't. It's not true.

No, because two key aspects have generally been unavailable in the public domain: the range of legislation that is subject to the process as it goes through parliament; and the significance of the process, whether it is a merely symbolic or procedural step, or involves genuine reflection and negotiation on the content of proposed laws.

My point still stands, the Monarchy don't stand apart from our democracy. What's your point?

No, because two key aspects are important

1. No royal can "amend" any laws
2. Parliament is sovereign.

Sorry, you're going to have to say that again slowly, because I haven't a clue what you're getting at, your first para in particular, which seems to be implying that the process of consultation on draft legislation is merely symbolic and that the HoP simply passes what the monarch wishes.

because two key aspects have generally been unavailable in the public domain

Could you explain that, as well? And if they've been unavailable, where did you find them and where can we look?

My point was that your outrage seemed to be directed at legislation that was passed 50 years ago and nothing more recent. Sorry if that was a bit too arcane.

Yeah, of course it is. Who do the armed forces swear allegiance to, the country or the Monarch?

The Monarch
As Head of State. Didn't you know that?!
This means that the Head of Government, any ambitious Prime Minister, cannot mobilise the forces.
However, the Monarch cannot without the consent of Parliament.