New series on the royals with Dimbleby

[MeNotMyselfAndI]

Anyone watching? Just watched Ep 2 on royal finances - it’s unbelievable. Greedy greedy fuckers! 🤬

@wordler- your 4 Cs are great but maybe also add “choice” - the public gets to choose who is in this role.

Well I was specifying what I’d like to see in a republic / non Royal head of state - was assuming in that case choice to be not in doubt.

Brits love the serfdom of it all. Nothing changes lol

My concern would be an appointment or vote within the lords etc. we hadn’t got that elected 2nd chamber yet.

Well I’d hope with a big change to a republic the whole system is reviewed - packing the House of Windsor off to their private stately homes is only half the job.

I want an apolitical Head of State

C3 has intervened politically for decades.

Thanks to dogged FOI requests we know that he has written impassioned memos to elected ministers in support of his pet causes and he's latterly indicated silent support (FTR I don't actually disagree with this one) for the return of historic Greek artefacts to their country of origin in the face of fierce debate.

We know the top two royal dogs get a say in proposed legislation that affects their interests.

I can't see how an elected HoS open to a theoretical anytime backstabbing and at best a counting down to potential defenestration would be a lesser option.

Can I ask a stupid Q?

What is the actual POINT of getting richer and richer if you're the King? I mean it's not like he can do whatever he wants with the money eg pay for hookers and cocaine if he wanted, is it? All he can do is: buy another yacht, buy another painting...? Boring!

Why compare with the president of the US though?

His/her function is entirely different.

A more appropriate comparison would be the president of Italy - Head of State but not a political person. I think the Irish have the same?

Changing the system here would mean that we could set maximum transparency and not have to put up with shadowy nonsense just because we have done it that way since feudal times!

I get rather cranky about the whole thing please so forgive my tone!

Some like to compare or suggest worst case scenarios like a rogue US President or Blair or Johnson.

Like you say, we don't have a US setup, and easy enough to write into the rules that no former PM or even leader of a political party is eligible.

As I said upthread, my point isn't about the function. It's a warning that the US thought they had rigorous checks and balances on a President's power, in a system that they designed from scratch. It turns out that what they thought they had designed well failed to protect the people from a President who ignored precedent and guidelines, who attacked the legal system in his favour and who cannot be called to account.

Any power, whether it's designed to be that of a figurehead or a political player, needs careful framing so that there are legal consequences for corruption or undue influence. That's hard to do, as politicians have shown here, standing up to the Head of State is not something they naturally do.

If people don't like the US president analogy I am using them consider how long politicians and civil servants allowed Andrew to travel the world as a "trade envoy" upsetting everyone and lining his own pockets. He had no power, he was a minor royal but allowed to behave a if the rules didn't apply to him because they were afraid of upsetting his mum.

Why is the existence in the royal family of a man who consorted with a known paedophile and who had allegedly sex with a trafficked 17 year old several times an argument for not having an elected HoS?

It isn't, it's a warning that power corrupts and people with power protect each other. Even if Andrew wasn't guilty of sex crimes he clearly used his position for monetary gain and no one stopped him.

I'm not sure why my desire for any change of system to be created with proper checks and balances is a problem here.

Well, I think the monarchy is a ridiculous anachronism thst should be abolished forthwith, but it didn’t sound to me as if that was what you were arguing.

Tbf after the shitshow that was Brexit I’d be wary of quick change and ‘sort it out later’ chat. I maintain that in 20/30 years there won’t be a monarchy. How that comes about I’ve no idea. Also I don’t have a crystal ball just that times are changing.

Yes i agree. But I don't think finding a new political system is going to bring in equality as some posters seem to think.

'But I don't think finding a new political system is going to bring in equality as some posters seem to think.'

This could be the understatement of all time.

The problem is, our system wasn't designed from scratch. Our Parliamentary system was literally developed in order to keep a check on the untrammelled power of the Head of State (Monarch). What has happened has happened relatively recently, and it has largely been the fault of Parliament and successive ministers. The Windsor's (or the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha's) have been massive piss takers since Victoria and they have been allowed to carry on up to the modern day. I'm glad there is more being done to highlight their excess, because Parliament needs to be doing what it was designed to do.
If we asked the Monarchy Tony Benn's famous 5 questions for those in power it would go:
“What power have you got?” (Lots but its all kept secret from you)
“Where did you get it from?” (My Mum/Dad)
“In whose interests do you use it?”(My own)
“To whom are you accountable?” (No one)
“How do we get rid of you?” (You can't)
So Politicians and governments really need to step up on this and they will only do it through the oxygen of publicity. We have a crappy partisan press so we rely on the very few investigative journalists to uncover these things against the power of a huge Palace machine and deeply entrenched vested interests.

I suspect 'upsetting his mum' was an understatement. More like destruction of their careers and never being able to working senior Civil Service roles again. Would they do that for an elected HoS? Would they be as worried about upsetting an elected HoS? They would have been more likely to whistleblow, which would have put the HoS at risk. The entire problem is the culture of deference around the Monarchy and the lengths people within the Palace will go to protect the Monarchy. I doubt an elected HoS who will be gone in whatever the set term would be would command that amount of power. Even Trump is being turned on by his MAGA loyalists because his lies are coming out.

Well, it might help to do away with the notion that having a specific bloodline means God has appointed you to rule over your subjects and tax dodge?

We did away with the divine right of Kings centuries ago.

Unfortunately we didn't do away with tax dodging and all the other shady stuff at the same time.

The "forthwith" bit is the problem, though.

MrsLF is right to stress the importance of making sure that any redesign of the British constitution builds in the necesary checks and balances to avoid the abuse of power the current HoS (and his predecessor) is being accused of.

Thd current political.elite couldn't even design a simple yes/no referendum, so I'll pass on tje forthwith.

And yet the monarch is still crowned in an Abbey in the framework of Holy Communion, is anointed with holy oil, presented with a Bible, crowned by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and swears to ‘to the utmost of [my] power maintain the Law of God and the true profession of the Gospel’.

Believing that one person has been 'chosen by God' is not the same thing as a person making a 'promise to God' to behave in a particular way.

( Fwiw, millions of divorced people made careless promises to God, as did millions of godparents. Just musing.)